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

[marc71178]

Just an aside, but I'm not sure I agree with that. A "possibility of a faint edge" is a bit too vague to be reasonable doubt. On those grounds you'd have to give every single LBW decision where the bat was anywhere near the ball not out. Of course it's possible that the batsman could have hit the ball, but the umpire actually has to think that it's likely he did to give the batsman not out - ie: hear a noise or see deviation or something.

Wasn't there a noise on the Bell one though? Didn't see it as at work, but am sure there was mention of the noise of bat on pad as the ball passed through? Cricinfo mentioned it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

First time through, I thought Bell had inside edged it onto his pad, as there was the second noise of his bat clipping part of his pad on the way through. Obviously turned out to be just about as plumb as they get after watching it a few more times. I can sort of understand why I didn't think it wasn't out at first, but Koertzen is an Elite Panel umpire FFS, he shouldn't really be making mistakes like that.

 

[Richard]

Bat hit pad. The only remotely possible explanation for the n\o was that Koertzen thought bat hitting pad was bat hitting ball. No-one could possibly have thought that the line and length of that ball would not have taken it onto the stumps.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Wasn't there a noise on the Bell one though? Didn't see it as at work, but am sure there was mention of the noise of bat on pad as the ball passed through? Cricinfo mentioned it.

Yeah. I was just discussing the point about benefit of the doubt, not the specific decision.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah. I was just discussing the point about benefit of the doubt, not the specific decision.

If the umpire thinks there's a possibility of a faint edge it means there's doubt and he won't give it out. You can't have degrees of doubt, if there's doubt it's not out.

 

[Uppercut]

If the umpire thinks there's a possibility of a faint edge it means there's doubt and he won't give it out. You can't have degrees of doubt, if there's doubt it's not out.

Absolute arse. Rarely have I heard such bollocks. Else the umpires should stand there and say, "well it hit him in line and was going onto the stumps, but suppose it's merely a hallucination occuring to me because someone slipped LSD into my lunch. I can't disprove that possibility... therefore there's doubt. Not out."

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Absolute arse. Rarely have I heard such bollocks. Else the umpires should stand there and say, "well it hit him in line and was going onto the stumps, but suppose it's merely a hallucination occuring to me because someone slipped LSD into my lunch. I can't disprove that possibility... therefore there's doubt. Not out."

I was of course talking within the context of widely regarded and long-standing cricketing logic, that's probably why you didn't recognise it.

 

[social]

Not saying I agree with the comments but when Clarke was given not out before slow-mo replays and hawk-eye were shown, members of the commentary team were initially unsure as to whether it was outside the line or swung too much.

With Bell, it was an obvious howler

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If the umpire thinks there's a possibility of a faint edge it means there's doubt and he won't give it out. You can't have degrees of doubt, if there's doubt it's not out.

Can't agree with that. There are degrees of doubt - for example there is "reasonable doubt", as opposed to doubt which... isn't reasonable or based on anything in particular. If the bat is near the ball, there is the possibility that it hit the edge very faintly and nobody noticed, which is a possible cause of doubt. If there's no actual reason to believe it did though, such as deviation or a noise, it's not reasonable doubt, just a possibility, and the correct decision is out.

The umpire isn't required to have absolutely no doubt and be 100% certain the batsman is out, mainly because it would be impossible to be that certain. The umpire simply has to be convinced that it's not likely the ball hit the bat.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Can't agree with that. There are degrees of doubt - for example there is "reasonable doubt", as opposed to doubt which... isn't reasonable or based on anything in particular. If the bat is near the ball, there is the possibility that it hit the edge very faintly and nobody noticed, which is a possible cause of doubt. If there's no actual reason to believe it did though, such as deviation or a noise, it's not reasonable doubt, just a possibility, and the correct decision is out.

The umpire isn't required to have absolutely no doubt and be 100% certain the batsman is out, mainly because it would be impossible to be that certain. The umpire simply has to be convinced that it's not likely the ball hit the bat.

Well of course he can't think to himself that it was near the bat so there might have been an edge. There has to be some evidence of his own eyes or ears that the edge was there. If he does think he saw or heard a faint edge he gives it not out.

 

[Richard]

Can't agree with that. There are degrees of doubt - for example there is "reasonable doubt", as opposed to doubt which... isn't reasonable or based on anything in particular. If the bat is near the ball, there is the possibility that it hit the edge very faintly and nobody noticed, which is a possible cause of doubt. If there's no actual reason to believe it did though, such as deviation or a noise, it's not reasonable doubt, just a possibility, and the correct decision is out.

