***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

This is one of those really really rare occasions when Richard makes perfect sense.

The others being when I call you a smarmy bastard you mean?

 

[Richard]

At what point can we say the lack of overs for Pattinson shows that Vaughan didnt really want him and doesnt trust him?

Rehash of Kabir Ali circa '03?

 

[steds]

The others being when I call you a smarmy bastard you mean?

Hahaha. Quality.

 

[cowboysfan]

Im increasingly convinced it carried. Slo-mo changes things and it looked good to start with, it still looks good and Amla saw it and walked.

However, completely agree Re: batsman and coach. Someone needs to get fined or banned.

how does slow motion change the trajectory of the ball?

 

[zaremba]

At what point can we say the lack of overs for Pattinson shows that Vaughan didnt really want him and doesnt trust him?

After his 3rd over I'd say.

So in one Fred over we have:

(a) Bowden calling for the 3rd ump as Amla is nearly off the field. Was his view obscured of a catch 7 yards away?

(b) Bowden no-balling Freddie late, and wrongly;

(c) Bowden failing to count to 6. Apparently he has the world record for 5-ball overs.

What a pillock. Oh, and he sawed off our opening batsman. Terrific.

 

[Richard]

Bowden's hardly helped England's cause this game so far.

 

[Goughy]

how does slow motion change the trajectory of the ball?

No it changes perspective and distorts distances between 2 objects eg hand and ground

 

[Neil Pickup]

No it changes perspective and distorts distances between 2 objects eg hand and ground

Look at the way it corrupts the distance between bowler, batsman and keeper onto a 2D TV screen: the same applies trying to distil a close catch. Those replays prove nothing either way and do no one any good.

Rulings are required on:
(a) when you can dispute decisions
(b) what replays can be used for
(c) foreshortening of the lens

 

[Uppercut]

Fantastic day of cricket. Not happy with AB de Villiers claiming a catch that wasn't. Vaughan has some doubt to get the benefit of, it did look grounded to me but was too close to call either way. The referral thing needs to be sorted out. South Africa are still well on top considering their tail starts at 8 and England's starts at 6. It's now 100% safe to say picking Pattinson was stupid.


Any other thoughts?

 

[zaremba]

Vaughan's was very much touch-and-go. No comparison with AB's cheating, and I think Amla was lucky (although I can see why the 3rd ump gave him not out).

Because of the foreshortening etc, the batsman is almost invariably given not out on a referral. Most people seem to agree that this doesn't feel right.

I've thought for some time that one possible solution would be to change the laws so that, on such referrals, the batsman shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt and the 3rd umpire should simply decide whether it is, in his opinion, more likely than not that the catch was taken cleanly. To use legal terms the standard of proof would be on the "balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

This may seem like heresy but the reason for the batsman getting the benefit of the doubt in the first place is presumably largely because, with the naked eye, the ump obviously only gets one fleeting look at any particular dismissal. That simply doesn't apply to decisions given by 3rd umpires on the basis of multiple slow motion replays.

 

[Richard]

I've thought for some time that one possible solution would be to change the laws so that, on such referrals, the batsman shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt and the 3rd umpire should simply decide whether it is, in his opinion, more likely than not that the catch was taken cleanly. To use legal terms the standard of proof would be on the "balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

Indeed, thought that for a while.

Just a shame the neccessary research wasn't put in before the first occasion when a TV replay was used for a catch. Would have made so many decisions right rather than wrong.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm of the opinion that TV replays just should not be used. They simply can't tell whether a catch was held or not a significant proportion of the time. Take the fielder's word, and if they go AB de villiers style and try to cheat, subsequent showings will lead to umpires giving n/o to catches they take for the rest of their careers.

 

[zaremba]

As for the batsman changing his mind and walking back to the wicket, this is a grey area. Law 27 provides as follows:

"1. Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal
Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by the fielding side. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 7 below.

2. Batsman dismissed
A batsman is dismissed if
either
(a) he is given out by an umpire, on appeal
or
(b) he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above.
...

7. Batsman leaving his wicket under a misapprehension
An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batsman.
...
9. Umpire's decision
An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire's decision, once made, is final."


Well 27.9 probably has no relevance because Amla apparently wasn't given out.

Therefore if he was out it was because he left his wicket believing he was out (27.1 and 27.7).

Looking at 27.7 it's arguable that his change of mind about "walking" was legitimate - he was under a misapprehension that he was out.

Was he too late to decide not to "walk"? The Laws don't say (so far as I can see) that there's any set time after which it's too late for Law 27.7 to take effect, and if he's not left the field and the new batsman has not entered the field then I can't see that Amla could have lost his right to seek to resume under 27.7.

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't it be interesting if Graeme Smith had been a walker.

So he'd have walked off after under-edging that thin one last Test without anyone other than extra-cover appealing.

 

[cowboysfan]

here's my take on referrals-there are going to be some shockers like AB and some close ones like vaughan.The referrals will clearly show that the catch was dropped in case of AB and if its really close then the decision should go in favour of the batsman always.remember also that catches are not the only thing that can be referred.I hope it works out in the India-SL series.

 

[GIMH]

Looked out to me, can see why it was not given but there you go. Day ended up not being as bad as it could have been.

I think it's too early to say Vaughan doesn't trust Pattinson. Flintoff and Anderson both bowled decent spells, I am sure he'll get another crack tomorrow. Certainly, it would be ludicrous to not give someone more than 3 overs, especially as the batting has been so paper thin.

 

[TT Boy]

Fantastic day of cricket. Not happy with AB de Villiers claiming a catch that wasn't. Vaughan has some doubt to get the benefit of, it did look grounded to me but was too close to call either way. The referral thing needs to be sorted out. South Africa are still well on top considering their tail starts at 8 and England's starts at 6. It's now 100% safe to say picking Pattinson was stupid.


Any other thoughts?

Indeed.
Although, the standard wasn’t the greatest, I think both teams will be peeved with their batting for the surface and conditions were hardly that pressing - particularly South Africa who lost three wickets (could have easily been four) for nothing in glorious sunshine and only one batsman went to a 'good' ball.

 

[cowboysfan]

I'm of the opinion that TV replays just should not be used. They simply can't tell whether a catch was held or not a significant proportion of the time. Take the fielder's word, and if they go AB de villiers style and try to cheat, subsequent showings will lead to umpires giving n/o to catches they take for the rest of their careers.

if they had taken the fielders word KP would never been out.some of you guys have very selective memory but that is understandable.for me fielders cannot be trusted and people who still think that are delusional.

 

[zaremba]

Wouldn't it be interesting if Graeme Smith had been a walker.

I'm new to this site, but doesn't changing one letter in a word amount to "avoiding the filter"?

Anyhow, I understand what you're saying Richard , and you're right, he is.

 

[GIMH]

Wanker ain't filtered ITBT

So what's the updated forecast for tomorrow? When I looked on Thurs it suggested Fri & Sat would be similar with Sun being clear...think I'll go check for myself, I am on the internet after all