* * * The Ashes - Official Thread * * *

[Gwylan]

Bell reprieved thanks to a shocking decision from third umpire - another example of how video replay technology doesn't always get things right, something for those who call for it to be used in football should remember. Still, it's good to see how much it's narked the Australians.

Top marks for Aleem Dar though who got it right first time - he's been a top-class umpire all series.

 

[highway61]

Bell reprieved thanks to a shocking decision from third umpire - another example of how video replay technology doesn't always get things right, something for those who call for it to be used in football should remember. Still, it's good to see how much it's narked the Australians.

Top marks for Aleem Dar though who got it right first time - he's been a top-class umpire all series.

i agree with all you say mate. had to be out. but as you say, it goes to show errors wll still be made

 

[Gwylan]

Michael Vaughan suggesting that when Australia tour next time, they play England A as well as England, I like the sound of that.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

Morning, pleased to get up and find we are 200 ahead, great knock by Cook first and now Bell, withagain good support from Matt.
No coming back from here for the Aussies.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

Bell gone for 115, 487-7, a lead of 207, Matt 52 no

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

I liked the BBC text comment

"ICC investigating worrying reports of irregular betting patterns in the fifth Test at Sydney. Some people backed Australia."


funny funny funny (well mildly anyway).

Prior ton tomorrow morning , 300 ahead at lunch then Aussies 140-5 at stumps 4th day; leaving Swanny to clean them up on Friday morning for an innings and 75 run victory. Nice!

TNBA

TTF

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Great work by England - superb.

Disgusted with Hughes and Clarke.

And then they all had the cheek to blank Cook when he got his hundred because he was caught off a no ball and then not caught by a cheat.

Well done Matty Prior too - perfect timing for a good knock.

Bye bye and many thanks Colly.

 

[Gwylan]

Disgusted with Hughes and Clarke.

And then they all had the cheek to blank Cook when he got his hundred because he was caught off a no ball and then not caught by a cheat.

Think that's a bit harsh - I've seen plenty of examples of England going up for 'catches' that have bounced just before the fielder. To be fair to Hughes, after he takes the ball, he's standing there with his hands out as if to say "Did it carry?" Fielders don't always know whether it has or not.

But I don't get this non-clapping, that's just bad sportsmanship, they did it in the last test too and it just makes the side look mean-spirited and pretty poor losers... which I suppose they are.

 

[Simster]

Hughes, Clarke and Bell all cheating. A sad day for cricket.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Great work by England - superb.

Disgusted with Hughes and Clarke.

And then they all had the cheek to blank Cook when he got his hundred because he was caught off a no ball and then not caught by a cheat.

.

Indeed. Shameful behaviour. If either of them had played for Patcham Priory Colts in the 80s, they'd have been in all kinds of trouble for such unsporting nonsense - immediate demotion to 10 and 11 in the batting order for starters...

Think that's a bit harsh - I've seen plenty of examples of England going up for 'catches' that have bounced just before the fielder. To be fair to Hughes, after he takes the ball, he's standing there with his hands out as if to say "Did it carry?" Fielders don't always know whether it has or not.
.

Come on Gwylan - you are one of the people on this site who gennuinely knows a bit about cricket. At NO point in that moment did Hughes EVER think there was the slightest possibility that it had carried to him. Shameful cheating.

But I don't get this non-clapping, that's just bad sportsmanship, they did it in the last test too and it just makes the side look mean-spirited and pretty poor losers... which I suppose they are.

Well, quite.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Seems to be a feeling that Bell not walking negates the Hughes "catch". It just doesn't IMHO. We've all feathered a ball bahind and not known if we touched it or not* - it happens. Bell says he didn't know, hnece checking the replay. As it happens, the third Umpire probabaly got it wrong since there was no way to demonstrate that the onfirld umpire had made a clear mistake. However, that's not Bell's fault.

Hughes on the other hand absolutely knew he hadn't caught it and was jumping up in frustration until he saw his mates celebating. Shitty behaviour. Grubby little man.

* we've probably all NOT featered a ball behind and been given caught behind. Was two short of my first fifty for a while a few years back and was given caught behind after it flicked the inside of my thigh pad. At least the umpires in test matches are not distrated teenagers who don't know the rules and who umpire in their socks whilst texting their girlfriend.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

* we've probably all NOT featered a ball behind and been given caught behind. Was two short of my first fifty for a while a few years back and was given caught behind after it flicked the inside of my thigh pad. At least the umpires in test matches are not distrated teenagers who don't know the rules and who umpire in their socks whilst texting their girlfriend.

...or who give you out LBW to a left-arm-over bowler, because they are thick, or give you out because their DAD is the bowler and they are scared not to...

 

[Gwylan]

At NO point in that moment did Hughes EVER think there was the slightest possibility that it had carried to him. Shameful cheating.

