The last Ashes without referrals – a running tally of umpiring errors

[Richard]

Fundamental misunderstanding of probability at work here, m'thinks. That is, if you're arguing that they've somehow used up their bad luck so it'll be less likely to happen from now on.

Nope, not at all. Nonetheless, if bad out decisions are going to happen (there may or may not be more) then you'd prefer them at this time than any other.

We only wait to see how many more there will be.

 

[Richard]

Well considering that having three bad decisions go against you in one innings makes it no more or less likely that another three will go against you in another innings, there's no way in hell anyone with a brain could ever describe Australia as lucky.

Obviously it doesn't make a massive impact, but Umpires are not coins. When one side has been obviously hard-done-by early-ish in a long-ish series, you'd have to have watched not-very-much cricket to think that there isn't a small chance that some amount of subconscious "best be careful that doesn't happen again" or (unforgiveably if so) some amount of "need to even that up" will creep in for the rest of the rubber.

Every time I've seen such a horrible case of errors piling-up in favour of one side at the start of a three\five-match series, there's been nothing of the sort for the rest of the time. And more often than not there's been an "evening-up". Now, of course, some of that will be due to coincidence, but I think you'd be stretching credulity if you argued all of it was.

 

[zaremba]

Rudi Koertzen explains himself

3 points:

1. Hauritz - both umpires missed the flight of the ball and neither was sure whether the ball carried, so they were obliged to refer it.

2. Strauss - Koertzen was entirely unsighted (didn't even see who caught it) so went to Doctrove who said it was a clean catch, so Koertzen was obliged to give it out.

Hard to criticise his logic with regard to those two decisions, even though Aussies may continue to feel hard done-by. The fact that both decisions were close calls does not make the 2 cases identical. Catches can only be referred if both on-field umpires are unable to make a decision - this was the case with Hauritz but not Strauss.

3. Ponting - Koertzen confirmed that if he had thought Ponting didn't hit it, he would have given it LBW anyway.

 

[Burgey]

Rudi Koertzen explains himself

3 points:

1. Hauritz - both umpires missed the flight of the ball and neither was sure whether the ball carried, so they were obliged to refer it.

2. Strauss - Koertzen was entirely unsighted (didn't even see who caught it) so went to Doctrove who said it was a clean catch, so Koertzen was obliged to give it out.

Hard to criticise his logic with regard to those two decisions, even though Aussies may continue to feel hard done-by. The fact that both decisions were close calls does not make the 2 cases identical. Catches can only be referred if both on-field umpires are unable to make a decision - this was the case with Hauritz but not Strauss.

3. Ponting - Koertzen confirmed that if he had thought Ponting didn't hit it, he would have given it LBW anyway.

Jeez, (2) is far from satisfactory if he's not even sure who caught it. T'was a regulation nick in the direction of 1st slip. Christ only knows what he was looking at if he didn't pick the flight of that ball.

 

[zaremba]

Jeez, (2) is far from satisfactory if he's not even sure who caught it. T'was a regulation nick in the direction of 1st slip. Christ only knows what he was looking at if he didn't pick the flight of that ball.

The bowler's follow-through blocked his view.

 

[Burgey]

The bowler's follow-through blocked his view.

Ah, was he around the wicket? Can't recall now but that would make sense. Ta.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Rudi Koertzen explains himself

3 points:

1. Hauritz - both umpires missed the flight of the ball and neither was sure whether the ball carried, so they were obliged to refer it.

2. Strauss - Koertzen was entirely unsighted (didn't even see who caught it) so went to Doctrove who said it was a clean catch, so Koertzen was obliged to give it out.

Hard to criticise his logic with regard to those two decisions, even though Aussies may continue to feel hard done-by. The fact that both decisions were close calls does not make the 2 cases identical. Catches can only be referred if both on-field umpires are unable to make a decision - this was the case with Hauritz but not Strauss.

3. Ponting - Koertzen confirmed that if he had thought Ponting didn't hit it, he would have given it LBW anyway.

Although he's not the greatest umpire in the World I agree with one of his statements "The players will stand there, nick the ball and wait for the umpire to make a decision. For me, that's cheating." That's something that a few on this board have said while others have tried to claim that allowing the umpire to make a decision in all circumstances is respecting the umpire and not cheating. I'm glad to see that at least one top umpire thinks non-walkers are cheats, along side those who appeal for things that they know are not out.

