[Cricket] India v England Test Series

[Eeyore]

His behaviour has been dreadful - I reckon he's in the headmaster's office after that rant

Still, at least Root's decision will banish any idea that the umpires are cheating - they're just not very good

I suspect the days are long gone when the Indian umpires took four or five wickets a game for the home side.

I always remember the Cricketer International's description of the England's first innings in Bombay in 1981.

'Six wickets fell after tea- four to the umpires...'

 

[Lincolnshire Seagull]

I really hope the ICC / match referee take strong action against Kohli. That's three unacceptable bits of behaviour in the match. Otherwise I can see this abuse of umpires being copy-catted into local cricket.

And while I'm in moan-mode, I'm not on board with the Foakes love-in. He's missed at least two stumpings in this game and his constant verbal drivel behind the stumps is so annoying. Admittedly he has batted well, but that's not really the reason for him being in the team.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

His behaviour has been dreadful - I reckon he's in the headmaster's office after that rant

Still, at least Root's decision will banish any idea that the umpires are cheating - they're just not very good

Really poor - and really shown up by Root's understated reaction in the face of a couple of absolutely disgraceful bits of officiating earlier in the test.

I don't think the ON FIELD umpires are cheating, at all.

I think the conduct of the third umpire and host broadcaster has been very questionable, however.

 

[Lincolnshire Seagull]

Really poor - and really shown up by Root's understated reaction in the face of a couple of absolutely disgraceful bits of officiating earlier in the test.

I don't think the ON FIELD umpires are cheating, at all.

I think the conduct of the third umpire and host broadcaster has been very questionable, however.

Surely incompetence rather than cheating?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Surely incompetence rather than cheating?

I don't think so, sadly. There is very definitely a bias.

I haven't seen all of the Test. But in the sessions I have watched, I've seen:

1. Big stumping appeal against Rohit. The square on camera from the leg side is inconclusive, but appears to show no part of the foot grounded behind the line. There is apparently no available shot front square on the off side to prove he's out.

2. Huge England appeal for a bat-pad catch. Given not out, and sent to DRS by England. The third umpire watches footage to prove the ball took no edge before the pad, but either doesn't ask for, or isn't offered the next half a second of footage that proves absolutely conclusively that the ball then came off the glove. that one alone is a scandal.

3. Huge England appeal for a stumping against (Kohli?). The leg-side camera shows he just might be out, but magically, and in complete contrast to point 1, there suddenly IS an off-side square camera with footage that shows he is just behind the line.

4. The LBW appeal yesterday when very clearly no shot was played. Not sure of the protocol on this one - whether the third umpire HAS to defer to the standing umpire's opinion on whether there is a shot played (or even if he asked him), but the third umpire KNEW it was out.

 

[Gwylan]

4. The LBW appeal yesterday when very clearly no shot was played. Not sure of the protocol on this one - whether the third umpire HAS to defer to the standing umpire's opinion on whether there is a shot played (or even if he asked him), but the third umpire KNEW it was out.

The third umpire decides whether the batsman hits it or whether the ball's going to hit - the decision as to whether a shot's been played is entirely the on-field umpire's. I'm not sure whether the third umpire can even advise

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The third umpire decides whether the batsman hits it or whether the ball's going to hit - the decision as to whether a shot's been played is entirely the on-field umpire's. I'm not sure whether the third umpire can even advise

How much of the dialogue between the two umpires did we get to hear, though?

England appealed for LBW.

The standing umpire replied "Not out".

He didn't reply "not out because impact was outside the line, and I consider that he was playing a shot". We (and I include the third umpire in that) have no idea whether the not out decision was because he felt a shot was played, or indeed if he DID consider it no shot, but just felt the ball was not going to hit the stumps.

Unless the standing umpire specifically informed the third umpire that the on field call is not out and WHY, then in stopping the replays once the impact is shown to be outside the line, the third umpire is effectively taking it upon himself to adjudicate that (conveniently) a shot was played.

 

[Gwylan]

How much of the dialogue between the two umpires did we get to hear, though?

England appealed for LBW.

The standing umpire replied "Not out".

