Cricket

[tigersnake]

Not all decisions can be conclusive as a lot of what happens is an assumption. I go back to what you said in the 1st post, you said isn't DRS designed to avoid a howler, well the one you called out wasn't a howler based on the current rules.

Also, if you take out impact in line with the stumps, you may as well do away with hitting the ball on an LBW. There are numerous times, when a batsman gets the finest touch on the ball, ball still going to hit the stumps but not out as batsman hit it. If it doesn't hit the pads, he's out chopping on right.

There are numerous issues like this in cricket but these are borderline decisions.

we disagree. to be clear I'm just enjoying the discussion.

OK so he're what we agree on.

1) DRS couldn't overturn because of hitting outside the line. Umps call, we agree, and we both agree its problematic.

2) we agree that if the ump had given it out on-field, it would also have been umps call and would have been out. (jb disagrees so we could be wrong on that).

what we disagree on, is that I think it was a howler, you don't. IMO not line ball at all, not even close, as I said, by eye, by tracker, slamming into leg stump, cartwheeling it out even. Nothing borderline about it. So for me the farce is that it cant be overturned. I understand why it can't be, but I think its a farce it cant be when the ball is obviously hitting the stumps.

well done on the win. Stokes is a great player.

 

[TigerForce]

Womens Rugby Union WC final on Friday - lost
Mens Rugby League Semi yesterday - lost
Mens T20 world cup final - finally won one

Big choke against Samoa yesterday, I'll give you that.

At least my Scouser BIL was happy enough today with Liverpool winning again, Man City losing and his 53rd birthday.

 

[mrposhman]

we disagree. to be clear I'm just enjoying the discussion.

OK so he're what we agree on.

1) DRS couldn't overturn because of hitting outside the line. Umps call, we agree, and we both agree its problematic.

2) we agree that if the ump had given it out on-field, it would also have been umps call and would have been out. (jb disagrees so we could be wrong on that).

what we disagree on, is that I think it was a howler, you don't. IMO not line ball at all, not even close, as I said, by eye, by tracker, slamming into leg stump, cartwheeling it out even. Nothing borderline about it. So for me the farce is that it cant be overturned. I understand why it can't be, but I think its a farce it cant be when the ball is obviously hitting the stumps.

well done on the win. Stokes is a great player.

The point is, it can't be a howler if there is an umpires call adjudication. I get that you don't like the rule, but you've had to have the impact with pad in line with the stumps since god was a boy. This isn't a one off, there have been calls like this for decades. I agree it was very clearly going to hit the wickets, but as per the rules, thats not the only thing that needs to be ticked off.

As I said, we've all seen for our own teams, LBW's that by the naked eye are clearly hitting the stumps, but either the impact isn't in line, or for example, the ball pitches outside of off stump. They are the rules and the decision was in line with the rules (and was borderline) hence why you cannot regard it as a howler.

Maybe the rule needs changing, but as per the current rules, its not a howler.

 

[tigersnake]

The point is, it can't be a howler if there is an umpires call adjudication. I get that you don't like the rule, but you've had to have the impact with pad in line with the stumps since god was a boy. This isn't a one off, there have been calls like this for decades. I agree it was very clearly going to hit the wickets, but as per the rules, thats not the only thing that needs to be ticked off.

As I said, we've all seen for our own teams, LBW's that by the naked eye are clearly hitting the stumps, but either the impact isn't in line, or for example, the ball pitches outside of off stump. They are the rules and the decision was in line with the rules (and was borderline) hence why you cannot regard it as a howler.

Maybe the rule needs changing, but as per the current rules, its not a howler.

But its not a howler due to a technicality, In reality its a howler.

That was the point of my orig post, DRS meant to eliminate howlers, and it eliminates most howlers, but it doesn't eliminate that particular howler.

and yes and no, before DRS if they ump thought it was hitting the stumps they gave it out. Yes they were more likely to give it out in line, but if its obviously hitting the stumps but not in line, like tonight, they'd give it out. The DRS was muddied the waters unnecessarily on that IMO. And yes there have been calls like this for years, and there have also been calls like mine saying its a farce for years, and from experts I mean not just mugs like me.

 

[mrposhman]

But its not a howler due to a technicality, In reality its a howler.

That was the point of my orig post, DRS meant to eliminate howlers, and it eliminates most howlers, but it doesn't eliminate that particular howler.

and yes and no, before DRS if they ump thought it was hitting the stumps they gave it out. Yes they were more likely to give it out in line, but if its obviously hitting the stumps but not in line, like tonight, they'd give it out. The DRS was muddied the waters unnecessarily on that IMO. And yes there have been calls like this for years, and there have also been calls like mine saying its a farce for years, and from experts I mean not just mugs like me.

