Re: More on third umpires
- From: "Phil." <felton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Aug 2005 07:39:45 -0700
Mad Hamish wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2005 03:00:25 -0700, "amukhop"
> <anirban.mukhopadhyay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Interesting incidents during the NZ-Zim odo.
> >
> >Off-spinner Ewing bowls to Oram, who hits back a checked drive. Ewing
> >kneels and scoops a catch at ground level. Celebrations straightaway.
> >Oram stands his ground. Ewing and Taibu turn to the leg umpire Harper.
> >The two umpires consult. Commentators say - inconclusive, we'll go to
> >the third umpire. But meanwhile the on-field umpires have decided it's
> >not out. Zims cannot believe it, but get back to bowling. A replay is
> >screened -- commentator Shastri says clearly not out, what was Gavin
> >Ewing doing, against the spirit of the game, etc. Other commentator
> >Mbangwa steps in and says he thought it was a legal catch. Replay
> >screened again -- shows that the ball had bounced in Ewing's hand, so
> >it should have been out.
> >
> Under the current code of conduct umpires aren't allowed to refer
> catches to the 3rd umpire to see if it was taken clearly unless both
> umpires were unsighted.
>
> If the square leg umpire could see the ball but couldn't be sure
> whether it carried or not (a fairly likely situation for a return
> catch near the ground) then not out is the only decision they can
> give.
If they follow the code of conduct, however how do you explain the
reviews of both of Strauss's dismissals in the 4th Test? It seems to
me that both of those should have been not out, in the 2nd innings the
situation was exactly as you describe.
Phil.
.
- References:
- More on third umpires
- From: amukhop
- Re: More on third umpires
- From: Mad Hamish
- More on third umpires
- Prev by Date: Re: A line that deserves to be remembered
- Next by Date: whats your vote for the worst LBW decision of all time!!!
- Previous by thread: Re: More on third umpires
- Next by thread: Kiwis in dire straits 149/7
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
