The Ashes: 1st Test, Trent Bridge

First topic message reminder :

England:
Alastair Cook*, Joe Root, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, Jonny Bairstow,
Matt Prior†, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Steven Finn, James Anderson

Australia:
Shane Watson, Chris Rogers, Ed Cowan, Michael Clarke*, Steve Smith, Phil Hughes,
Brad Haddin†, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, James Pattinson, Ashton Agar

In the long run whats the better system- wait around for 100 innings untill another 100% clear cut chance comes along that isnt picked up by an umpire that may only save a few runs anyway or try and take out a top batsmen!

Lets be honest here - Cook not reviewing Roots out decision could have just as easily cost us the game as well- In fact that one is clearly more Important

mystiroakey wrote:"From what I understand there is a margin for error with hawkeye so 'kissing the stump' on hawkeye could easily be missing the stump hence 'umpire's call'. I think that margin may have reduced since its introduction but I think that's why we have it."

That is not a valid enough reason to have umpires call- just use the tech and reduce the stump size on hawkeye, decrease the ball size or allocate a percentage of the ball.

That was a pretty ridiculous thing to say mysti. If the solutions were that simple then don't you think hawkeye would have implemented them by now?

Ball size, stump size etc and nothing to do with it. It's all about predicting ball trajectory and with all predictions there is likely to be some error.

also think umps should communicate as to why they gave it NO. If he gave it NO because he thought it pitched outside leg, but hitting stumps, there is no reason it should stay NO, if its pitched in line, But the stumps are Umpires Call

kingraf wrote:Live - Im actually a huge fan of DRS, but umpires call is still a cop out... If kissing could mean missing, then kissing could actually be crashing into off-stump, correct? Thus the umpires call could still be a howler?  

No, the margin for error is not that great else the system would not be in use.

Kinggraf hitting the stumps is a predictive part. pitching in line is pretty much 100% tracked and proven, thats why we go to umpires call on the stumps but not on the pitch.

I dont agree with the above but that is the point behind it.. we just have to make the stumps smaller to deal with a margin of error and take out umpires call on stumps as well

liverbnz wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"From what I understand there is a margin for error with hawkeye so 'kissing the stump' on hawkeye could easily be missing the stump hence 'umpire's call'. I think that margin may have reduced since its introduction but I think that's why we have it."

That is not a valid enough reason to have umpires call- just use the tech and reduce the stump size on hawkeye, decrease the ball size or allocate a percentage of the ball.

That was a pretty ridiculous thing to say mysti. If the solutions were that simple then don't you think hawkeye would have implemented them by now?

Ball size, stump size etc and nothing to do with it. It's all about predicting ball trajectory and with all predictions there is likely to be some error.

 not sure you understand what is being said to be honest. what do you think i am saying?


this has nothing to do with hawkeye at all. They dont have to implement any thing- its about the rules of cricket accepting a  margin of error and only saying something is out when say 5% of the ball hits any part of the stump(so if 4% hits the stump we give the batsman the benfit);.. to show this on screen for better TV viewing we could reduce the ball size or stump size so we could see a gap instead!

What I mean is if the umpire thinks its hitting, but didnt think its pitching in line, then I cant see why it shouldnt be given out, long as it pitches in line. Even if impact is Umpires call, since the umpires call was that its hitting the stump.

You tell me. Reduce the stump or ball size on hawkeye? right?

just read the above. its very simple- what is it are you trying to say?
 
and what is it you are not getting?

Live, to my knowledge, cricket stumps are not that wide, the difference between kissing and missing doesnt greatly exceed the difference between kissing and crashing into... I'd have to check HE's variables though, but its late..

And HE's physics at 1AM is like staring into the sun!

I've read it and repeated it and it makes no sense but then it's late.

Liver seems to thing the margin of error isnt that big.
From what i can remeber this is the margin of error..

95% of the time it can predict it to 99% accuracy

so thats 19 out of 20 deliverys the ball will be within 1% of the balls position , however 1 in 20 it wont.

its not perfect yet , but that is pretty good. what ever it is its a lot better than the umpire and hey it will produce consitant results that cant be argued..

but i still think we need to say that knicks on the stumps are NO due to this margin of error- a certain percentage must hit

liver

its just about using hawkeye and getting rid of umpires call. however when we use hawkeye if 5% or less of the ball clips the stumps only its not out- if more hits the stumps then its out.. at the moment we use umpires call on anything that is 50% or less.

kingraf wrote:And HE's physics at 1AM is like staring into the sun!    

I think they quote it at 3.6mm out but then there was that incident as Wimbledon a few years ago which had it out be more. Cricket stumps are obviously wider 1.5 inches I think but the ICC have left marginal calls with the onfield umpire which I think is the right thing to so if not the perfect solution. hawkeye is more than likely to be right but umpire's call takes precedence unless clear evidence otherwise. Clipping a stump via technological prediction that has a margin for error is not deemed clear by the ICC which I think is fair enough.

