Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's someone's interpretation of the law
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in South Africa + South Africa in Australia 2016/17
- Thread starter StephenZA
- Start date
the big bambino
International Captain
But there is convention which has made the concept universal, traditional and practically a law. And I guess I can see why. The laws describe how a batsmen is out. For bowled its pretty easy. Ball strikes the wicket and the stumps are down and the bails off. What about a catch, run out or stumping? Bowler is up for caught behind. Did the ball hit the edge? an ump might think. I didn't hear a noise or see a deviation. A keeper appeals for run out or stumping. Is the bat or foot on the line? Gee I can't tell. So if an umpire can't say if all the conditions defining a dismissal are met then he has to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman and I suppose that's why it became a convention.
DRS hasn't hasn't necessarily changed the benefit of the doubt. It is just a mechanism to clarify the doubt an umpire might have. Compared to the other dismissals mentioned, lbw would cause the umpire the greatest doubt.
I don't think the subsequent DRS review confirmed the wisdom of Dar's decision. It just confirmed his luck. When an ump is called to make an lbw decision he is relying on guidelines given him by the game to assist his decision. Where the ball pitched and struck, its height, how much has the ball turned. DRS can't help him with his decision or assuage his doubts. How can an ump reasonably assess the impact point, height and angle of the ball relative to the stumps when the batsman is such a great distance from them? Therefore he couldn't have been confident if all the conditions for dismissal had been met so the benefit of the doubt should have gone to the batsman. In effect he gave it to the bowler instead.
After the batsman has been given the benefit the bowler then has the right to clarify the doubt by risking one of his team's review. Personally I believe if put in that situation the bowler would have rejected a review. Ironically because of the doubt involved relative to the risk of losing a valuable review.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Dar was obviously sure it was out.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Why eat breakfast before the game starts?
Is it the old must finish your food 15 minutes before going in to play on the OLED rule?
the big bambino
International Captain
Yeah buddy. Right. "Sure".
Crazy Sam
International 12th Man
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
He wouldn't have given it out if he wasn't sure. That's like rule no. 1 for an umpire.
You don't just give it out because you think it's close enough and might be out.
Blocky
Banned
This just in....
If the ball only happens to clip the bails and remove only one on its way through, it's no longer to be considered bowled because the benefit of the doubt must go to the batsman.
If a batsman is stumped only an inch out of his crease, it's no longer stumped, because the benefit of the doubt must go to the batsman.
He was out, given out, shown as out via DRS and didn't do SFA in the second innings either before getting out.
As for not considering him petulant, what sort of idiot says "I like to swagger around like I own the place" and stay on field to remonstrate with the umpire after DRS has given him out. Just because he cleans his act up in time for the press conference means nothing, his initial reactions say everything about him, any time something doesn't go his way, his body language on the field, etcetera.
He makes Ross Taylor look brilliant for on field mannerisms.
If the ball only happens to clip the bails and remove only one on its way through, it's no longer to be considered bowled because the benefit of the doubt must go to the batsman.
If a batsman is stumped only an inch out of his crease, it's no longer stumped, because the benefit of the doubt must go to the batsman.
He was out, given out, shown as out via DRS and didn't do SFA in the second innings either before getting out.
As for not considering him petulant, what sort of idiot says "I like to swagger around like I own the place" and stay on field to remonstrate with the umpire after DRS has given him out. Just because he cleans his act up in time for the press conference means nothing, his initial reactions say everything about him, any time something doesn't go his way, his body language on the field, etcetera.
He makes Ross Taylor look brilliant for on field mannerisms.
Blocky
Banned
Let's see - according to the gospel of Blocky
I'm pretty sure I was the only one stating Wagner was the best bowler in our attack and was getting better with time, and ultimately had a worser average because Boult was given the tail while Wagner usually bowled at the set batsmen and got them out.
I'm pretty sure I was the only one indicating Guptill was dumb as bricks and had no ability other than hitting the pus out of the ball and hoping for the best.
I'm pretty sure I got called racist for calling Taylor a lazy trainer, a smug dull dimwit who had a stupid grin on his face when committing stupid fielding mistakes and someone who more often than not goes missing completely when runs are required unless it's either A) Perth, B) Zimbabwe, C) Sri Lanka, D) West Indies.
I'm pretty sure that three years ago before any of you knew about him, I was talking about why Mitchell Santner would be a far better test spinner than Craig, Sodhi, Patel or Bucko Martin.
I'm pretty sure I was the only one talking down Southee (in particular) and Boult for relying on miracle bowling rather than plans and patterns of attack.
Are we going to start the rhetoric that I'm wrong, racist and argumentative rather than just simply very good at pointing out obvious things again?
Realistically my statement that Ish Sodhi and Guptill should both be finished with international cricket by 2016 was a good one; they both should be but our selectors seem to enjoy their company more than their results.
Blocky
Banned
Just a note for future. I don't respond to crap like this anymore, or obvious baiting, or areas where your sensitive little feelings come into account. Sorry.
Go elsewhere, troll.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's true, but credit where it's due, he was talking up Wagner & suggested Southee was entitled IIRC, when the rest of us were rubbishing Wags, saying he wasn't a Test option.
Blocky
Banned
And still, Wagner gets dropped instead of Boult, the moment he has one bad test.
I'm firmly of the opinion that until we completely clean out all establishment within NZCricket and elect selectors that think of performance first and team culture second, we won't go anywhere.
the big bambino
International Captain
Also to Brah. The camera showed Smith way down the pitch. How can anyone be sure of the pitch, bounce, angle and turn of the ball in a split second when the ump can't even use the proximity of the stumps as a guide. He made a decn but it was punt.
As for blocky's post: Poor man. Can't distinguish between the benefit of a doubt and the clarification of it. All his examples can be solved on field or calling for a referral.
Blocky
Banned
As can an LBW call where the ball is pitching in line, striking in line and hitting the stumps.... go figure.
I don't see how a batsman can feel hard done by when they're running down the wicket, beaten in flight, hit on the pads and given out. The umpire made a decision that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps, having hit him in line and his decision was proven correct by the DRS tracking..
People stating "Well that ball would have followed a different pathway than the one shown" are making guesses based on what their eyes tell them and somehow think that this is better than statistical inference.
Last edited: