[Cricket] Sussex CCC- 2022 Season Edition

[CHAPPERS]

With this one, the bowler wasn't nearly so wide on the crease, and the ball was a lot fuller. Wouldn't really have any complaints about that one in isolation. But it isn't, is it!?

Indeed, but would love to the DRS. Reckon hitting outside of leg at best. Arm straight up from the umpire so he was clearly 100% on it!

 

[DJ NOBO]

The other Ollie Robinson is signing for Durham.
That’s a shame. He’d have been gone for us and us him.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

The frame rate of the video, made it impossible to stop it at quite the right moment. That still is BEFORE it hits his pads. Watch the video.

Good analysis to talk about being able to just see leg stump and the point of impact.

Two problems.

1. The sheer geometry of the angle of the ball flight from where he's bowled it.. Point of impact to be hitting leg stump would actually have to be outside off stump unless it's straightened a lot which it didn't.
2. The second image is frozen quite a bit before the ball hits the pad. No way he was so late bringing his bat down. The impact is closer to middle/middle and leg.

Outrageously poor decision - quite uniquely bad at professional level.

To be fair (to me) I was on a train near York at the time, and with my Internet connection around there it would have taken so long to load the video I'd have been in Edinburgh by the time I could watch it.

Instinctively I think it's going down, but could conceivably have clipped the leg stump. I've certainly seen far worse given either way.

The specific dismissal I'm not too fussed by, I'm more interested in the argument about release points. If you draw out a pitch and set of stumps (and yes, I have just done this on CAD while I was supposed to be working), you can compare how large a target area a bowler has from different positions on the crease. So for example, if a batsman is hit 1' (300mm) in front of his crease, and a bowler releases from the middle of his, then there's a roughly 6" (150mm) wide area on the pad that he can hit where the ball will be in line with the off stump, and still hit the leg stump. If you move the release point to the edge of the crease, that drops down to just under 4" (100mm). To narrow the angles down to the point where the ball literally can't be hit in line and still hit the stumps, the batsman has to be hit over 4.5' (1400mm) in front of his crease, in other words he has to be well forwards. The actual target areas are a bit bigger than I've suggested because the ball has a width and can just clip the stumps.

What changing the angle does to is give the impression that the ball is going down leg, so the batsman tries to play across it and gets hit in front of his stumps (as happened here, albeit the ball probably was too leg side).

Another lbw from a right armer coming around the wicket to a lefty. It's almost as if the umpires aren't paying attention to the point of release.

When was the last time you saw a back foot no ball given?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Coles gone - you'll never guess the mode of dismissal...

Gives Raine his sixth wicket of the match - ALL lbw.

 

[ForestRowSeagull]

It wouldnt have made any difference but some of these LBW's have been rank. Also the speed at which the umpire gives them is very troubling

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

It wouldnt have made any difference but some of these LBW's have been rank. Also the speed at which the umpire gives them is very troubling

I can only assume its Shanmugam at Raines end, cos Mallender is a former bowler and generally not bad.
As you say, some dreadful decisions with very little time for thought. Clarkes lbw was a disgrace

 

[Papa Lazarou]

[tweet]1573302974402674690[/tweet]

 

[Moshe Gariani]

What changing the angle does to is give the impression that the ball is going down leg, so the batsman tries to play across it and gets hit in front of his stumps

You are trying to defend the indefensible with that Clark decision specifically and also your general point about angles of delivery and LBW.

Did you draw straight lines on your piece of paper? Or allow for movement through the air and/or off the pitch?

LBWs that look wrong are usually just wrong.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

You are trying to defend the indefensible with that Clark decision specifically and also your general point about angles of delivery and LBW.

Did you draw straight lines on your piece of paper? Or allow for movement through the air and/or off the pitch?

Did you read the sentance immediately after the one you've quoted, saying I thought the ball in question was too legside? I'm not interested in defending that specific dismissal (or any of the others for that matter).

I drew a pitch out on a computer with software used for technical drawings. The ball can either move in, narrowing the window to hit the batsman in line while still hitting the stumps, or out to widen it. It doesn't make any difference to the point I'm making that it is entirely possible to get a legitimate LBW while bowling from wide on the crease.

LBWs that look wrong are usually just wrong.

Being a traditionalist, I'd suggest that where reality meets an umpires decision, reality is wrong .

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I drew a pitch out on a computer with software used for technical drawings. The ball can either move in, narrowing the window to hit the batsman in line while still hitting the stumps, or out to widen it. It doesn't make any difference to the point I'm making that it is entirely possible to get a legitimate LBW while bowling from wide on the crease.

No-one has said it is not possible to get LBW from wide on the crease. It obviously requires a particular set of conditions to be met and then it can both look and be right. Your drawings and calculations confirm the narrow limits of what is normally needed in terms of step by the batsman, movement of the ball and the point of impact.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

No-one has said it is not possible to get LBW from wide on the crease.

