|
Post by nompere on Feb 16, 2015 9:11:04 GMT
World Cup 2015 - Australia Vs England Match.
James Taylor was given out for LBW and it was appealed by Taylor for a review. 3rd umpire reviewed & cleared NOT OUT. It was a perfect decision. Accordingly he should have been allowed continuing his batting. After the clearance as not out, again reviewing and given out as 'Run Out'.
ICC has accepted this as a umpiring error & apologized for the same. The Umpires in questions are senior & experience umpires & can’t think they were not aware of the law / playing conditions including TV umpire, absolute no chance.
So was it a match pressure , ignorance.. just a bad day in office ..any thoughts or any such examples ? Might be a good learning.
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Feb 16, 2015 11:43:18 GMT
I suspect that it was an unusual and unfamiliar situation, arising at the end of a long day's cricket, where the umpiring team (including the match referee) managed to collectively drop the ball.
We probably all know from experience that it's harder to think straight at the end of a day's umpiring than the beginning and, if we're honest, we probably don't have word-for-word knowledge of all the Laws and Regulations of the competitions that we umpire. most useful tak-away is probably a reminder to have all relevant regulations easily accessible, and have the confidence to say "I need to check the relevant small print" before taking any actions if you're not 100% sure
|
|
|
Post by nompere on Feb 17, 2015 6:42:54 GMT
Well Said... !! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Feb 18, 2015 9:08:24 GMT
Surely that is the point of all their training and selection.
Top officials should not make basic mistakes.
I am quite amazed that between four or five of them (on field, off field, referee), no-one challenged it.
At the very least it must be reflected in their marks for future consideration.
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Feb 18, 2015 9:41:51 GMT
You would think that's the case Colin, but I feel the reason for my own disillusionment with umpiring is borne out knowing that it doesn't matter how good your ability, and how brilliant your decisions may be, the over-riding premise that if your face fits, you will rise to the top, but if it doesn't, then you will stay rooted near the foot of the tree.
|
|
|
Post by nompere on Feb 19, 2015 7:17:25 GMT
There is one more aspect to it.
ICC playing condition says :
Dead Ball :
a) If following a Player Review request, an original decision of ‘Out’ is changed to ‘Not Out’, then the ball is still deemed to have become dead when the original decision was made (as per Law 23.1(a)(iii)). The batting side, while benefiting from the reversal of the dismissal, will not benefit from any runs that may subse-quently have accrued from the delivery had the on-field umpire originally made a ‘Not Out’ decision, other than any No Balls penalty that could arise under 3.3 (g) above.
b) If an original decision of ‘Not Out’ is changed to ‘Out’, the ball will retrospectively be deemed to have become dead from the moment of the dismissal event. All subsequent events, including any runs scored, are ignored.
Not sure I'm right in thinking that this is a flawed law , take an example : In a Final match , ONE ball ONE run needs to be taken and batsman clearly edges that for one run which he successfully completes. But umpire gives out LBW , the batsman goes for the review & which is overturned in DRS. Will you deny the batting team the winning run because the ball became dead due to a mistake by umpire ? Which doesn't look fair. This is where the DRS is available.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Feb 19, 2015 7:57:19 GMT
... Not sure I'm right in thinking that this is a flawed law .... Let's not forget that this isn't a Law - it's another example of the mess that cricket gets itself into by having so many variations and deviations from the Laws themselves.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Feb 19, 2015 9:07:50 GMT
Hear hear
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Feb 20, 2015 9:34:44 GMT
Perhaps the regulations should say that, in the event of an umpire giving the batsman out and then DRS reverses this, then the ball should be cancelled completely and bowled again.
I would certainly like to see Dead Ball Law amended to say that if the umpire does change his mind (no necessarily as a result of DRS!), then the ball is regarded as Dead from the moment he gives his decision rather than the instant of dismissal. This is because his original decision does influence subsequent play.
Thinking more about it, I have not seen footage of the actual incident - Did the finger go up before the ball struck the stumps?
We also have a more common parallel incident in domestic cricket. How often has an umpire signalled a boundary and then been told he was wrong? What happens then to the batsmen stranded in middle of wicket when ball is returned and a run out attempted? Hopefully common sense prevails but I am aware of several disasters over the years!
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Feb 20, 2015 9:41:28 GMT
But if you had an automatic dead ball and replay of the delivery after a DRS reversal, you'd have the potential situation, where, with 6 to win off the last ball, the fielding side would have an incentive to not appeal for an LBW, just in case an out decision got reversed and gave the batting side another chance to win the game. If there's no appeal, there can't be an out decision to get reversed in the first place
|
|
|
Post by nompere on Feb 24, 2015 11:32:18 GMT
Very rightly said. But even having an automatic dead ball , going for the review and later found the decesion to be reversed defeat the purpose of having the DRS as its having the impact on the match result in the given example where One run required from 1 ball. Not sure what is the best possible solution may be to consider all the actions till the ball ceases to be dead instead to cancel the ball. I guess this would bring more complexity
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Mar 9, 2015 23:36:46 GMT
What seems to have been missed in this discussion is that the original decision was Out, which under both the Laws and ICC regs (see post by Ganesh K above) meant that the ball was dead from that moment. This decision was appealed and overturned. Only then did the umpire at square leg get in on the act and call for a review of a potential run out at his end (of the non striker)—a totally separate event that came AFTER the ball originally became dead. This is the decision that was mucked up by the umpires. And never mind excuses about a long day. It has always been the case in cricket that there can be no double play. Surely every umpire who ever took the field knew from the start of his/her career that the ball becomes dead when a wicket falls. Yet these three high level umpires allowed a breach of this fundamental.
It was obvious, watching on TV, that Taylor knew the ball should have been dead—lip-reading made this pretty clear—but his protests appeared to be ignored by the umpires on the field. Even the TV commentators knew, for once! The question is, why did three umpires allow such a farce to occur? I'm glad to see that the ICC at least acknowledged it was an umpiring error, but on the scale of errors it was a shocker.
|
|
|
Post by OlympicPolemic on Jul 9, 2016 3:58:09 GMT
Perhaps the perfect reason for reserving your decision until action has died down...
|
|