No they wouldn't. They have always not given LBW's out if the impact was outside the line or pitching outside the line. They haven't suddenly changed the way umpires look at decisions just because DRS is there. You could easily go back 20 years and see decisions not given out by umpires because of their impact or where they pitched.

 

[DavidSSS]

Tigersnake, you do sound like you are missing the point. I didn't see the ball or the game, but to be out LBW the ball must hit the pad in line with the stumps and would have hit the stumps if the pad wasn't in the way. Thems the rules, it isn't a technicality, both aspects (in line and going to hit the stumps) are equally important. Before DRS an umpire would adjudicate not out if the ball was going to hit the stumps but hit the pad outside the line of the stumps. The only way the umpire would have called it out is if the umpire adjudicated that the ball hit the pad in line with the stumps, nothing to do with DRS.

Pity about the result, would have liked to see Pakistan win.

DS

 

[mrposhman]

Its only taken all night, but finally seems like Iain Smith has realised that Buttlers name is Jos and not Josh,

 

[tigersnake]

No they wouldn't. They have always not given LBW's out if the impact was outside the line or pitching outside the line. They haven't suddenly changed the way umpires look at decisions just because DRS is there. You could easily go back 20 years and see decisions not given out by umpires because of their impact or where they pitched.

Not always. As I said, in most cases yes, but in some cases, like tonight, it can and should be given out, and its always been thus. The ump had a reason not to give it out, but the right decision was out. and the DRS would have backed him.

 

[tigersnake]

Tigersnake, you do sound like you are missing the point. I didn't see the ball or the game, but to be out LBW the ball must hit the pad in line with the stumps and would have hit the stumps if the pad wasn't in the way. Thems the rules, it isn't a technicality, both aspects (in line and going to hit the stumps) are equally important. Before DRS an umpire would adjudicate not out if the ball was going to hit the stumps but hit the pad outside the line of the stumps. The only way the umpire would have called it out is if the umpire adjudicated that the ball hit the pad in line with the stumps, nothing to do with DRS.

Pity about the result, would have liked to see Pakistan win.

DS

Hit the batman on the full.

 

[mrposhman]

This could be approaching AFL level farcical.

The player voted Player of the Tournament (Sam Curran) doesn't make the team of the tournament. How is that even possible???

ICC T20 World Cup team of the tournament announced - NewsWire

The ICC T20WorldCup   Team of the Tournament has also been announced today. 1. Alex Hales 2. Jos Buttler 3. Virat KohliContinue Reading

www.newswire.lk

 

[DavidSSS]

Hit the batsman on the full.

In line with the stumps? I never mentioned where it pitched.

DS

 

[mrposhman]

In line with the stumps? I never mentioned where it pitched.

DS

On the full, left arm bowler to a right handed batsmen so ball was swinging in towards the stumps. The impact was outside the line, both from eyesight and confirmed by DRS hence why it was called umpires call.

I get why snake is annoyed by it, but the rules are right there. If it hits the batsman outside of the line (and it was umpires call so was close and therefore not a howler) then its not out regardless of where the ball is going. Snakes just so focused on the ball hitting the stumps that he's ignoring the rest of the rule.

 

[TT33]

On the full, left arm bowler to a right handed batsmen so ball was swinging in towards the stumps. The impact was outside the line, both from eyesight and confirmed by DRS hence why it was called umpires call.

I get why snake is annoyed by it, but the rules are right there. If it hits the batsman outside of the line (and it was umpires call so was close and therefore not a howler) then its not out regardless of where the ball is going. Snakes just so focused on the ball hitting the stumps that he's ignoring the rest of the rule.

And that has been the rule for many many years.

 

[tigersnake]

On the full, left arm bowler to a right handed batsmen so ball was swinging in towards the stumps. The impact was outside the line, both from eyesight and confirmed by DRS hence why it was called umpires call.

I get why snake is annoyed by it, but the rules are right there. If it hits the batsman outside of the line (and it was umpires call so was close and therefore not a howler) then its not out regardless of where the ball is going. Snakes just so focused on the ball hitting the stumps that he's ignoring the rest of the rule.

I'm not ignoring the rest of the rule. I understand why DRS said umps call. BUT, if the ump had given it out, it would have stayed out after DRS appeal, as you have agreed previously, right?

 

[tigersnake]

And that has been the rule for many many years.

I understand the DRS rule, I understand its been that way for many years.

 

[tigersnake]

In line with the stumps? I never mentioned where it pitched.

