|
|
Post by viswajith on Oct 11, 2012 8:00:19 GMT
at a very crucial stage of a match,fielders appealed for a caught behind.....spinner was bowling and while the batsman swept,the ball clearly came off the top edge of the bat after hitting the pad...bowler's end umpire's view was completely blocked by the bowler....he came to me and consult on the fact...after that he gave it out..here,ultimately right decision is made..is there anything wrong in such consultations?
|
|
|
|
Post by ankush94 on Oct 11, 2012 11:57:24 GMT
Perfectly all right.
In fact a textbook case of Law 27.6 in practice.
Law 27.6 "............If the umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision........."
New Zealand cricket has made it an SOP since 1999.
So long as it's done promptly and doesn't appear to be the result of undue pressure from fielders.
|
|
|
|
Post by viswajith on Oct 12, 2012 1:26:09 GMT
thank you ankush for your view.....
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Oct 13, 2012 10:51:24 GMT
I don't know if what Ankush94 has to say is right.
Cricket New Zealand's training material on Law 27 'Appeals' says... Consultation can take place on 'point of fact.. did the ball carry to the fielder...'
Again on Law 32 Caught, they say, 'better position to see the catch'.
Regardless of the practice in NZ, I, for one, wouldn't consult to ascertain whether or not the ball has been played with the bat.
|
|
|
|
Post by ankush94 on Oct 19, 2012 17:07:46 GMT
Mr Singh,
Why wouldn't you consult?
|
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Oct 19, 2012 18:33:45 GMT
I agree it's somewhat unusual to ask your colleague for help with "did he hit it?", but I can't see why you shouldn't. With a conventional catch behind, you not likely to get much help, but in this situation it sounds like the right decision was made all round.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Oct 21, 2012 7:22:13 GMT
Dear Ankush94,
Quite simply been taught and do believe that the umpire at the striker's end is not in a 'better position see the action or point of fact' and to be able offer a trustable opinion on a decision of caught behind.
He will rely only on sound which, at the best of times, is an unreliable parameter because the causes of sound can be many as one finds out as one gathers experience in umpiring. You must yourself have realised how unreliable sound is.
I would consider the practice not only 'unusual' but 'improper and unsafe' as a practice.
Once in a while, one would give the correct decision after consultation but, on the whole one would end up on the wrong side. Furthermore, such a 'consultation umpire' is considered indecisive and lacking in confidence.
Another question is 'Where do you draw the line with consultation?' It can easily get out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Oct 21, 2012 15:14:05 GMT
Before the present No Ball laws, once when I was standing at striker's end, we had a situation in which the ball bounced very high on the leg side.
The striker swung round, followed the ball through, playing an overhead tennis shot straight into the keeper's gloves. I am not sure whether there was much noise and my colleague would not have seen any visible deviation as the striker and his bat obscured his view.
The contact was clearly visible to me but my colleague gave Not Out without consultation - and not even time to see whether the striker walked - which, judging from subsequent body language and comments, he probably would have done.
There are other situations with leg sweeps where the same would apply.
Striker's End Umpire will also see upward deflections on the offside better than Bowler's End, although he may not know what the ball has hit.
You should treat each situation on its merits. If you are unsighted and you think that your colleague has a better view of the critical point, then do ask.
Thinking players do respect such consultation more than guessing and getting it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Oct 22, 2012 0:00:24 GMT
I agree with Acumen - There's nothing wrong with ultimately giving the right decision! Of course if you do ask the strikers end umpire and he is at all uncertain that the ball was struck with bat or glove then the decision is obviously not out. In most cases both umpires would have heard the same sound, so we would only be asking the strikers end umpire what made that sound, so I can't see that there's any possibility of giving a batsman out without cause if the strikers end umpire is certain about what he saw.
|
|
|
|
Post by viswajith on Oct 22, 2012 6:19:53 GMT
thank you Acumen and reggie Duff for your views......
|
|
|
|
Post by ankush94 on Oct 22, 2012 15:12:01 GMT
Amen.
|
|
gully
Regular Contributor
Posts: 14
|
Post by gully on Oct 23, 2012 12:33:48 GMT
If the bowler was blocking my view I wouldn't give the batsman out on principle, with a sorry I can't see through you, therefore I cannot give him out, there's no need to consult in my view, as there is nothing I can consult about as I coudn't see the incident
regarding Law 27.6 "............If the umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision........."
I wouldn't be in any doubt, that I couldn't see!! and that's the bowlers error not mine
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on Oct 23, 2012 15:06:18 GMT
I may be allowed to stand with what I have stated.
I might clarify, nowhere do I justify guessing. Not seen, not heard is not out. In my view, a consultation to ask whether the ball was hit by the bat is a no-no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Oct 23, 2012 21:30:33 GMT
Gully - I had an incident last year when the batsman played a square cut off a leg spinner. Although I heard the noise very clearly I was unsighted by the bowler who was following through on an acceptable path, but as the ball was played quite wide of the stumps he was between me and the bat/ball at the time of impact. My colleague was at point as it was late afternoon and the sun was a problem at his end. I had absolutely no hesitation in asking him if he saw what made the noise - had he said he was unsure I would obviously given the batsman not out, but as he clearly saw the ball hit the bat, and the keeper take the clean catch I rightly gave the batsman out. All players on the field were very happy with this - fielding side because they got their wicket and batting side because the umpires had consulted to get the correct decision.
We can go it alone and give the wrong decision on occasions, or consult to get the right decision. I ask you Gully & MrSingh, if you were on the field that day, would you rather see the wrong decision, or have the umpire swallow a tiny bit of pride and consult?
We are there to make as many correct decisions as is humanly possible, and I think it is just plain bad umpiring to give not out on "principle"
|
|
|
|
Post by viswajith on Oct 24, 2012 2:44:04 GMT
agree with you Reggie Duff....
|
|
