• 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* New Zealand tour of India 2024

Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Meridio said:
He's practically standing on his stumps though. Played it terribly
Click to expand...
It's hit him on the front pad though. It still had a distance to travel.

Like I really feel that's just luck that it was actually shown as clipping there. If you turned that into a probability based projection I think it would be quite low (for a trajectory that's predicted to hit the stumps).

EDIT: To be clear the poor decision was the on-field one. Obviously DRS did its job.
 
King Kane

King Kane

International Regular
Credit to Sodhi, he has bowled pretty well after a pretty ordinary first couple of overs, he is a wicket taker when he can get his line and length right.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Moss said:
Looks like the whole LH/RH combination thing holds good in test cricket too with Jadeja coming in ahead of Sarfraz. I suspect they simply do not want to bring Ajaz back into the game with 2 right handers.
Click to expand...
I think that's a very poor decision if that's the case; you need to give the new bloke confidence and stability and messing around with the batting order just for that reason doesn't help.
 
Meridio

Meridio

International Regular
Spark said:
It's hit him on the front pad though. It still had a distance to travel.

Like I really feel that's just luck that it was actually shown as clipping there. If you turned that into a probability based projection I think it would be quite low (for a trajectory that's predicted to hit the stumps).

EDIT: To be clear the poor decision was the on-field one. Obviously DRS did its job.
Click to expand...
It's not though, he's a long way back, the ball has a short distance to travel which makes the probability of the projection being correct more likely.

He'd squared himself up a bit too, looked ugly which always (rightly or wrongly) makes the umpire more likely to give it out
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Meridio said:
It's not though, he's a long way back, the ball has a short distance to travel which makes the probability of the projection being correct more likely.

He'd squared himself up a bit too, looked ugly which always (rightly or wrongly) makes the umpire more likely to give it out
Click to expand...
Check again. It basically hits him on the crease line - not far forward, but not right in front either. Given the angle of the trajectory, that would have increased the distance it had to travel as well.

I just don't see how an umpire can be at all confident in a call like that IMO, unless it hits the back pad and only has to travel like a foot.
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Spark said:
It's hit him on the front pad though. It still had a distance to travel.

Like I really feel that's just luck that it was actually shown as clipping there. If you turned that into a probability based projection I think it would be quite low (for a trajectory that's predicted to hit the stumps).

EDIT: To be clear the poor decision was the on-field one. Obviously DRS did its job.
Click to expand...
See I don't disagree with this at all. I remember being told the benefit of the doubt part of the law has gone, but it's really marginal with how much that turned and the relative distance it has to the stumps as to giving it out.

I wouldn't say it's a poor decision, but I feel like it's one honestly I would rather be not out. It's barely clipping. Most umpires would give that not out. And also allow me to say in all this that Gough is the best decision maker in the world. But that wicket is a classic example of why I think the on field decision should mean nothing in the process of DRS. Remembering the inventor of the technology himself said last summer that the margins of error and umpires call existed to save the egos of umpires.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
SteveNZ said:
See I don't disagree with this at all. I remember being told the benefit of the doubt part of the law has gone, but it's really marginal with how much that turned and the relative distance it has to the stumps as to giving it out.

I wouldn't say it's a poor decision, but I feel like it's one honestly I would rather be not out. It's barely clipping. Most umpires would give that not out. And also allow me to say in all this that Gough is the best decision maker in the world. But that wicket is a classic example of why I think the on field decision should mean nothing in the process of DRS. Remembering the inventor of the technology himself said last summer that the margins of error and umpires call existed to save the egos of umpires.
Click to expand...
I think umpire's call is fine because of that uncertainty - if you're going to overturn a decision it should be with clear evidence, not just replacing one uncertain decision with another one. But yeah that decision I feel didn't meet the threshold of certainty I feel a good umpire should employ.
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Spark said:
I think that's a very poor decision if that's the case; you need to give the new bloke confidence and stability and messing around with the batting order just for that reason doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Can't agree with this, though. I love the idea of floating batting orders and think more sides should be more adaptable to it, in all formats. I remain surprised that teams don't have multiple players padded up and do it more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top