The umpire isn't required to have absolutely no doubt and be 100% certain the batsman is out, mainly because it would be impossible to be that certain. The umpire simply has to be convinced that it's not likely the ball hit the bat.

If all doubt had to be eliminated for an out decision to be made then no batsman could ever be given lbw because you can never be totally certain the ball wouldn't have been interrupted by a random current of wind before hitting the stumps after hitting the pads.

Mostly, "doubt" refers to "reasonable doubt".

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If all doubt had to be eliminated for an out decision to be made then no batsman could ever be given lbw because you can never be totally certain the ball wouldn't have been interrupted by a random current of wind before hitting the stumps after hitting the pads.

Mostly, "doubt" refers to "reasonable doubt".

Of course all LBW should be eliminated as you can never be sure that the bails will fall off.

The umpire thinking he saw or heard a faint edge is "reasonable doubt".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well of course he can't think to himself that it was near the bat so there might have been an edge. There has to be some evidence of his own eyes or ears that the edge was there. If he does think he saw or heard a faint edge he gives it not out.

Right, that I agree with. I just don't think an umpire can give an LBW appeal not out because he thinks "wow, that was close to the bat, he might have edged it". He actually has to think he did edge it, or that he probably did.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Right, that I agree with. I just don't think an umpire can give an LBW appeal not out because he thinks "wow, that was close to the bat, he might have edged it". He actually has to think he did edge it, or that he probably did.

Agreed. But when you said "the possibility of a faint edge is too vague", I don't think it is. The umpire would only consider the possibility if he thought he saw or heard it. In that case it would create appropriate "reasonable doubt" in his mind.

 

[pup11]

I'm pretty sure this point might have been raised by now, but still here goes....

ICC has announced that its gonna implement the referral system from October onwards, but I wanna know why couldn't they have just implemented it from this Ashes series itself, its the biggest test series in the cricket calendar, and would have been the perfect platform for them to launch this system.

Its annoying to see so many poor decision being made in such a big series, especially when you know the implementation of the referral system is just around the corner.

 

[zaremba]

Right, that I agree with. I just don't think an umpire can give an LBW appeal not out because he thinks "wow, that was close to the bat, he might have edged it". He actually has to think he did edge it, or that he probably did.

No, he has to be sure that the batsman didn't edge it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, he has to be sure that the batsman didn't edge it.

I understand that it's weighted towards the batsman, but the reverse of what you are saying implies the same thing I was saying. It's not enough in declining an LBW decision for the umpire to think that the batsman might have edged the ball, and he certainly can't be totally sure that he didn't edge it. Benefit of the doubt simply means that if there's some deviation or a noise or some other indication that the batsman probably did edge the ball, the batsman should be given not out. If it's 50/50, for instance. It's not really based off "doubt" simply because doubt can be inspired by just about anything, even the fielding side or the reaction of the batsman. If any doubt in the umpire's mind really led to not out decisions, you'd very rarely see LBWs given.

Benefit of the doubt means that if the umpire doesn't know what happened, he gives the batsman not out. If he's pretty sure that there was no edge, but it's a possibility that there was, as there would be in many LBW appeals, it's still out.

 

[Richard]

I'm pretty sure this point might have been raised by now, but still here goes....

ICC has announced that its gonna implement the referral system from October onwards, but I wanna know why couldn't they have just implemented it from this Ashes series itself, its the biggest test series in the cricket calendar, and would have been the perfect platform for them to launch this system.

Its annoying to see so many poor decision being made in such a big series, especially when you know the implementation of the referral system is just around the corner.

I'm quite glad, because I'm very confident that with the referral system in place what's happened so far would be considerably worse. Time would've been wasted, fuss would've been made about decisions not being overturned that should've been, decisions being overturned that shouldn't have been, and basically everything that has happened with referrals so far in just about every series in which they've been involved.

 

[mat]

IMO it would have been worse to introduce the referal sytem in this series. Being the big series that it is, it would have been under more scrutny then ever, and just as much controversy would surround the test, with more time having been wasted. The system has it's pro's and con's, but it will be difficult to implement a mistake-proof system, and this series wouldnt have been the right time to try.

Also, a bit off topic, but how could of Johnson approached the umpire after that decision. Is it possible to ask the umpire why he thought it wasn't out, as MJ obviously thought it was out. Or is he better off to leave it, and continue on bowling.

 

[Daryl Harper]

IMO it would have been worse to introduce the referal sytem in this series. Being the big series that it is, it would have been under more scrutny then ever, and just as much controversy would surround the test, with more time having been wasted. The system has it's pro's and con's, but it will be difficult to implement a mistake-proof system, and this series wouldnt have been the right time to try.
.

Pure bollocks.