**Official** England in The West Indies

[garage flower]

Some words come to mind, 'gutless' being the most prominent. It seems only Jacobs knows how to bat...

My point exactly (see earlier post). Michael Holding made quite an emotional speech on Sky Sports over the weekend to the effect that often, in test cricket, you have to work hard for your runs. Until Chanderpaul's innings yesterday, only Jacobs and to a lesser extent Devon Smith have shown a willingness to graft.

 

[garage flower]

Thats a bit rubbish lots of umpires take time, Bucknor for one! The fact it was shown that he was indeed out from TV replays shows he made the right choice to think about it and give it out.

My problem with the decision was that it was inconsistent with LBW "policy" during the rest of the series. The vast majority of decisions where the ball was probably hitting high on leg stump have been given not out.

 

[tooextracool]

It was almost identical to the ball with which Jones got Gayle earlier in the day. I'm not entirely convinced there is any particularly good defence to that.

But it's another chance he's missed. If they want to carry on picking him, fine - I still think he's good enough. But that doesn't mean I'm not wondering if Strauss wouldn't be better.

Cheers,

Mike

just wondering but wouldnt it be better if butcher opened the batting instead of tresco?it would still maintain the right-left hand combination and it would give collingwood his deserved chance in the side at no 5. if butcher doesnt want to then get strauss...anybody is better than trescothick.

 

[tooextracool]

My point exactly (see earlier post). Michael Holding made quite an emotional speech on Sky Sports over the weekend to the effect that often, in test cricket, you have to work hard for your runs. Until Chanderpaul's innings yesterday, only Jacobs and to a lesser extent Devon Smith have shown a willingness to graft.

although that shot from devon smith yesterday was horrible....what was he thinking?

 

[Swervy]

My problem with the decision was that it was inconsistent with LBW "policy" during the rest of the series. The vast majority of decisions where the ball was probably hitting high on leg stump have been given not out.

well there is a problem with those other decisions then..not this one

 

[garage flower]

well there is a problem with those other decisions then..not this one

No, there is a problem if the umpires are inconsistent. If, as seems to have been the case for most of the series, they're only going to give decisions they're very sure of as opposed to fairly sure of (i.e. where there's a reasonable element of doubt) then both umpires need to stick to that throughout the series.

Having said that, it was by no means a shocker and Sarwan continues to ask for it by shuffling across and playing across the line.

 

[Swervy]

No, there is a problem if the umpires are inconsistent. If, as seems to have been the case for most of the series, they're only going to give decisions they're very sure of as opposed to fairly sure of (i.e. where there's a reasonable element of doubt) then both umpires need to stick to that throughout the series.

Having said that, it was by no means a shocker and Sarwan continues to ask for it by shuffling across and playing across the line.

yes but at that particular time, the umpire was sure it was out

 

[garage flower]

although that shot from devon smith yesterday was horrible....what was he thinking?

Missed a lot of yesterday's play including that dismissal, but yes, getting caught driving in the air in front of the wicket (for the 2nd time in the series) is very hard to excuse.

 

[garage flower]

yes but at that particular time, the umpire was sure it was out

Didn't seem very sure given the amount of time he took before giving it and if he regarded it as being "more" out than the numerous similar appeals that have been given not out, then I think he made an error of judgement.

 

[Swervy]

Didn't seem very sure given the amount of time he took before giving it and if he regarded it as being "more" out than the numerous similar appeals that have been given not out, then I think he made an error of judgement.

i dont think a test standard would make a decision based on whether it was more out than other appeals..i dint see the actual dismissal but i ahve heard that it was agood decision,and so i dont really see what the problem is

 

[luckyeddie]

Didn't seem very sure given the amount of time he took before giving it and if he regarded it as being "more" out than the numerous similar appeals that have been given not out, then I think he made an error of judgement.

Would you rather umpires just give 'impulse' decisions, then?

How on earth you can consider getting one 'right' an error of judgment is beyond me - my criticism would be about all the other ones.

I must confess to have watched pretty well every ball in the series so far, and in fairness to you GF, the umpiring has been inconsistent.

The one which pegged Lara looked absolutely plumb to me when first seen, yet even when Lara seems static he still gets a reasonable stride in (how he manages that I'm not sure - maybe he bats in roller skates). When they showed it in slomo, I could see any number of reasons why the appeal might have been turned down.

At the end of the day, this is a very difficult wicket - not just for batsmen.

One thing I'm beginning to become more and more in favour of - the 'no-ball' law is exposing umpires to far too much unnecessary criticism.

Time after time the umpires are getting no-ball calls wrong - and when they get that aspect right, they get the LBW decisions wrong.

I've a number of thoughts about this, and the answer I would advocate is not the obvious one (modern technology - a 'buzzer').
I would actually scrap the current no-ball law and revert to a back-foot one.