He didn't reply "not out because impact was outside the line, and I consider that he was playing a shot". We (and I include the third umpire in that) have no idea whether the not out decision was because he felt a shot was played, or indeed if he DID consider it no shot, but just felt the ball was not going to hit the stumps.

Unless the standing umpire specifically informed the third umpire that the on field call is not out and WHY, then in stopping the replays once the impact is shown to be outside the line, the third umpire is effectively taking it upon himself to adjudicate that (conveniently) a shot was played.

I'm pretty sure that the 3rd umpire can't do this; his only role is to advise on ball tracking and edging. I believe that the 3rd umpire can advise BUT only if asked by on-field official. And, as in cricket decisions generally, any benefit of doubt is in the batsman's favour.

It's a very different situation from football and rugby where the off-field official can advise - although as we saw in the Scotland Wales match, the on field ref can ignore that advice

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I'm pretty sure that the 3rd umpire can't do this; his only role is to advise on ball tracking and edging. I believe that the 3rd umpire can advise BUT only if asked by on-field official. And, as in cricket decisions generally, any benefit of doubt is in the batsman's favour.

I think you misunderstand my point - which I'm probably not making very well.

If the third umpire doesn't actually KNOW on WHAT GROUNDS the standing umpire decided it was not out, then how can he read the DRS image as not out, solely on the point of the impact? If there is no clear dialogue to instruct him to read it in that way, then effectively HE has made his own call that the impact outside the line is the deciding call, and thus HE has decided off his own back, that the batsman is considered to be playing at the ball.

Which he clearly was not.

 

[Gwylan]

I think you misunderstand my point - which I'm probably not making very well.

If the third umpire doesn't actually KNOW on WHAT GROUNDS the standing umpire decided it was not out, then how can he read the DRS image as not out, solely on the point of the impact

But that's all the third umpire can do: he can say where the ball pitched, whether the impact was in line and whether the ball was hitting (and whether the batsman hit it). That's the sum total of his role - he has no impact on whether the batsman has played a shot or not.

I've had a look at ICC for umpires and it's a bit vague about dialogue but it does say categorically that the on-field umpire makes the decision. I'm pretty certain that he can't ask for advice on that. I've never, ever heard an on-field umpire do that

 

[dazzer6666]

But that's all the third umpire can do: he can say where the ball pitched, whether the impact was in line and whether the ball was hitting (and whether the batsman hit it). That's the sum total of his role - he has no impact on whether the batsman has played a shot or not.

I've had a look at ICC for umpires and it's a bit vague about dialogue but it does say categorically that the on-field umpire makes the decision. I'm pretty certain that he can't ask for advice on that. I've never, ever heard an on-field umpire do that

I can see where @HKFC is coming from............the decision was not out from the 4th ump on the basis of the ball hitting him outside the line wasn't it , with the 4th ump stating 'not out' as a final decision. If a shot wasn't played, whether it hit outside the line doesn't come into it - it's either hitting the stumps or not. He never (as far as we know) asked the basis of the original decision.

'Review for LBW not playing a shot' needs to be the call rather than 'review for LBW' ?

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

And while I'm in moan-mode, I'm not on board with the Foakes love-in. He's missed at least two stumpings in this game and his constant verbal drivel behind the stumps is so annoying. Admittedly he has batted well, but that's not really the reason for him being in the team.

He successfully made 3 stumpings in the game - 3 times as many as Buttler's managed in his whole career. In very difficult conditions he's done very well on the whole.

I still find it annoying that he's described as a "specialist keeper" and similar, when he has higher test and first class averages than Buttler. And was man of the match with an unbeaten 50 in his only ODI.

 

[CHAPPERS]

On field umpire told Root a shot was played, you can hear it all in real time on the highlights. All they went upstairs for was ball tracking. Root visibly shakes his head at the standing umpire straight away, though I can't understand why Root would review knowing the umpire believes a shot has been played but it does all happen quite quickly.


https://www.channel4.com/programmes/cricket-india-v-england/on-demand/72418-007 (43:00)

Horrible decision and a bit of a disgrace really. It's the most obvious example of padding up you'll see.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

I think you misunderstand my point - which I'm probably not making very well.