 

[social]

Will only say 2 things

1. When a team is playing badly, luck also goes against them

2. Koertzen and Doctrove are pitifully bad umpires who should've been sacked years ago

 

[pietersenrocks]

I was highly dissappointed with the results in Caribbean where referrals were actually used.

In South Africa, Kallis and Boucher both got shocking decision after referring. As of now, referrals have only created more controversies in the game rather than over-turning definite errors.

 

[Richard]

Will only say 2 things

Was going to do a "fix'd" post but thought this was more accurate.

1. When a team is playing badly, luck also goes against them

More like, when a team is playing well, luck going against them isn't noticed much, and when it is playing badly, it is.

2. Koertzen and Doctrove are pitifully bad umpires who should've been sacked years ago

So in that case should everyone whose name isn't Simon Taufel. And you'd be left with anarchy on the field.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Nasser (I think) made a good point today about good bowling teams getting more bad decisions in their favour than poor bowling teams, as they create more chances and appeals for the umpires to make mistakes. Makes sense.

 

[Richard]

'Twas Michael TBH. Either way it applies equally to bowling and batting, just depends what type of error is involved. As Atherton said, a good bowling side gives more opportunities for bad out decisions than a poor one; equally, a good batting side gives fewer opportunities for a bad out decision.

And a bad "not out" decision is more likely to impact severely upon a weak bowling unit bowling at a strong batting-line-up. Equally, a bad "out" one is more likely to impact upon a weak batting-line-up facing a strong bowling unit.

Errors will almost always favour the stronger side, which is one of many reasons I'm so keen to get rid of them to the maximum degree possible.

 

[Richard]

And one more thing - both Australian openers had let-offs in the session of play today. Katich's (pretty plumb to Anderson) didn't matter much; Watson's (pretty out if not absolutely dead to Swann) has already counted for a little and we'll only find-out how much more it counts for as the Australian innings recommences tomorrow.

Tally currently stands at 3-1 in England's favour on the "mistakes resulting in a wicket" score and 4-3 to Australia on the "mistakes resulting in a wicket not falling that should have".

So 4 batsmen have been sawn-off and 7 let-off... and we're not even halfway through the series.

 

[JimmyGS]

Katich's (pretty plumb to Anderson)

Hold on. Bat very close to ball, question about whether it hit in line and also question of whether it was missing off (hawkeye had it hitting outside half of off) is a fair enough not out decision in my opinion.

There's a lot of doubt there, which means it was a good decision. Whether it was technically out in the end or not.

 

[GIMH]

I wouldn't say 'good' decision, but I wouldn't call it an umpire error, either.

Still bloody seething about it mind

 

[Richard]

Hold on. Bat very close to ball, question about whether it hit in line and also question of whether it was missing off (hawkeye had it hitting outside half of off) is a fair enough not out decision in my opinion.

There's a lot of doubt there, which means it was a good decision. Whether it was technically out in the end or not.

The bat hit the ball a fair while after it hit pad - there's not really much excuse for letting that impact, it's not like those where it hits both within a for all intents and purposes the same instant. All right, it wasn't smashing into the pad in front of all three, but it was quite clearly hitting off, HawkEye or no HawkEye.

It certainly wasn't a good decision. Not a shocker, no, but I never said it was. Just something that fairly clearly should've been out (all the commentators said "that's very close" or similar at the time) and wasn't given.

Like Hussey's "catch" in the last game, you can't really blame the Umpire too much, but the wrong decision was made.

 

[Richard]

Still bloody seething about it mind

Don't be - it only cost 20 runs or so. It's Watson's n\o that we might potentially have reason to seethe about. Though not if this game is effectively washed-out.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The Katich LBW was one of those ones where on first sighting it looked not out, and then every time I saw a replay it seemed more and more out. There was a lot going on inside a split second, and the not-out decision was certainly not a hanging offence.

 

[Uppercut]

The Katich LBW was one of those ones where on first sighting it looked not out, and then every time I saw a replay it seemed more and more out. There was a lot going on inside a split second, and the not-out decision was certainly not a hanging offence.

Yeah, I thought it was missing off quite clearly at first, it was only on subsequent viewings that it looked like it'd hit. The other thing you have to remember about Katich is that his movement across the stumps before the ball is released makes it very difficult to tell whether it would hit the stumps in real time.

Wouldn't even count this one as an error tbh. One of those that can go either way and still be a reasonable decision.

 

[GIMH]

I think I said in the match thread that I didn't think it was out, then edited my post when I saw the replay...can't fault the umpire really