DS

Ump asked himself 2 questions, (well 3 actually did he hit it but no chance of that here)

1. would the ball have hit the stumps? to the naked eye, Emphatic yes. Cricinfo agreed with me, 'ball was smashing into the stumps'. Ball would have taken out leg, and after a second viewing, possibly clipped middle.

2. Was it hitting the batsman in line? to the naked eye, well maybe, maybe not, close. DRS showed no.

Ump gives it not out, DRS says hitting the stumps, but umps call cos outside line

Ump gives it out, DRS says hitting the stumps, but hitting batsman only just outside the line so umps call.

Morally he was out, technically he wasn't, I get it. But ump could have gone either way, and went the pissweak way, only IMO.

Technically not a howler, morally a howler.

 

[DavidSSS]

Ump could not go either way, ump made a call and said it hit outside the line. You can hypothesise about what would have happened if the ump called it hitting the batsman in line, but he didn't. The reason the ump (presumably) said he thought it hit outside the line of the stumps is because that is what he observed.

Morally, not out if the ump does not think the ball hit in line with the stumps.

Ump could not have gone either way, ump called what he observed.

The only way the ump would have called it out is if he thought it hit the batsman in line with the stumps, he did not think that. The hypothetical is not even hypothetical, it is not a case of what if, it is a case of what was observed by the ump.

DS

 

[RoarEmotion]

The only reason it can be an LBW if it doesn’t hit in line is if the batsman doesn’t offer a shot. Even then it has to hit outside off.

It’s not a debate or interpretation. Google the LBW rule.

 

[mrposhman]

Ump asked himself 2 questions, (well 3 actually did he hit it but no chance of that here)

1. would the ball have hit the stumps? to the naked eye, Emphatic yes. Cricinfo agreed with me, 'ball was smashing into the stumps'. Ball would have taken out leg, and after a second viewing, possibly clipped middle.

2. Was it hitting the batsman in line? to the naked eye, well maybe, maybe not, close. DRS showed no.

Ump gives it not out, DRS says hitting the stumps, but umps call cos outside line

Ump gives it out, DRS says hitting the stumps, but hitting batsman only just outside the line so umps call.

Morally he was out, technically he wasn't, I get it. But ump could have gone either way, and went the pissweak way, only IMO.

Technically not a howler, morally a howler.

You have it round the wrong way. The umpire asks himself 1 question.

1 - Did it hit him in line with the stumps.

He didn't make a "pissweak" call as you call it. He made the decision that his eyes told him (and what my initial thought was too.

This isn't something new, or just specific to England or Jos Buttler (but you seem to be making that way for some reason), players have been given not out for decades to balls that were going on to hit the stumps but ended up hitting the pad.

Just going back to 1 example I mentioned earlier, Warnies ball of the century. Had that clipped Gattings pad and missed the stumps, you realise he would have been given not out right? Its been happening for a long time and therefore is not a howler (technically or morally), its specifically the laws of the game. Thats it, hard and cold facts.

The reason why it could be given not out or out based on the same trajectory is due to the initial statement that you made about this one. "Isn't DRS supposed to come in to prevent the howler", yes it sure is, but its not designed to completely over rule the umpire. If the decision is too close to call by the technology (ie. the full ball isn't missing the stumps, the full ball didn't hit him outside the line), then the DRS will provide umpires call as its clearly not a howler, its a close call and on close calls they will always go with the on field umpire (as they have since cricket was invented).

I'm still not really sure why you are making so much of this, its not a one off type decision, these decisions have been going on for decades where the ball does or might hit the stumps, but if the ball doesn't impact in front of the stumps its completely irrelevant where the ball then goes.

 

[tigersnake]

You're not listening.

Hitting the stumps undoubtedly, emphatically, unequivocally. Cold hard fact. As crinonfo, not only me, smashing into them.

Hit him outside the line, only just.

Ump gives him out, it's out. That's a fact.

If it hit him a foot outside the line , even half a foot, I'd agree fully.

It's not completely irrelevant where the ball goes. As above, it can depend on other factors, as above, and also if the batsman offered a shot. Foot outside line yes. Only just but hitting the stumps and given out no.

On the howler thing, lm not sure how much clearer I can be. I don't disagree with you, but I look at it differently. Technically a not a howler, morally a howler. Ump could have given it out, and IMO should have. We disagree. That's fine, that's one of the reasons why cricket is interesting.

Disagree on the number 1 question too.

Also I generally agree re gatting ball, it would not have been out, but I don't think it's cut and dried as you. You could argue MG didn't offer a shot. But its apples and oranges in any case, it would have hit MG a foot outside the line, it hit Salty a bees *smile* outside the line.