2nd Test, Lord's, London

[Starfighter]

I'd say it's as simple as the ball being harder to see, and thus the batsman reacts later

I've not seen any studies on this specific a phenomenon, but I bet it's something close to this. Although batsmen actually pick the direction out of the hand initially, so they shouldn't be 'picking up the ball later' in a strict sense, low or unnatural light might well make picking up the various cues a bit harder and more uncertain, increasing the chance they will be missed or misinterpreted.


That's out. Waste of a review.


Edit: lol wrong.

 

[Spark]

I thought that was pitching outside leg

 

[Jarquis]

Outside leg?

 

[Cabinet96]

You see, I don't think it does myself. I think a lot of these things are perceptual and opinions vary from person to person. Test cricket in particular has a lot of that, and it's been very persistent over the years even when majority opinions are wrong.

I absolutely agree with the latter. In general I'm a very scientific studies and logic over people's anecdotal evidence kind of guy. As a swing bowler who has played a fair amount of cricket though, I find it really tough to believe more humidity doesn't equal more swing on a lot of occasions. I'm definitely of an open mind to seeing evidence against it though.

 

[morgieb]

He had he attack to execute the plans

Ehh, England's attack for the last ten years has generally been a decent one, at least at home. If anything Vaughan had a fairly lengthy spell where England's bowling was kinda ****.

Another poor decision, though at least that one was pretty close to pitching in-line.

 

[mr_mister]

These umpires though

 

[StephenZA]

I swear these terrible decisions are catching...

 

[trundler]

Don't leave Smith now, don't leave him stranded

If you walk away now, he'll be empty handed

 

[Cabinet96]

Strange decision that. Stokes hoops it away from the left hander, and from his angle over the wicket it's gotta be perfect to be landing in line and not going wide of off stump.

 

[TheJediBrah]

may have pitched outside?

yep. Absolutely looked like it should have been out but these ones (right arm over the wicket to left hander) almost never are unless they swing a lot or are basically yorkers

 

[Spark]

Good to see umpiring standards are being maintained.

 

[aussie tragic]

may have pitched outside?

I thought that was pitching outside leg

Outside leg?

CW knows best

 

[trundler]

Shakoor Rana would be proud

 

[flibbertyjibber]

may have pitched outside?

Smith told him to review straight away. Only having one left he must have been certain.

 

[Spark]

CW knows best

Umpiring is a lot harder out there than on the couch etc etc but that was pretty easy to see IMO

 

[TheJediBrah]

I absolutely agree with the latter. In general I'm a very scientific studies and logic over people's anecdotal evidence kind of guy. As a swing bowler who has played a fair amount of cricket though, I find it really tough to believe more humidity doesn't equal more swing on a lot of occasions. I'm definitely of an open mind to seeing evidence against it though.

I can't see how we're ever really going to see a decent scientific study on it. Who would fund it? And why?

 

[Spark]

I can't see how we're ever really going to see a decent scientific study on it. Who would fund it? And why?

Yeah this is why I always roll my eyes when commentators like Botham say "oh, scientists have no idea where swing comes from". No, ****, scientists don't care

 

[OverratedSanity]

Strange decision that. Stokes hoops it away from the left hander, and from his angle over the wicket it's gotta be perfect to be landing in line and not going wide of off stump.

You can't make decisions based on things like this though.

 

[Spark]

You can't make decisions based on things like this though.

Sure you can, that's traditional cricketing logic.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sure you can, that's traditional cricketing logic.

You'd get more decisions wrong if you stuck to it rigidly