At least 2 posters did, or something very close, which is why I thought to actually look at it.

It obviously requires a particular set of conditions to be met and then it can both look and be right.

So you're telling me you've never seen an LBW that looked stone dead out but was shown to be missing/outside the line on review, or vice versa?

Your drawings and calculations confirm the narrow limits of what is normally needed in terms of step by the batsman, movement of the ball and the point of impact.

If "reading reading the length of a line off a screen" counts as a calculation now, then I think I need to ask for another maths A-level.

The point is, bowling from wide of the crease doesn't actually affect the chance of being out LBW as much as might be supposed, because the change in position on the crease is so small compared to the length of the pitch. It looks much more dramatic on television, or from the bowlers perspective, than it actually is.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Seeing Topley failing to run a single for England yesterday, it got me thinking about how many players have left Sussex in recent years... and whether we have enough to form a team:

Any I've forgottten?


Phil Salt
Luke Wells

Laurie Evans

Ben Brown (w)

Will Beer
Chris Jordan
Reese Topley

 

[Gwylan]

Seeing Topley failing to run a single for England yesterday, it got me thinking about how many players have left Sussex in recent years... and whether we have enough to form a team:

Any I've forgottten?


Phil Salt
Luke Wells

Laurie Evans

Ben Brown (w)

Will Beer
Chris Jordan
Reese Topley

Michael Burgess
Harry Finch
Danny Briggs
Tom Smith

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Seeing Topley failing to run a single for England yesterday, it got me thinking about how many players have left Sussex in recent years... and whether we have enough to form a team:

Any I've forgottten?


Phil Salt
Luke Wells

Laurie Evans

Ben Brown (w)

Will Beer
Chris Jordan
Reese Topley

Michael Burgess
Harry Finch
Danny Briggs
Tom Smith

That's an 11. Is it a balanced team? Would it beat the current Sussex 11?

 

[Gwylan]

That's an 11. Is it a balanced team? Would it beat the current Sussex 11?

It's slightly misleading as Beer's retired - all the others, including the ones I added are still playing.

It's not really balanced as there are two spinners (three if you count Beer) and only two seamers

It's still a lot of departures though and I'm sure there'll be more this winter

 

[erkan]

The point is, bowling from wide of the crease doesn't actually affect the chance of being out LBW as much as might be supposed, because the change in position on the crease is so small compared to the length of the pitch. It looks much more dramatic on television, or from the bowlers perspective, than it actually is.

This is right. LBW from wide of the crease is perfectly viable if the ball travels through in a straight line as on a drawn diagram and the batsman is trapped around middle and off on the popping crease.

Clark's dismissal wasn't close to fitting these criteria and has been correctly identified as shockingly bad.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

This is right. LBW from wide of the crease is perfectly viable if the ball travels through in a straight line as on a drawn diagram and the batsman is trapped around middle and off on the popping crease.

Clark's dismissal wasn't close to fitting these criteria and has been correctly identified as shockingly bad.

We clearly have different definitions of "shockingly bad"

 

[erkan]

We clearly have different definitions of "shockingly bad"

Good stuff. For what it's worth, a very fine umpire once told me that he found judging LBW when no bat involved (like Tom Clark's) to be relatively easy and he backed himself to be right with a high percentage. Where he made more mistakes - based on trustworthy feedback from players - was with thin edges behind or decisions where ball hits both bat and pad.

Strauss smashed it in that one - clearly a terrible decision by a professional umpire 22 yards away in real life. But I can understand how the umpire got it wrong even watching the replay in real time. A lot would be to do with how clear the important sound was (the "two noises"...)...

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It's not really balanced as there are two spinners (three if you count Beer) and only two seamers

Play the game at Taunton. Or, I don't know, the 1950s.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Good stuff. For what it's worth, a very fine umpire once told me that he found judging LBW when no bat involved (like Tom Clark's) to be relatively easy and he backed himself to be right with a high percentage. Where he made more mistakes - based on trustworthy feedback from players - was with thin edges behind or decisions where ball hits both bat and pad.

Strauss smashed it in that one - clearly a terrible decision by a professional umpire 22 yards away in real life. But I can understand how the umpire got it wrong even watching the replay in real time. A lot would be to do with how clear the important sound was (the "two noises"...)...

There's an obvious question that I feel I have to ask, if this umpire was relying on feedback from players for edges, how did he know he was getting any of the LBW decisions right in terms of them hitting the stumps?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting he wasn't a good umpire at whatever time or level he was officiating at. An umpire like Dickie Bird would be thought completely useless if he unpired in the same way now, because the assumptions of what will hit the stumps and what can reasonably be given out are different since Hawkeye came in. Conversely somebody like Michael Gough would probably be regarded as a trigger happy outer if he was transplanted back to the 70s.