*Official* West Indies In Australia

[Furball]

Besides, we're constantly reminded that the point of the review system is to rule out shockers, not marginal lbw calls that could go either way.

Giving the batsman out caught behind when he hasn't hit the ball is something I would class as a shocker. Yet if Roach's dismissal is what we've to expect from the guidelines, then frankly there is no point in having the review system in the first place.

 

[Furball]

I need to see it again one more time TBF. 50% i think as poster Thierry Henry the Australian playes just went up. But 50% i think intially i did hear a noise.

My initial reaction was that it was a play and a miss.

 

[thierry henry]

My initial reaction, as soon as I saw them start to appeal, was "STFU I know what you are trying to do and there was clearly no noise or deflection there, but Billy will probably give it out on the strength of the appeal anyway because he probably isn't even watching". It's worth noting that I can read minds and am the best TV umpire ever though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Wait, what? I can understand for LBW if its just clipping leg.



What was that one all about? No hotspot, snicko or deviation - surely that trifecta is enough?

The snicko showed something, whether it was conclusive or not is arguable though. Nothing on hotspot however.

 

[Hurricane]

Roach didn't seem that upset when the third umpire made the final decision.

 

[NasserFan207]

Yeah it was definitely a desperation appeal.

Tbh I wouldn't care so much if it wasn't for how pathetic it made the review system look. FFS, giving the final decision to the onfield umpire is ridiculous since they will never overturn their original decision. The third umpire should've given that not out.

 

[Furball]

There is no point in a review system where batsmen cannot overturn incorrectly given caught behinds.

The WICB need to kick up a huge fuss over this.

 

[Matt79]

Wait, what? I can understand for LBW if its just clipping leg.



What was that one all about? No hotspot, snicko or deviation - surely that trifecta is enough?

Actually they just showed snicko and it did show a small noise, although not characteristic of a knick, when the ball passed the bat - presumably what prompted Bowden to say out. That said, replays and hotspot clearly showed it wasn't ball hitting bat, so not out for mine.

This for me just highlights we're on a fools quest if we seeking no debateable decisions in the game.

 

[aussie]

My initial reaction was that it was a play and a miss.

I dont doubt that, most likely it was a desperation appeal indeed since, we have seen such things so much times in cricket.

But as you said your the role of the review system to technically reverse howlers i.e reversing a LBW decision for a ball that clearly pitched outside leg. 10 years ago without this system Roach & Chanderapaul in Adelaide would have been given out anyway. So i dont know where to stand ATM...

Edit: Seeing snicko at the end a small noise was indicated. Not the typical LONG line that you see when a edge is there. But a smudge as soon ball passed the bat, his bat was nowhere to the pad. Haaaa

 

[NasserFan207]

Actually they just showed snicko and it did show a small noise, although not characteristic of a knick, when the ball passed the bat - presumably what prompted Bowden to say out. That said, replays and hotspot clearly showed it wasn't ball hitting bat, so not out for mine.

This for me just highlights we're on a fools quest if we seeking no debateable decisions in the game.

We can seek out eliminating obvious errors however. Which this one was (and it was also a very important decision).

 

[James]

That caught behind being given out goes to show, what's the point of this review system?

100% clearly not out by the technology, so has to be given not out. Otherwise what's the point of having the review system in the first place? Benefit of the doubt should always goes to the batsman.

 

[Furball]

Roach didn't seem that upset when the third umpire made the final decision.

3 things:

1. Roach's body language whilst making the challenge. To me that looked like someone who knew that he hadn't touched it.

2. The fact that drinks were brought out for the batsmen suggests to me that they expected to be able to get on with their innings once the 3rd umpire had had a look.

3. Why would anyone risk looking extremely foolish by referring a catch if they knew they'd hit the ball?

3.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Channel 9 have just released this picture of the face of Kemar Roach's bat after the incident. I think it shines some light on what happened:

 

[thierry henry]

This for me just highlights we're on a fools quest if we seeking no debateable decisions in the game.

Personally I'd be happy to see all future Roach-esque decisions given not out by referral, regardless of the umpire's decision, even if the umpire gives it out and his decision may not be characterised as manifestly wrong.

I quite like the "benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire" aspect of lbw decisions. However I think in all "did he hit it?" type decisions (whether it's to give a guy out from a snick, or not out from an lbw), unless there is pretty good evidence of an edge, I think it should be assumed that the edge is not there. If an edge is so small as to be imperceptible to human eyes and ears on multiple replays and slow-mos then it might as well not exist imo.

 

[Furball]

I dont doubt that, most likely it was a desperation appeal indeed since, we have seen such things so much times in cricket.

But as you said your the role of the review system to technically reverse howlers i.e reversing a LBW decision for a ball that clearly pitched outside leg. 10 years ago without this system Roach & Chanderapaul in Adelaide would have been given out anyway. So i dont know where to stand ATM...

Edit: Seeing snicko at the end a small noise was indicated. Not the typical LONG line that you see when a edge is there. But a smudge as soon ball passed the bat, his bat was nowhere to the pad. Haaaa

Giving a batsman out caught when he hasn't hit the ball with bat or glove is a shocker.

 

[straw man]

Yeah. What you say is right. The system will evolve with time. For LBW's they have the rule that 50% of ball should hit for it to be conclusive. Maybe they should define what is conclusive for Caught behinds also.

I can't believe they didn't come up with all of those guidelines before implementing the system. These sorts of issues around margin of error would have been easily forecast by anyone with half a brain who looked at the design of the system (technology plus the guidelines for the third umpire) in the planning stages.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually they just showed snicko and it did show a small noise, although not characteristic of a knick, when the ball passed the bat - presumably what prompted Bowden to say out. That said, replays and hotspot clearly showed it wasn't ball hitting bat, so not out for mine.

This for me just highlights we're on a fools quest if we seeking no debateable decisions in the game.

Fair enough, if snicko did show a noise, I am fine with keeping the umpire's decision as it was given.

And, I don't think anyone who is a proponent of UDRS has claimed they are seeking no debatable decisions. Most of us (as proponents of UDRS) are seeking the end to the absolutely crappy decisions, not marginal ones.

 

[aussie]

3. Why would anyone risk looking extremely foolish by referring a catch if they knew they'd hit the ball?.

Ego?. Chris Gayle reviewing his Brisbane first innings LBW dismissal was pretty dumb since he was plumb as ever...

 

[Cruxdude]

If the snicko does show a small smudge there is no way you can reverse the umpire's decision. But this should have been used to make the decision. Is snicko not being used because it takes too long to get the snicko??

 

[roseboy64]

There is no point in a review system where batsmen cannot overturn incorrectly given caught behinds.

The WICB need to kick up a huge fuss over this.