 

[Swervy]

I've a number of thoughts about this, and the answer I would advocate is not the obvious one (modern technology - a 'buzzer').
I would actually scrap the current no-ball law and revert to a back-foot one.

absolutely, the back foot rule is with out a doubt better...it would also let batsmen make full use of the no ball called, because it would be called so much earlier.

And one things for certain,Pakistan wouldnt have beaten England a few years ago if that has have been the rule

 

[garage flower]

i dont think a test standard would make a decision based on whether it was more out than other appeals..i dint see the actual dismissal but i ahve heard that it was agood decision,and so i dont really see what the problem is

By "more" out what I'm referring to is the element of doubt inherent in any LBW decision. "More" out means less doubt. I'm not necessarily saying that Bowden's thought process would have been: "that looks more out than the one I didn't give yesterday", the point I'm making is that there was as much doubt about the Sarwan decision as there's been about a good many decisions in the series that have been given not out.

Not a big deal, but a crucial decision that I believe he got wrong.

 

[garage flower]

Would you rather umpires just give 'impulse' decisions, then?

How on earth you can consider getting one 'right' an error of judgment is beyond me - my criticism would be about all the other ones.

I must confess to have watched pretty well every ball in the series so far, and in fairness to you GF, the umpiring has been inconsistent.

With regard to your needless rhetorical question, the inordinate amount of time he took suggests that there was some doubt in his mind, in which case he should have given it not out.

Really though, two issues are becoming confused here. One is about consistency of interpretation, the other is about how certain you have to be to give an LBW decision. On one of these counts I think the decision was wrong.

 

[Swervy]

With regard to your needless rhetorical question, the inordinate amount of time he took suggests that there was some doubt in his mind, in which case he should have given it not out.

Really though, two issues are becoming confused here. One is about consistency of interpretation, the other is about how certain you have to be to give an LBW decision. On one of these counts I think the decision was wrong.

but the consensus of opinion suggests it was the correct decision...

 

[luckyeddie]

With regard to your needless rhetorical question, the inordinate amount of time he took suggests that there was some doubt in his mind, in which case he should have given it not out.

That sentence is so wrong on so many levels.

 

[Swervy]

By "more" out what I'm referring to is the element of doubt inherent in any LBW decision. "More" out means less doubt. I'm not necessarily saying that Bowden's thought process would have been: "that looks more out than the one I didn't give yesterday", the point I'm making is that there was as much doubt about the Sarwan decision as there's been about a good many decisions in the series that have been given not out.

Not a big deal, but a crucial decision that I believe he got wrong.

you could stretch this further by saying that if on the first day of the series,someone was given not out to a shooter that would have hit middle...thenreally no LBW's should be given in the whole series.

Each umpire has an individual style,when an umpire makes a decision like this, he basically replays the ball in his head before raising the finger...a delay doesnt always mean doubt

 

[garage flower]

"That sentence is so wrong on so many levels."

Yes, I realise that a rhetorical question by it's very nature is needless, or at least doesn't require an answer, but smarse-**** semantics and a smug smilie don't disguise the fact that you haven't addressed the central point. The time taken to give the decision is not the issue.

Whatever the merits of my argument, petty point scoring really isn't as clever as you seem to think it is.

 

[garage flower]

you could stretch this further by saying that if on the first day of the series,someone was given not out to a shooter that would have hit middle...thenreally no LBW's should be given in the whole series.

Each umpire has an individual style,when an umpire makes a decision like this, he basically replays the ball in his head before raising the finger...a delay doesnt always mean doubt

You and luckyeddie are really getting sidetracked with this issue of how long it took to give the decision. If it helps, fine, the length of time he took has no bearing on the correctness or otherwise of the decision (the replay mechanism in his head probably got stuck). I accept that.

On the other - main - issue your example entirely misses the point. I haven't been arguing that the first LB decision of the series should set the tone for what is and isn't subsequently regarded as out. As previously posted, I'm talking about consistency of interpretation and the degree of certainy needed in LB decisions. In your example there would be no reasonable doubt and it would be given out. Simple as.

 

[Swervy]

You and luckyeddie are really getting sidetracked with this issue of how long it took to give the decision. If it helps, fine, the length of time he took has no bearing on the correctness or otherwise of the decision (the replay mechanism in his head probably got stuck). I accept that.

On the other - main - issue your example entirely misses the point. I haven't been arguing that the first LB decision of the series should set the tone for what is and isn't subsequently regarded as out. As previously posted, I'm talking about consistency of interpretation and the degree of certainy needed in LB decisions. In your example there would be no reasonable doubt and it would be given out. Simple as.

i was using an exaggerated hypothetical to try and prove some sort of point.

I thought the point of this was that you said that the umpire obviuosly had some sort of doubt...what I think i am trying to say is that how do you know that he had a doubt.For what i have heard, it was the correct decision