*Official* England in West Indies

[Richard]

I meant the WI refer it. That way, when Chanderpaul gets a shocker given against him later, they won't have any referals left. Sorry, its the bias within me kicking in.

Ah, I see. Well, TBH myself I just hate to see wrong decisions. Full-stop. Absolutely regardless of the team the suffering player is playing for.

 

[Richard]

WI players are always given out for half chances. No fear of giving out a WI batsman wrongly it seems. Im sick of the cheating.

 

[Beamer]

WI players are always given out for half chances. No fear of giving out a WI batsman wrongly it seems. Im sick of the cheating.

IMHO Smith was out, the ball straightened and did all the right things. Hinds was flat out jooked however as the ball didn't even turn.

I agree that in the last two tests England batsmen have received more benefit of the doubt on lbw decisions than ours and it is extremely unfair.

But I would argue that we need to play with the bat infront of the pad to make sure that Dar cannot do this. They will never learn, he did this to us in the Lords test match in 2007, penalising our batsman for using the pad and yet not doing the same for England.

 

[Richard]

Trust me, I've seen Dar, Darrell Hair and one or two others give plenty of England batsmen out lbw on the front foot. Maybe not against West Indies, because the spinners typically haven't been good enough. But against better-quality spinners.

 

[roseboy64]

Quality of spinners has nothing to do with it when you were as out as Cook it was at the ARG.

 

[Uppercut]

Quality of spinners has nothing to do with it when you were as out as Cook it was at the ARG.

Different umpires though. The umpires at the ARG were absolutely shocking with the amount they gave to batsmen against spinners.

 

[ozone]

Trust me, I've seen Dar, Darrell Hair and one or two others give plenty of England batsmen out lbw on the front foot. Maybe not against West Indies, because the spinners typically haven't been good enough. But against better-quality spinners.

TBH, its the players own fault if they think they can still get away with it. Umpires, particularly Dar and Hair, have been doing it for a long time, and perhaps the reason some WI fans feel hard-done by is that they, as you say, haven't had a spinner to take advantage of it.

 

[Jigga988]

IMHO Smith was out, the ball straightened and did all the right things. Hinds was flat out jooked however as the ball didn't even turn.

I agree that in the last two tests England batsmen have received more benefit of the doubt on lbw decisions than ours and it is extremely unfair.

But I would argue that we need to play with the bat infront of the pad to make sure that Dar cannot do this. They will never learn, he did this to us in the Lords test match in 2007, penalising our batsman for using the pad and yet not doing the same for England.

Yeah, when we went England in 07 that was a nightmare, every time the ball hit the pad it was given out, that's when I would've thought we would've learnt that just shifting your pad well forward don't work but apparently we did not...

Can half-see what Sammy is saying in the way that re. the two lbw's if the umpire had given them not out then both would've been referred and both would've remained not out... though Hinds looked plum in real time despite what hawk-eye said so no complaints about that but thought Smith was extremely marginal whether he was hit outside the line or not, that one was slightly harsh I reckon.

 

[Uppercut]

TBH, its the players own fault if they think they can still get away with it. Umpires, particularly Dar and Hair, have been doing it for a long time, and perhaps the reason some WI fans feel hard-done by is that they, as you say, haven't had a spinner to take advantage of it.

It's not even that they think they can get away with it. They're just missing straight balls on the front foot, and hence should be given out. Strauss and Cook both got prank-decisions at the ARG from Koertzen, but then Swanny had about four decisions in the first innings alone that were dead plumb and not given.

 

[roseboy64]

Different umpires though. The umpires at the ARG were absolutely shocking with the amount they gave to batsmen against spinners.

Didn't note specific umpires. Just that decisions will go for WI and against England and then vice versa. No consistency.

 

[ozone]

Can half-see what Sammy is saying in the way that re. the two lbw's if the umpire had given them not out then both would've been referred and both would've remained not out... though Hinds looked plum in real time despite what hawk-eye said so no complaints about that but thought Smith was extremely marginal whether he was hit outside the line or not, that one was slightly harsh I reckon.

Nah, the replay they showed said it hit in line, and as this is the same replay the third umpire gets, would have been able to say it was out had it been given not out initially.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, when we went England in 07 that was a nightmare, every time the ball hit the pad it was given out, that's when I would've thought we would've learnt that just shifting your pad well forward don't work but apparently we did not...

