|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 29, 2008 21:21:08 GMT
'There should be NO doubt.'
Ah, but then you'd never give an lbw as there's no way of proving where the ball would have travelled, so lbw doesn't exist. Umpires should never give a batsman out!
No don't worry I'm not being serious; I'm in a provokative mood!
On a more serious note, I wish the MCC would write something in its law book about doubt and favouring the batsman, because apart from the issue of catches carrying, all we are told go act upon are our 'opinions', suggesting an impartial, 50-50 balance of probability method.
Until then, I'll just take everyone's advise and methods on here into consideration. Thank you John and everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jul 30, 2008 9:35:44 GMT
I don't like the view that umpires who 'trigger' get less respect, whether it's true or not. In many cases the umpire will know straight away if it's out or not, run-outs or snicks behind for example. ... When I was asked by one of my partners to 'count to 5' though, before I made a decision, it seemed completely unnatural to me and made me feel uncomfortable. That said, he took so long to make a decision that many fielders assumed it was not out! He's a very good umpire though. While each of us has to adopt a 'system' that doesn't leave us uncomfortable you must be wary of the 'obvious' decisions. A few weeks ago on the last ball of the match - last man facing - there was a flurry, a sound and a massive appeal. I got caught up in the excitement and started to raise my hand, but stopped just in time and thought about it. I wasn't sure that there had been a snick so said 'not out'. As we came off the field my fellow umpire said well umpired and quite a few fielders told me they were glad I hadn't given it out because they realised after that there hadn't been contact with the bat. I think I got more kudos for that than 'giving' the match to the fielders who definitely didn't want the batsmen to hold out for a draw.I think that's quite the right balance to aim for. |
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jul 30, 2008 14:15:33 GMT
One crucial point about giving decisions - it is important to take the same length of time to give every decision .
If you are trigger happy with easy ones and then take a long time over a difficult one, the players will immediately realise that you had some doubts.
If you always pause, then the players will respect every decision equally. It does always give you time to have second thoughts, especially over the snicks close to the body.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Aug 3, 2008 10:48:06 GMT
Good point, Acumen. I deliberately paused over one yesterday before giving it.
I also had one of the most bizarre experiences ever yesterday which I'd like to share. The game was very close and a spinner bowled one that skidded on after pitching and hit the batsman infront on the front-foot. I had a quick look and decided it was out. To my amazement, all I heard were words of encouragement for the bowler and not even a quiet 'how was that'? No appeal whatsoever!
On reflection, I'm quite happy there was no appeal because if there was then I'd have to give it out and it would all seem extremely contraversial. It really was bizarre. I didn't tell anyone except my partner about it though, who said it looked out on height from sq. leg!
|
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Aug 5, 2008 9:37:28 GMT
I also had one of the most bizarre experiences ever yesterday which I'd like to share. The game was very close and a spinner bowled one that skidded on after pitching and hit the batsman infront on the front-foot. I had a quick look and decided it was out. To my amazement, all I heard were words of encouragement for the bowler and not even a quiet 'how was that'? No appeal whatsoever! On reflection, I'm quite happy there was no appeal because if there was then I'd have to give it out and it would all seem extremely contraversial. It really was bizarre. I didn't tell anyone except my partner about it though, who said it looked out on height from sq. leg! I don't see many, if any where there's no appeal for something like this, usually the reverse ;D so I would guess that the bowler and fielders thought that either it hit the bat first or it pitched outside of leg. I gave one "out" and six "not out" on Saturday. However, one of the not-outs may have been wrong; It was from a very fast delivery that struck the pad on the up and was plumb except for in my opinion it would have gone over the top of the stumps. Two balls later and a virtually identical delivery resulted in the batsman missing it, the ball then clipped the top of the middle stump sending the bails flying in all directions. The delivery was so fast that after hitting the stumps the ball leapt up into the air and cleared the boundary "for six"! Amazing, I'd hate to face that bowler! EDIT - What I forgot to add was that if the second delivery had hit the pad I would have given not out as I was convinced the ball was bouncing way over the stumps. It seemed to rise and then "swing" down at the last moment. |
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Aug 5, 2008 14:27:16 GMT
Nope. Bat was hidden behind the pad and hit maybe outside the line off off-stump with a big stride ut hit vey low on the pad and had skidded on from the pitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Aug 5, 2008 17:28:17 GMT
Nope. Bat was hidden behind the pad and hit maybe outside the line off off-stump with a big stride ut hit vey low on the pad and had skidded on from the pitch. That may be the answer. Many players think that if the ball hits the pads outside the line of off stump it is not out. Simply a lack of understanding of the law(s) |
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Aug 5, 2008 18:27:28 GMT
Ha! I see; well it was their loss!
|
|
|
|
Post by TrueDub on Aug 6, 2008 8:50:58 GMT
Simply a lack of understanding of the law(s) I'm sure we can all agree that assuming the players know the laws is futile! Several times I've explained my decision and got a response along the lines of "I didn't know that/I didn't think about that/That's not the rule!"...  |
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Aug 6, 2008 21:32:53 GMT
Simply a lack of understanding of the law(s) I had to explain to a bowler this evening that part of his front foot had to land behind the popping crease. He plays a couple of times a week! I suppose he's used to player umpires. |
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Aug 7, 2008 20:36:36 GMT
Simply a lack of understanding of the law(s) Better than that I stood in a County Youth match where the opening bowler consistently landed his back foot on or over (I mean well over) the return crease. I spoke to him and his Coach at drinks. They said they understood the problem, but he bowled there to avoid knocking the stumps at the bowlers end over. What!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Aug 7, 2008 23:27:18 GMT
Um, just to clarify you did call each one a No Ball?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Aug 8, 2008 8:08:27 GMT
Um, just to clarify you did call each one a No Ball? Most of them. I wanted to go home that night!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Aug 9, 2008 8:59:56 GMT
Nope. Bat was hidden behind the pad and hit maybe outside the line off off-stump with a big stride ut hit vey low on the pad and had skidded on from the pitch. That may be the answer. Many players think that if the ball hits the pads outside the line of off stump it is not out. Simply a lack of understanding of the law(s) Indeed that's the case. They don't understand the playing a shot / not playing a shot rule. Most players at our level, in my experience have to see the batsman shouldering arms before they think no shot has been played. It's the same for leg byes; on several occasions I've sent the batsmen back because the striker tucked his bat behind his pad and in my opinion wasn't trying to hit the ball. Often in these cases the batsman has complained that "I didn't lift my bat ump"...  As has been said, hoping for understanding is futile. |
|
hk
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by hk on May 5, 2009 9:53:50 GMT
In addition to the "Tick Box" approach I would consider and take into account the point of
delivery and the mvement of the ball in the air.
HK
|
|