The 50% isnt a safety option, in case the system doesnt work properly. Its simply there to save face for an umpire.

I get why, LBW is probably the hardest call to consistently make in sport, I just feel that losing a review, is wrong.

There is a lot of muddled thinking around on drs.

For over a century Test cricket survived on the opinion of the trained umpire in the middle. Often enough he made a mistake but players and fans had to live with it. In fact a lot of errors were really only known to the players involved as the view from the boundary line was not good enough , but one frequently saw from the furious batsman's reaction that something was amiss...

Then came close up TV replays and slo mo and other gadgets , which highlighted umpiring errors , and so TV assistance gradually crept into decision making , starting with line calls and moving on to the current system : helping to get greater accuracy , yes ; but perhaps more importantly avoiding the really obvious disastrously wrong decision. The run out , (out by a yard ) , the lbw pitching six inches outside leg stump , the pad to leg gully with bat nowhere near the ball...and the review system generally saves us now from all those.

The problem is that people have somehow turned this into a quest for perfection. Perfection that is unattainable , and that we really don't need ...it is a bloody game for heaven's sake !

If we accept that some errors will always occur in any human endeavor , and that judicious use of technology can help keep these errors to a minimum , a lot of the angst surrounding this issue goes away.

Not overturning marginal on field decisions ...sensible.
Degree of tolerance on Hawkeye lbw...sensible.
Limit to two reviews each...sensible , and would work better if selfish batsmen and desperate or gambling captains didn't wilfully waste their chances on speculative tries. The odd case like this one might help reinforce that lesson , though human nature being what it is it won't change much...

Personally I would sooner have umpires with the responsibility of checking when they aren't quite sure ...perhaps leave just one appeal per team , per match , in case of a totally crazy error...but I am happy enough with the current set up.

Just don't all go ballistics when the occasional human error arrives , as it will...just like death and taxes...

Yup, your words are true regarding the survival of this game for over a century without these gadgets or TV or else. For now we have all these, we need to reduce the errors. We can't be 100% prefect. Though regarding this set up, yup many a time you can't get the review all your way. A batsman has nicked or not while going for an LBW review will never be known to fielding captain if it is not thick.

Just like now Umpires review the No ball after a batsman got out, they can also go for many such decision when they feel like they are not sure. Giving the task of challenge in the hands of the team is just like a gamble, apart from nicking the ball a batsman will never ever know whether he is out or not. They just give a chance and many a time is goes in their favor and many a time against. So this one is the Gamble. Its a game and giving every thing in the hands of umpire will be most suitable, Every thing means review also.

Well the ongoing Ashes raised the question on LBW and DRS. Regarding LBW many a time a batsman is out but umpire thinks he is not and the batsman plays the next ball. That what happened when a ball from Agar hit Broad way outside off stump and he was not offering a shot and according to hawk eye the ball was hitting the stumps, so legally he was out, but not given, there what Aussies were disappointed and they had not any review left. Again Broad edged a ball and was caught out in slips and was not given out. Umpire should refer themselves instead of the players when they think they are not sure.

Dinesh Ramadi was banned for 2 matches for claiming a catch he "might" have known was not fair....
not acting in the spirit of criket is a bannable offense
The key here is did the batsman Broad here know he had hit the ball with the bat??

if yes then Stuart Braod should be banned for two matches....as per the precendece below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/westindies/10110860/Champions-Trophy-2013-West-Indian-wicketkeeper-Denesh-Ramdin-suspended-for-two-games-over-false-catch.html

Ramdin, the West Indies vice-captain, was hit with the severest penalty for a level 2 offence under the International Cricket Council code of conduct. He pleaded not guilty at a hearing in London on Monday and has 24 hours to appeal.

“This is regarded as a serious offence as it is the responsibility of all players to act in the spirit of the game,” Chris Broad, the ICC match referee, said. “I hope Mr Ramdin has learnt his lesson from this incident and that we will not see such behaviour by him or any player in the future.”

liverbnz wrote:

kingraf wrote:And HE's physics at 1AM is like staring into the sun!    

I think they quote it at 3.6mm out but then there was that incident as Wimbledon a few years ago which had it out be more. Cricket stumps are obviously wider 1.5 inches I think but the ICC have left marginal calls with the onfield umpire which I think is the right thing to so if not the perfect solution. hawkeye is more than likely to be right but umpire's call takes precedence unless clear evidence otherwise. Clipping a stump via technological prediction that has a margin for error is not deemed clear by the ICC which I think is fair enough.

