The Ashes

[Bill Manspeaker]

I think it shows that the referrel system needs to be taken out of the players control.
      Leave it with the umps, let them discuss between themselves to come up with the correct decisions. i.e. Dar gives it not out then the third umpire has a quick word in his ear and says "wait, it was out". The decision can be reversed and the game can continue.
  The fielding team thinks every close call is out, I mean thats why they appeal in the first place..isnt it?  ;)

The third umpire should be inplace to stop the shockers and as we can see, that isnt the case.

this is how it should be done

[BB67th]

I think it shows that the referrel system needs to be taken out of the players control.
      Leave it with the umps, let them discuss between themselves to come up with the correct decisions. i.e. Dar gives it not out then the third umpire has a quick word in his ear and says "wait, it was out". The decision can be reversed and the game can continue.
  The fielding team thinks every close call is out, I mean thats why they appeal in the first place..isnt it?  ;)

The third umpire should be inplace to stop the shockers and as we can see, that isnt the case.

this is how it should be done

But how would LBW's be handled? Would all of them have to be reviewed? If not there will still be some relatively close ones that end up being outside the line, and if they aren't referred then the system still isn't working how it should.

[Nige]

I think it shows that the referrel system needs to be taken out of the players control.
      Leave it with the umps, let them discuss between themselves to come up with the correct decisions. i.e. Dar gives it not out then the third umpire has a quick word in his ear and says "wait, it was out". The decision can be reversed and the game can continue.
  The fielding team thinks every close call is out, I mean thats why they appeal in the first place..isnt it?  ;)

The third umpire should be inplace to stop the shockers and as we can see, that isnt the case.

this is how it should be done

But how would LBW's be handled? Would all of them have to be reviewed? If not there will still be some relatively close ones that end up being outside the line, and if they aren't referred then the system still isn't working how it should.

As with most things, there isn't one way that will make everyone happy.

[upthemaidens]

I think it shows that the referrel system needs to be taken out of the players control.
      Leave it with the umps, let them discuss between themselves to come up with the correct decisions. i.e. Dar gives it not out then the third umpire has a quick word in his ear and says "wait, it was out". The decision can be reversed and the game can continue.
  The fielding team thinks every close call is out, I mean thats why they appeal in the first place..isnt it?  ;)

The third umpire should be inplace to stop the shockers and as we can see, that isnt the case.

this is how it should be done

But how would LBW's be handled? Would all of them have to be reviewed? If not there will still be some relatively close ones that end up being outside the line, and if they aren't referred then the system still isn't working how it should.

LBW's could be decided by the on-field umpire, and only be overturned if it has hit the bat first or a no-ball.
Either way the current system Doesnt work.
From a cricket fan point of view I want to see the shockers being sorted out, not the 50/50 decisions.

[Nige]

Would I be right in saying that if Australia go on to win this test or the series that nobody will give a shower about the Broad incident? Or that if an Aussie batsman goes on to do the same at some point over the rest of the series that they will be defended and people will clutch at straws to justify it?

Just seems wrong.  :-X

[Jay]

[Windigo]

If that was Gilchrist he would have walked.

Broad can get flowered.

[henry]

How would a ball go to slip without being hit though?

In the only defence of Dar I can think of I did actually see one turn out of the ruff and go straight to first slip. There's wasn't a huge noise, but it was still obviously out. We are in real trouble now, I had 250 as the limit we could chase, showing that I have no faith in our batsmen which I think is justified. If we're to be any chance we must wrap it up in the first session, otherwise can;t see us winning. even the 265 they are already ahead will be enough I reckon against a dangerous swan on a very dry day 4 pitch.

[PowerBug]

Guys, let's take our Aussie-biased hats off for a few minutes, here and look at every party involved.

1. Stuart Broad. Should he have walked? I say yes, only because he hit the cover off that one. But then it can be looked at it this way. Noone walks, those that do are excellent sportspeople, but it's not normal for a cricketer to walk. I have NEVER seen a footballer tell the ump that the opposition should have the free kick, because they did something wrong, and in football you can fix your mistakes, in cricket, you can't, once you're out you're out. So Broad obviously tried to hope that the ump would miss it, which for him he did. He still should've walked imo.

2. Aleem Dar. Howler? of course. He missed it, it happens. He heard a noise, he also saw the ball come off Haddin's gloves.

3. Australia and the use of DRS. And this is what it all comes back to. DRS was introduced as a way that teams can remove the blantanly obvious mistakes from the game. Australia, did not do that. They tried to be sneaky, and gain a wicket through calls that were clearly not howlers. If they (and it's not just their fault, everyone does it) used DRS for the reason it was introduced, this wouldn't be a problem. And also, it's like this is teh first time not having DRS available has cost teams wickets, it happens so often, and will probably happen again this series if the captains don't change teh way they use the system. Australia were their own worst enemy in this situation unfortunately.


tl;dr? Everyone was at fault, the way DRS was implemented into the game wasn't.

[BB67th]

Yeah look, it happened, no one is happy with it, but time to move on to a new day's play now. Hopefully we can bowl them out for another 30, and then we need a good display from the batting lineup. It will be hard, but not impossible if the batsmen take their time to get in on this pitch. Remember, we will always have the Broad incident to come back to at the end of the series if we lose :P

[BB67th]

I know that I've just told everyone to move on from the whole Broad incident, but just one last point I would like to bring up from Michael Holding.

"What Stuart Broad did amounts to the same thing as Ramdin," Holding told Sky TV. "He knew he had hit the ball. The ICC fined Ramdin and suspended him for 'actions that were contrary to the spirit of the game'. What Stuart Broad did is contrary to the spirit of the game. He played the ball and stayed there."

He has a point as it is really the same thing as claiming a catch that was dropped.

[My Chumps]

The real point is why the flower didn't the umpire call that out?!

[Jay]

I know that I've just told everyone to move on from the whole Broad incident, but just one last point I would like to bring up from Michael Holding.

"What Stuart Broad did amounts to the same thing as Ramdin," Holding told Sky TV. "He knew he had hit the ball. The ICC fined Ramdin and suspended him for 'actions that were contrary to the spirit of the game'. What Stuart Broad did is contrary to the spirit of the game. He played the ball and stayed there."

He has a point as it is really the same thing as claiming a catch that was dropped.

this! Against the spirit of the game, just because other people do it, does not mean its right. Everyone knew Broad hit it apart from Dar ::)

[PowerBug]

Also, apart from Gilchrist, all Australians have had the belief that you stand your ground until the umpire calls you out. So i wouldn't go complaining too much.


On the Ramdin incident, it is different, Australia could've had the decision reversed if they wanted to, Ramdin was trying to claim a wicket, if given out, it's stuck, and Ramdin has gotten away with cheating. Broad didn't do anything, he just stood there and waited for the umpires call, like every other cricketer in the world does. So no i don't believe Broad should get banned.



Also, thunderstorms possible today. :-\

[Nails]

To be honest I'm sad about that LBW outside the line of off that he didn't play a shot to.

They're like the umpire has to guess he's only guessing. Blah blah blah

That one was bloody obvious it was going to hit the wickets. Not like he was 10 steps down the pitch. He padded up, didn't offer a shot and the way it spun in it was definitely hitting the wickets!

That was so obvious that one :(

And to anybody who says Broad should have walked (I didn't see the incident) clearly you haven't played cricket. You DON'T walk to make up for all the howlers that go against you. I.e. all the times you're given out where you weren't really out. They balance out in the end but you just ruin your life as a batter if you walk every time you're given not out and you walk because you know you are.