Can half-see what Sammy is saying in the way that re. the two lbw's if the umpire had given them not out then both would've been referred and both would've remained not out... though Hinds looked plum in real time despite what hawk-eye said so no complaints about that but thought Smith was extremely marginal whether he was hit outside the line or not, that one was slightly harsh I reckon.

Marginal, but it definitely hit him in line, so 110% correct decision. Could have been confirmed on referral because there's no doubt involved. It's different when whether it was hitting the stumps is marginal, so the Hinds decision was much dodgier- although as you say, it did look plumb in real time so it's hard to be critical of Dar for giving it.

 

[sammy2]

IMHO Smith was out, the ball straightened and did all the right things. Hinds was flat out jooked however as the ball didn't even turn.

I agree that in the last two tests England batsmen have received more benefit of the doubt on lbw decisions than ours and it is extremely unfair.

But I would argue that we need to play with the bat infront of the pad to make sure that Dar cannot do this. They will never learn, he did this to us in the Lords test match in 2007, penalising our batsman for using the pad and yet not doing the same for England.

Look at what happen to powell in Jamaica, lets just see how long this continue before chris gayle speak up about the lack of benifit for WI that Eng enjoy.

 

[Uppercut]

Didn't note specific umpires. Just that decisions will go for WI and against England and then vice versa. No consistency.

Well yeah, i don't think anyone's claiming it specifically favours one team or the other. Well, anyone who counts.

 

[Jono]

LOL @ KP's glasses.

Also, like others here, I don't like the umpires telling the English fielders to keep the ball off the ground. What next? Don't bowl the ball quick and hard into the ground, as it may scuff up the ball as well?

Ridiculous. They're not using a bottle cap, they're throwing the ball in on the bounce. Perfectly fine in other scenarios, why not now?

 

[ozone]

Well yeah, i don't think anyone's claiming it specifically favours one team or the other. Well, anyone who counts.

Good call. Agree with the rest of the post as well, in the long run it generally balances out fairly evenly.

 

[Jigga988]

Marginal, but it definitely hit him in line, so 110% correct decision. Could have been confirmed on referral because there's no doubt involved. It's different when whether it was hitting the stumps is marginal, so the Hinds decision was much dodgier- although as you say, it did look plumb in real time so it's hard to be critical of Dar for giving it.

Not so sure, Nick Knight in the studio was saying that Gayle shouldn't have been given out because he thought that was 'just shaving leg stump,' and I personally thought that one was an obvious lbw, but if people are arguing that the Gayle dismissal should've been given not out then I don't see how you can then be so adamant that Smith's would've been given not out...

Umpires arn't being unfair on Windies, just Windies been slightly unfortunate that the umpires have been in good form...

 

[Jigga988]

LOL @ KP's glasses.

Also, like others here, I don't like the umpires telling the English fielders to keep the ball off the ground. What next? Don't bowl the ball quick and hard into the ground, as it may scuff up the ball as well?

Ridiculous. They're not using a bottle cap, they're throwing the ball in on the bounce. Perfectly fine in other scenarios, why not now?

Ha! yeah, KP's shades are a joke, aviator sports sun glasses!

don't see how the England fielders can be so sure that once they throw the ball it will land on the rough side... don't think the umpires were complaing about the ball to be honest, person on the commentary stint said it was because the throw was designed to make Ambrose walk on the pitch.

 

[sammy2]

yes, the umpires were sure the ball would go on to clip leg stump. They are so good. The lord is with WI so they will survive just like they did in ARG.

 

[ozone]

Not so sure, Nick Knight in the studio was saying that Gayle shouldn't have been given out because he thought that was 'just shaving leg stump,' and I personally thought that one was an obvious lbw, but if people are arguing that the Gayle dismissal should've been given not out then I don't see how you can then be so adamant that Smith's would've been given not out...

The reason Knight argued Gayles shouldn't have been given was that it was arguably marginal, and was originally given not out. Smiths on the other hand was originally given out, and there was nothing to say that it shouldn't have been when it was referred, marginal or not. AFAIC, by the way they've set out the referal system, there was no basis to overturn Smiths dismissal, therefore it was out.