Liver I really am not sure why you are bringing up tennis.. Hawkeye is not used as a predictive technology in tennis.. It is clearly very different in cricket when we discuss the lbw's and hitting the wicket, Please dont use the tracking margin of error(however this does at least tell me where your confusion lies).. I have tried to explain above and last night. Maybe not well enough- that is clearly not my strength!!, refer to google!

using the laws that were used to ban Dinesh Ramadin.....Holding has called  for Broad to be banned

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2362314/Ashes-2013-Stuart-Broad-banned-says-Michael-Holding.html?ico=sport%5Eheadlines

What Stuart Broad did amounts to the same thing as Ramdin," Holding said.

"He knew he had hit the ball. The ICC fined Ramdin and suspended him for 'actions that were contrary to the spirit of the game'.

"That is not the only thing which is contrary to the spirit of the game.

"What Stuart Broad did is contrary to the spirit of the game. He played the ball and stayed there."

well it is fair enough I suppose KP. maybe time to set a presedent



On the other hand- the problem remains- where and how do we draw the line on nicks!!

How much of a nick is needed before someone has to walk..  

This would be a minefield which cricket does not need..

Sort out the umpiring and start using the technology we have avaialble with common sense is the VERY CLEAR ANSWER!

Broad is allowed to wait for the umpire to give.

If he hadn't edged it clearly, and been given out without a review left, would Clarke had called him back?

Comparisons between claiming a catch and waiting to be given out are silly.

the issue here is not following spirit of cricket is deemed a bannable offence by ICC

if stuart broad can put his hand on heart and with a clear conscience say he had not known he had hit that ball and if ICC believes that.....then case is closed.

else following the ramadin precendence....broad's gotta be banned.
noteworthx Ramadin claimed not guilty when charged

KP_fan wrote:the issue here is not following spirit of cricket is deemed a bannable offence by ICC

if stuart broad can put his hand on heart and with a clear conscience say he had not known he had hit that ball and if ICC believes that.....then case is closed.

else following the ramadin precendence....broad's gotta be banned.
noteworthx Ramadin claimed not guilty when charged

 incorrect- almost every single batsmen knows when they have knicked it however big or small- they don't walk. None of them hand on heart can say they didnt hit the ball...

The problem here is the umpire missing the glaring OUT.

Or do you suggest we ban everyone from here on in that is judged incorrectly favorably by the umpire.

mystiroakey wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the issue here is not following spirit of cricket is deemed a bannable offence by ICC

if stuart broad can put his hand on heart and with a clear conscience say he had not known he had hit that ball and if ICC believes that.....then case is closed.

else following the ramadin precendence....broad's gotta be banned.
noteworthx Ramadin claimed not guilty when charged

 incorrect- almost every single batsmen knows when they have knicked it however big or small- they don't walk. None of them hand on heart can say they didnt hit the ball...

The problem here is the umpire missing the glaring OUT.

Or do you suggest we ban everyone from here on in that is judged incorrectly favorably by the umpire.

if it's a snick to WK or in LBW calls.......batsman can feign ignorance.

when it is a thick edge to slip.....batsman cannot pretend to not know he had hit the ball.

and it's not me ASKING for every such violation to be banned.
But simply pointing out that ICC set a precedence that " not doing the right thing inspitre of knowing your action" is a bannable offense......Ramadin is the recent case.

ICC must clear this issue...by opening an enquiry on Broad.
else ICC will be blamed for atleast convenient inconsistency...if not outright discrimination

Im with KPfan...

In the same way you cant prove a player knew he edged it, you cant prove a player knew it was a bump. The ICC set the precedent. Unless someone can state why lying about a player being out is worse than lying about being NO,

Slight overreaction. Broad is not the first batsman not to walk, nor will he be the last. The fault is Dar's

KP_fan wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the issue here is not following spirit of cricket is deemed a bannable offence by ICC

if stuart broad can put his hand on heart and with a clear conscience say he had not known he had hit that ball and if ICC believes that.....then case is closed.

else following the ramadin precendence....broad's gotta be banned.
noteworthx Ramadin claimed not guilty when charged

 incorrect- almost every single batsmen knows when they have knicked it however big or small- they don't walk. None of them hand on heart can say they didnt hit the ball...

The problem here is the umpire missing the glaring OUT.

Or do you suggest we ban everyone from here on in that is judged incorrectly favorably by the umpire.

if it's a snick to WK or in LBW calls.......batsman can feign ignorance.

when it is a thick edge to slip.....batsman cannot pretend to not know he had hit the ball.

and it's not me ASKING  for every such violation to be banned.
But simply pointing out that ICC set a precedence that " not doing the right thing inspitre of knowing your action" is a bannable offense......Ramadin is the recent case.

