Re: Will the idiotic Indian tv hosts of certain channels please read the rule book



"Uday Rajan" <udayrajan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:2c9a68a3-c46d-47f0-a8e6-a995c195a15a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 6, 9:08 am, Mike Holmans <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 20:09:43 +1300, "Andrew Dunford"
<adunf...@xxxxxxxxxxx> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>There is no reason at all why an umpire cannot reverse his decision in >the >
>250 case.

Rod Tucker did so today, to India's benefit

Sambit Bal's piece on the match suggests that the rule has been
changed in some way:
"The use of the review system hasn't been entirely free of controversy
in this tournament, and the so-called '2.5 metre rule' has borne the
brunt of the criticism - and caused most of the confusion. The
offending clause was tweaked ahead of this game, and Alex Cusack was
the first to feel the effect of the change of protocol. Originally
given not out, HawkEye suggested the ball would've hit middle - the
crucial point - and so the decision was reversed and Cusack was sent
on his way. "

Here is the complete article (the rest of the piece touches on other
issues):
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/current/story/504561.html

And here is a more detailed look from CI at the supposed change:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/504570.html

However it is my considered opinion the writer Sharda Ugra doesn't know what he's talking about. He describes this as a "slight but significant alteration to the 2.5m rule" where in fact the altered clause concerning whether the ball is hitting middle stump applies to all reviews of lbw decisions that were originally given not out, not just those where impact was greater than 250cm from the stumps.

There seems to be an implication that Bowden failed to overturn the decision against Bell because the ball wasn't hitting the 'middle of middle stump'. However this has not been confirmed. So far as I can see, nothing significant has changed: in the 250cm case the umpire is allowed to overturn his original decision but is not obliged to. Bowden and Erasmus chose not to overturn theirs, Tucker responded differently.

At the time I wondered whether Tucker had given Cusack not out because the ball went straight from pad to bat and often in such cases the umpire will err on the side of 'bat first'.

Either way, the ICC should not be changing rule clauses mid-tournament.

Andrew

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jaffer Out
    ... You do realise that he is an Elite Umpire. ... Collingwood not out early on when the ball was seemingly going ... straight for the middle stump. ... Howler is one of the best umpires. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: A little luck -- Blake call
    ... He swung at the pitch and did not make contact with the ball (except ... The home plate umpire originally called it a hits batsman. ... But only the umpire who made the call can reverse his own call. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: Englands Batters flattened by Steyn
    ... Any part of the foot behind the line, ... |>> the ball is fair. ... Only if Harper was sure it was a no-ball should he ... I should imagine the TV umpire now has more ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: hmmmmmmmmm......no one talking about PAKvsENG series...in this group.
    ... and that means he's now useless as an umpire. ... Pakistani ball tampering rested on the opinion of Hair (and seemingly ... side has tampered with the ball, he can brand them cheats without their ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Laws question - caught off an unheard no ball, & subsequently run out
    ... Main umpire then notices that the leg umpire has called ... But as has been posted, the main Law covering this point is Law 27.7, ... has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is ... The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)