*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[apartheid smash]

I am not sure people would say the same for the decision earlier on which was plumb and turned down by Dar. It all evens out in the end.

you arent even sure what ur own name is ejit

 

[marc71178]

I am not sure people would say the same for the decision earlier on which was plumb and turned down by Dar.

Except by your argument that shows he had doubt, since he gave the benefit to the batsman...

 

[tooextracool]

almost every decision that the umpire makes has some amount of doubt in it. the fact is that if an umpire is 70% sure of a decision, he will give it out. personally a 50-50 decision is something that can be argued either way,therefore if an umpire gives one of those decisions out, it cannot be a wrong decision.

 

[Pratters]

almost every decision that the umpire makes has some amount of doubt in it. the fact is that if an umpire is 70% sure of a decision, he will give it out. personally a 50-50 decision is something that can be argued either way,therefore if an umpire gives one of those decisions out, it cannot be a wrong decision.

I would differ here. An umpire should not give the batsman out until he believes it to be out. The same logic you gave could be applied to run outs. If an umpire is 70% sure of a batsman not having reached the crease, would giving the batsman out in such a scenario be deemed fit (in the days before the third umpire)?

The benefit of doubt should always go to the batsman and even if there is a slight doubt with regards to it being out, the umpire should not give the batsman out.

If he does believe that it will hit the stumps with surity, only then will he ofcourse give the batsman out. This is a very subjective issue when you have umpires who are become conservative and dont give any thing out. That approach should not obviously be adopted as it would mean that even outs are not given when they clearly are just that.

 

[Pratters]

Except by your argument that shows he had doubt, since he gave the benefit to the batsman...

No. If its clearly out, there is no question of benefit of doubt. So the earlier plumb should have been given out. Twisting words to mean some thing completely different doesnt show any thing.

 

[tooextracool]

I would differ here. An umpire should not give the batsman out until he believes it to be out..

if hes 70% sure, he usually believes that the batsman is out. very rarely can an umpire be 100% sure about a decision, if that were the case no descisions would be given in most games. the fact is that it is impossible for an umpire to be 100% sure of something that happens in a split second.

The same logic you gave could be applied to run outs. If an umpire is 70% sure of a batsman not having reached the crease, would giving the batsman out in such a scenario be deemed fit (in the days before the third umpire)?

assuming you are talking about the third umpire, remember this, the third umpire has slow motion replays from many different angles. the umpire in the middle has to make his desicion in about 2 second based on what happened in a split second. the 2 are incomparable. if the umpire in the middle was capable of using technology to make his descision, then and only then must he be 100% sure.

 

[Pratters]

He called it brave because umpires don't give it, but not because it wasn't out. As he said, if it was a seamer it would have been out without a second thought.

Usually when commentators say its brave, its for a decision which generally would not be given out.

If it was a seamer, the ball runs through faster with lesser movement, and so would be out if a seamer was bowling. Not sure in case of a spinner whose balls turn much more than the ball of a seamer deviates after pitching.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Usually when commentators say its brave, its for a decision which generally would not be given out.

If it was a seamer, the ball runs through faster with lesser movement, and so would be out if a seamer was bowling. Not sure in case of a spinner whose balls turn much more than the ball of a seamer deviates after pitching.

Usually is irrelevant, because in this instance the commentator explained why he made the comment. The ball was not turning but was heading directly into middle and leg'.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No. If its clearly out, there is no question of benefit of doubt. So the earlier plumb should have been given out. Twisting words to mean some thing completely different doesnt show any thing.

Whether there is doubt or not is not for you to say. You're not the man standing in the middle. You see things at a different angle, speed, lighting etc. etc. Who are you to judge whether there is doubt?

 

[superkingdave]

a) note the use of the words 'too many'
b) note that hes already taken 7/43 on a seamer before....

Yes but also note the use of the words "you wont ever see them with figures of 6/66 or 7/12."

 

[tooextracool]

Yes but also note the use of the words "you wont ever see them with figures of 6/66 or 7/12."

yes i should have mentioned 'outside of a seamer friendly wicket'. it was blatantly obvious that that was what i was referring to considering that hoggard had already got 7/43.

 

[Pratters]

Usually is irrelevant, because in this instance the commentator explained why he made the comment. The ball was not turning but was heading directly into middle and leg'.

Can you show me where Botham explained the reason for him calling the decision brave? Else there is no reason to discard the usual.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

He called it brave cos even though it was clearly out, umpires normally chicken out and say not out when the batsmen play forward to it. Just cos its normally called not out when it is clearly out doesnt mean its wrong when it is finally called out does it.

 

[Pratters]

You're not the man standing in the middle. You see things at a different angle, speed, lighting etc. etc. Who are you to judge whether there is doubt?

And are you the man standing in the middle to say it was plumb? By your logic, we should not be judging the quality of players too as we have never played international cricket.

We can make subjecive judgements from what we see on t.v. You believe it was plumb. I clearly feel there was scope of it being not out.

 

[Pratters]

if hes 70% sure, he usually believes that the batsman is out. very rarely can an umpire be 100% sure about a decision, if that were the case no descisions would be given in most games. the fact is that it is impossible for an umpire to be 100% sure of something that happens in a split second.

If he thinks it will go onto hit the stumps with certainty, only then should he give them out. Some umpires, as I said before, stretch this further not to give any thing out. I am not advocating that. If you are sure, you give them out. But be sure before as wickets should not be given when in doubt. If you are not absolutely sure, there is no reason to give it out.

assuming you are talking about the third umpire, remember this, the third umpire has slow motion replays from many different angles. the umpire in the middle has to make his desicion in about 2 second based on what happened in a split second. the 2 are incomparable. if the umpire in the middle was capable of using technology to make his descision, then and only then must he be 100% sure.

I am speaking of the days before third umpire. Should the umpires have given them out run out if they were 70 percent sure? I think not because when the umpires used to give them out and it proved the batsmen were inside, they were heavily criticised prior to 1993.

So they used to give them out only when they were 100 percent sure. This is why you often find some close calls of the past where batsmen are out according to the slow motion in t.v. being given not out by umpires as they werent absolutely sure. It is definitely comparable to lbw laws and when to give the batsman out.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Can you show me where Botham explained the reason for him calling the decision brave? Else there is no reason to discard the usual.

He said it right after he made the initial comment. Just what SpaceMonkey said.

 

[Pratters]

He called it brave cos even though it was clearly out, umpires normally chicken out and say not out when the batsmen play forward to it.

How can you ascertain he said that with such intention when usually when the commentators say brave or such words for a decision, it means there was room for it being not out?

 

[Pratters]

He said it right after he made the initial comment. Just what SpaceMonkey said.

I dont remember that honestly. Was too aghast at the moment at that given out. But I believe you when you say that.

Doesnt sway me from believing it shouldnt have been given out.

 

[superkingdave]

 

[Pratters]

Is the second guy banging his head Liam?