ICC must clear this issue...by opening an enquiry on Broad.
else ICC will be blamed for atleast convenient inconsistency...if not outright discrimination

 so pleading ignoarance is morally acceptable if the nick is slightly smaller?

if they open an enquiry on broad(to be consistant in the future) we would need to open an enquirry on every single nick and non walk in the future.. Maybe we should use them casino cameras(that are kind of like lie detecters!!)

Or how about just fixing the probelm at the root- WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!!

My issue is if another fielder catches a bump ball, the punishment will be meted out the same. The ICC ban excessive appealing & bump ball catches but draw the line at walking?

well yeah i totally agree with you. its ludicrous- Its time we just accepted that cricketers are like footballers, tennis players, rugby players(no bans for 'cheating' , but not make the same mistakes as football and use the tech we have to make the game fairer) like the way rugby or tennis is carried out..

Haha, I dont think the Vegas camera would work on Broad... He never thinks he is out!!! Was probably going to review if the decision went against him

I must say I am enjoying Australia whinge about walking.

Anyway on with the game. Australia badly need to skittle us out this morn

The problem is the ICC... By banning Ramdin, theyve potentially opened the door for them to be accused of discrimination... Quite rightly in my opinion.

No way should Broad get a ban for this. Batsmen simply don't walk, rightly or wrongly that is part of the game. If the ICC ban him for this they had better retrospectively ban just about every cricketer ever to play the game.

I would, however, support this being the trigger to now take action i.e. the ICC make it clear this kind of action can result in a ban in the future.

Anyway, as GSC says it is funny to see those great walkers the Aussies whinging about this one!

BBC Radio 5 live So what did Stuart Broad's dad Chris - an ICC match official - think about his son's decision not to walk? "It's an Ashes Test match," the former England opener told BBC Radio 5 live. "I remember when Ian Botham said to me in my first Ashes Test match in Brisbane that 'if any of you blokes walk out in the middle you will have me to answer to'. I didn't walk. Most players want to see an umpire give a decision. The umpire gave a not out decision, you get on with the game."

They did make it clear. By banning Ramdin!! He wasnt banned for lying about a catch, it was for contravening the spirit of the game... The uptake is that anything deemed contrary, constitutes a ban...

kingraf wrote:They did make it clear. By banning Ramdin!! He wasnt banned for lying about a catch, it  was for contravening the spirit of the game... The uptake is that anything deemed contrary, constitutes a ban...      

 and yet since then we have had 1000's and 1000's of situations when players have appealed for lbw's or catches (when they know its not out )or not walked when they know they should be out!(all of which is contary to 'the spirit of the game')

so its not clear in the slightest graf. just because situations look clearer to the eye with HD slow mo replays from every angle possible does not mean a player will think any differently when an incident happens within a 10th of a second..

Morning all.

The weather up in England looks a belter. Can't see signs of the bad weather they had suggested, unless it is due later.

should be a day aussie could bat through comfortably if they get in so eng need to try to apply themselves again.

Take a session at a time i suppose trebbs. Its not yet time to smash it..

After the next wicket i think it will be..

I think the random situation is completely different. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't he claiming a catch, appealing to the umpire for a dismissal. Here broad was not appealing to the umpire, obviously I know because he was the batsman, broad has simply accepted the decision of the umpire.

On another note, I would normally criticise broad for not walking in similar situations, but part of me does enjoy australia whinging and feeling hard done by. Like atherton said when in rome.... They like to give it out, but can't take it back and get into a right strop

Fact is the ICC had the cojones to ban a fringe West Indian player in a relatively meaningless match... That was easy, lets see them cojones now...

I dont strictly want Broad banned, but Im interested to see how the ICC wiggles out of it.

I think the only way the ICC get out of this is by saying we will not ban' cheating'(lieing,conning,acting!) any more but make massive strides in the use of umpiring and tech. otherwise we havent solved anything and the game will go backwards.. If broad gets banned we potentially have a situation where players get banned for not walking when in there mind they may only be 50% sure they are out but we judge with the use of tech and hd replays and slo mo that 'he should have known 100%!)

How is this going to help the game?

The irony is that Ramdin was banned by Chris Broad...

kingraf wrote:The irony is that Ramdin was banned by Chris Broad...    

 he made a mistake and needs to clarify that.

However if this point is made he may have no option but to take a harsh stance on his own son otherwise he could be found done for favouritsim.

Italy - yes... The decision was given out, which means his appeal was succesful, and any fault over the catch's validity lies with the umpire. He was therefore banned not for the dismissal, but lying. If you see no similarity, then thats alright.

What sort of a lead are we looking for this morning then lads?

I say anything around 300 we should win.

Really hope Bell can get his hundred

I kind of hope there is alot for the bowlers and they get us out quiick. ironically if it looks flat and we get to 350 they may have more of a chance