The Second Investec Ashes Test, England v Australia, Lords

[Simster]

As to whether that ball hit Root's pad or bat first, the video must be at least AS inconclusive as the Agar stumping one, when they decided the principle of 'benefit of the (smallest) doubt' still applied. Inconsistent.

It's about the overturning of the original decision. Agar wasn't actually given out initially, the umpire went upstairs to make the decision. Root WAS given out and the review was used by the batting team. There needs to be a reason to overturn the original decision in that circumstance. It is also what made Trott's dismissal at TB so appalling as it was a decision that was wrongly overturned.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

So it was 'in doubt' in the umpire's mind originally... seems fair enough not to over-rule that then, unless it was absolutely nailed on?? ( I haven't seen it )

The Agar one wasn't 'in doubt'. the umpire wouldn't even have considered giving a close line decision either way. he doesn't need to.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

in a series like this where it's clearly going to be very close throughout, you really need your big name and experienced players to step up

cook really hasn't been leading by example with the bat so far, and kp really needs to sort his life out....we can't rely on trott and bell all series

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It was probably so tight that if the umpire had given Root not out the third umpire would have stuck with that.

I still think it was out and it hit the pad first, but it's a bit of a gut feeling rather than definite, as I think the video is really hard to be sure on either way.

that.

Had he managed to move his feet at all (at any point in his innings) then it might have helped him, too..

 

[Triggaaar]

As to whether that ball hit Root's pad or bat first, the video must be at least AS inconclusive as the Agar stumping one, when they decided the principle of 'benefit of the (smallest) doubt' still applied. Inconsistent.

That's not what happened. The third umpire needs to be sure to overrule the on field decision. The third umpire didn't overrule either of those decisions - that's consistent.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Root's was the correct use of DRS. There was nothing to suggest the on field umpire had got it wrong, therefore the on field decision remains.

This is the polar opposite to Trott's decision in the last test, which got the use of DRS fundamentally wrong.

Both these decisions could be used as training decisions for 3rd umpires on the correct use of the system.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

That's not what happened. The third umpire needs to be sure to overrule the on field decision. The third umpire didn't overrule either of those decisions - that's consistent.

Going round in circles now. That's not true of the Agar incident at all. He was NOT given 'not out' on the field.

 

[Bold Seagull]

That's not what happened. The third umpire needs to be sure to overrule the on field decision. The third umpire didn't overrule either of those decisions - that's consistent.

There was no on field decision on the Agar stumping. It was referred up to the 3rd umpire without any decision on the field...

 

[brightonmark1234]

rubbish england

 

[tinycowboy]

This is not going well. Once again, we have screens showing the cricket here at work, but with no sound. Makes it a bit confusing - every time I look up, a wicket is falling and I can't tell whether it's a replay or live. Mostly it's live.

 

[topbanana36]

on the ropes early.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Not going well is a bit of an understatement. It's bloody rubbish.

 

[Triggaaar]

Going round in circles now. That's not true of the Agar incident at all. He was NOT given 'not out' on the field.

There was no on field decision on the Agar stumping. It was referred up to the 3rd umpire without any decision on the field...

Sure, but as hans said:

the video must be at least AS inconclusive as the Agar stumping one, when they decided the principle of 'benefit of the (smallest) doubt' still applied. Inconsistent.

So they couldn't give Agar out, as the video was inconclusive. But with Root, he was given out on field, so the video didn't need to provide conclusive proof that he was out. The on field decisions were different (as you point out, there wasn't one for Agar).

So the decision making is not inconsistent.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

This is not going well. Once again, we have screens showing the cricket here at work, but with no sound. Makes it a bit confusing - every time I look up, a wicket is falling and I can't tell whether it's a replay or live. Mostly it's live.

Ha - same.

I glance at the screen and seen Trott getting out, curse, and only then notice 'Trott dismissal, Trent Bridge' in the top corner.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The bounce off this pitch will probably not last. I know it's an established habit to bat first, but on modern pitches that don't deteriorate that badly to the last day, it's worth getting the best of the pitch on the first morning. Again, I'd have fancied bowling at them, put the pressure on. Now we're back foot from the off once more...

 

[brightonmark1234]

england bat crap in 1st innings and then leave it down to anderson and co to get them out of trouble

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The bounce off this pitch will probably not last. I know it's an established habit to bat first, but on modern pitches that don't deteriorate that badly to the last day, it's worth getting the best of the pitch on the first morning. Again, I'd have fancied bowling at them, put the pressure on. Now we're back foot from the off once more...

Still better to bat first. (Just don't bat SHIT - Cook's shot was injudicious, the other two, a complete lack of foot movement, against a moving ball. Schoolboy stuff, tbh.)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sure, but as hans said:
So they couldn't give Agar out, as the video was inconclusive. But with Root, he was given out on field, so the video didn't need to provide conclusive proof that he was out. The on field decisions were different (as you point out, there wasn't one for Agar).

So the decision making is not inconsistent.

The discrepancy in the system is the Trott and Root LBW decisions. Trott was given not out on the field, but that was overturned on DRS when for most people the front view showed a nick off the bat. No side hotspot available, and so there is absolutely no way the 3rd umpire could be in a position to overturn the on field decision.

For Root, given out, the replays suggested bat and pad at the sametime, maybe pad marginally first, so sticks with the on field decision correctly.

The Agar decision was just a poor one, as there is being certain and being certain, from pretty much every angle it looked out, I don't think anyone could work out where the 3rd umpires doubt came from.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The discrepancy in the system is the Trott and Root LBW decisions. Trott was given not out on the field, but that was overturned on DRS when for most people the front view showed a nick off the bat. No side hotspot available, and so there is absolutely no way the 3rd umpire could be in a position to overturn the on field decision.

For Root, given out, the replays suggested bat and pad at the sametime, maybe pad marginally first, so sticks with the on field decision correctly.

The Agar decision was just a poor one, as there is being certain and being certain, from pretty much every angle it looked out, I don't think anyone could work out where the 3rd umpires doubt came from.

Correct.