Like I said that's too harsh. You'll see fielders claim catches quite frequently that haven't carried - England have certainly done it. I've fielded a lot in the slips and it really isn't always that easy to tell. The most telling thing about this particular incident is that the umpires referred it to upstairs - if it had been a clear case of trying it on, they'd have given it not out straight away.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Like I said that's too harsh. You'll see fielders claim catches quite frequently that haven't carried - England have certainly done it. I've fielded a lot in the slips and it really isn't always that easy to tell. The most telling thing about this particular incident is that the umpires referred it to upstairs - if it had been a clear case of trying it on, they'd have given it not out straight away.

Just LOOK at Hughes reaction - he KNOWS 100% that it did NOT carry - the disappointment that it DIDN'T, is all over his face. He then joins in the 'celebrations' when someone else goes up. At THAT moment. he should wave it away, and say 'nah mate, it didn't carry', exactly as Clarke did with the slip chance half an hour earlier.

The umpires will always refer if asked to - they'd be stupid not to. The square leg umpire had zero view of it anyway.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Like I said that's too harsh. You'll see fielders claim catches quite frequently that haven't carried - England have certainly done it. I've fielded a lot in the slips and it really isn't always that easy to tell. The most telling thing about this particular incident is that the umpires referred it to upstairs - if it had been a clear case of trying it on, they'd have given it not out straight away.

Some times it is of course difficult to tell. Hughes was CERTAIN it hadn't carried though. He doesn't go up in celebration at all until Clarke starts appealing. I don't think you can really suggest the umpires sending it upstairs really makes it any better - They are 20 yards away and it happened pretty quickly (I think it was telling they didn't give him out to start with mind). It was only the cheating reaction from Hughes that made them review it.

 

[CHAPPERS]

When Hughes 'caught' that ball he seemed to shrug, not as if to wonder whether it had carried (he knew it hadn't) but as if to ask if they were really going to appeal when he and Haddin knew it hadn't carried. I think Clarke encouraged the appeal. Let's not forget that Clarke has form in this series when refusing to walk having clearly hit the batt.

What do we think of Bell? Do we think he thoguht he hadn't edged it?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The difference with Hughes is that you can tell from his immediate reaction that he knows it hasn't carried, his body language is of the "Aaarrgh, that was close" variety until the others pile on and he thinks he might get away with it. How many of his teammates knew is a moot point- I'm fairly confident Brad Haddin saw it bounce as he's quite clearly not convincing in his celebrations.

 

[Gwylan]

Just LOOK at Hughes reaction - he KNOWS 100% that it did NOT carry - the disappointment that it DIDN'T, is all over his face. He then joins in the 'celebrations' when someone else goes up. At THAT moment. he should wave it away, and say 'nah mate, it didn't carry', exactly as Clarke did with the slip chance half an hour earlier.

The umpires will always refer if asked to - they'd be stupid not to. The square leg umpire had zero view of it anyway.

I don't disagree with that. I think that Hughes was pretty sure it hadn't carried, which is why he held out his hands and then he saw everyone go up and thought that maybe it did. But it certainly wasn't clear with the naked eye - my first thought was that it was out; it was only after seeing the replay that I realised it wasn't. But it certainly wasn't a straightforward bounce that is being suggested. And the umpires weren't asked to refer it, they called for a referral themselves as they weren't sure. - which is precisely the point I'm making.

 

[KZNSeagull]

We get the Channel 9 coverage here and the Bell incident had the Aussie commentators fuming (Warne, Greig and Chappell, I). They stated that Aleem Dar should have stuck to his original decision (hindsight is a wonderful thing). I don't see how he could as the 3rd umpire introduced doubt into his mind. Once Aleem Dar had reversed his decision, they showed Snicko which clearly showed a tiny nick. Clearly the 3rd umpire was not using Snicko, so I'm not surprised there was doubt (nothing showed on Hotspot). Another example of trying to find fault with the umpires when they did the right thing based upon the technology they are given.

I'm surprised if the Aussies who did not clap Cook will get away with it though with Hussey in the side who always seems to me to be a very fair minded guy who plays the game in the right spirit. He would have walked if he had that Bell nick (I hope he clapped cos I did not see that bit!!)

Is it correct that Cook has now batted in this series for 35 hours? Thats hugely impressive if true, particularly when you think that there were calls for him to be dropped last summer.

 

[sten_super]

For me, Hughes knew it hadn't carried. He should therefore have said as much. By not doing so he's done himself a disservice.

With Bell, I accept that the technology isn't perfect, and that he probably did edge it behind, but I don't believe that he knew he had done so; if that was the case he'd have looked a right pillock if there'd been a massive white mark, and would have been as bad as Hughes. As for those saying that the 3rd umpire shouldn't have overturned it (I've seen that said on a few other websites as well) because there was no conclusive evidence that the on-field umpire was wrong; the only evidence available to the 3rd umpire for a caught behind decision is hotspot. Hotspot did not show any contact with bat (seemingly wrongly) - surely that counts as compelling evidence?