If the third umpire doesn't actually KNOW on WHAT GROUNDS the standing umpire decided it was not out, then how can he read the DRS image as not out, solely on the point of the impact? If there is no clear dialogue to instruct him to read it in that way, then effectively HE has made his own call that the impact outside the line is the deciding call, and thus HE has decided off his own back, that the batsman is considered to be playing at the ball.

Which he clearly was not.

One of the umpires (I assume the on field umpire since Joe Root apparently heard him say it) definitely said that the batsman was playing a shot. I remember hearing it, and they were said on the commentary afterwards that Root immediately walked back to his fielding position after hearing it.

Frankly it was a craptacular decision whichever of the umpires made it. At best the on-field umpire has the excuse of only seeing it once in real time when he made it.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

On field umpire told Root a shot was played, you can hear it all in real time on the highlights. All they went upstairs for was ball tracking. Root visibly shakes his head at the standing umpire straight away, though I can't understand why Root would review knowing the umpire believes a shot has been played but it does all happen quite quickly.


https://www.channel4.com/programmes/cricket-india-v-england/on-demand/72418-007 (43:00)

Horrible decision and a bit of a disgrace really. It's the most obvious example of padding up you'll see.

I think it's been edited down quite heavily in the highlights - I remember it taking significantly longer than that in real time. Also unless Root's gone pants on his head crazy he wouldn't have reviewed it if he'd known that in advance.

 

[Jeremiah]

3 down at close.

I’d be very surprised if England make 150 to be honest.

If we are still playing by Tea tomorrow it will be a good effort - pitch is a nightmare

 

[The Wizard]

If we are still playing by Tea tomorrow it will be a good effort - pitch is a nightmare

Nothing wrong with the pitch India have made 600 runs, it’s a nightmare for our batsman because they aren’t used to it, just like a 90mph seaming green top is a nightmare for Indian batsman.

Be grateful we got out of Chennai at 1-1 going into the day night pink ball test.

 

[Gwylan]

I can see where @HKFC is coming from............the decision was not out from the 4th ump on the basis of the ball hitting him outside the line wasn't it , with the 4th ump stating 'not out' as a final decision. If a shot wasn't played, whether it hit outside the line doesn't come into it - it's either hitting the stumps or not. He never (as far as we know) asked the basis of the original decision.

I've been looking at the ICC guidance for umpires and it seems that 3rd umpires can't do this and on field umpires only can decide. As I said earlier, it's a very different situation from football and rugby.

Nothing wrong with the pitch India have made 600 runs, it’s a nightmare for our batsman because they aren’t used to it, just like a 90mph seaming green top is a nightmare for Indian batsman.

This is true but this is only half the story: our batsmen have no chance of practising on a pitch like this because any county that prepared such a pitch would face the wrath of the pitch inspectors and find themselves looking at a points deduction. Consequently, there are very few proper spinners in the county game and very few raging bunsens. It's little surprise that when they're up against people like Ashwin or Yasir they look like blind men batting with a stick of rhubarb. It's fortunate that Sri Lanka had no batters or they'd have struggled there too.

 

[The Wizard]

I've been looking at the ICC guidance for umpires and it seems that 3rd umpires can't do this and on field umpires only can decide. As I said earlier, it's a very different situation from football and rugby.




This is true but this is only half the story: our batsmen have no chance of practising on a pitch like this because any county that prepared such a pitch would face the wrath of the pitch inspectors and find themselves looking at a points deduction. Consequently, there are very few proper spinners in the county game and very few raging bunsens. It's little surprise that when they're up against people like Ashwin or Yasir they look like blind men batting with a stick of rhubarb. It's fortunate that Sri Lanka had no batters or they'd have struggled there too.

Absolutely, and that’s why I feel no anger towards out batsman for getting out really, daft shots are annoying but it’s all part of what happens when your mind gets scrambled by a ball that’s turning like at right angles, it’s near impossible to play if you don’t have experience in those conditions, but again that’s part of home advantage for me, I understand people say the pitch isn’t good for cricket but it’s never going to change, teams will always prepare wickets to suit their strong areas and India knew they had to win this test, I honestly think even if England won the toss I still would have made India favourite.

Like I said, I think 1-1 coming away from Chennai is an absolute result, I would have snapped someone’s hands off for that before the series.

 

[Gwylan]

Oh dear, Ollie. I think the fat lady is clearing her throat now