England v Australia - 1st Test Trent Bridge

[Bold Seagull]

He's not "bottled" the Agar decision at all, he's simply given the batsman the benefit of the doubt. Although it looks on the line, it's an inexact science so it's possible he was in, therefore not given out. As for Trott, how is that the third umpire's fault? Hot spot showed no nick.

Hot spot from the front only, there was no side hot spot because they had Root's recording cued up so it wasn't working for Trott. The front hot spot was inconclusive.

The massive point here is that the 3rd Umpire has OVERTURNED the on field umpire's decision. From the front camera there is enough reasonable evidence to suggest Trott nicked it. If there is ANY doubt, as with the stumping, then surely the 3rd Umpire has to stick with the on field decision!?!?

It is a bloody dreadful call, a shocking decision and totally the 3rd umpires fault.

 

[grawhite]

He's not "bottled" the Agar decision at all, he's simply given the batsman the benefit of the doubt. Although it looks on the line, it's an inexact science so it's possible he was in, therefore not given out. As for Trott, how is that the third umpire's fault? Hot spot showed no nick.

Front on showed no nick, but there was a fault with side on hotspot, snicko didnt show nothing agreed, but a feather would not register either.

The crease line is the umpires, his foot was on the line, that means out. If you are gonna say part of his might have been in, no one will ever be given out.

 

[Mellotron]

Hot spot wasn't working. Decision overturned. Utterly scandalous. Someone could be in quite a bit of trouble for this one.

 

[Bold Seagull]

All the technology suggests he was plumb, as was Australia's immediate decision to review it. Against that, we have Trott's confident reaction and a slight deviation in the ball after it passes the pad.

For me, he was out.

Against that, we also have the fact, arguably the best umpire in the world gave it NOT OUT.

 

[Mellotron]

It is a bloody dreadful call, a shocking decision and totally the 3rd umpires fault.

One of the first things I learnt about cricket, around age 8 - "If in doubt, not out." Some people are still struggling with this well into adulthood.

Even if you THINK it was out, it's still NOT OUT, because there is doubt. Complex, I know.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Interesting stat. Pietersen is 7 runs behind Cook. If he manages to overtake him by 31 runs then both players will have scored the identical number of runs in test cricket and have an identical test average.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Hot spot wasn't working. Decision overturned. Utterly scandalous. Someone could be in quite a bit of trouble for this one.

Totally agree. I don't think Darr is going to be too happy either when he see's his own decision has been wrongly over turned.

Snicko isn't used as it's unreliable, but from front on, the deviation on the ball is pretty clear. Even if there is the slightest doubt Darr's decision has to stand. Awful. We've been done by two awful decisions by someone who hasn't a ****ing clue in how to read television pictures.

 

[Mellotron]

Totally agree. I don't think Darr is going to be too happy either when he see's his own decision has been wrongly over turned.

Snicko isn't used as it's unreliable, but from front on, the deviation on the ball is pretty clear. Even if there is the slightest doubt Darr's decision has to stand. Awful. We've been done by two awful decisions by someone who hasn't a ****ing clue in how to read television pictures.

I thought I was going MAD that I saw the clear deviation and no one else did?!

 

[BensGrandad]

Big innings needed from Cook and Pieterson.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

One of the first things I learnt about cricket, around age 8 - "If in doubt, not out." Some people are still struggling with this well into adulthood.

Even if you THINK it was out, it's still NOT OUT, because there is doubt. Complex, I know.

What you are saying is EXACTLY the reasoning that the stumping was given not out, and I can understand it.

In irrelevant in the Trott discussion. The 3rd umpire gave it out because he DIDN'T consider there was a doubt.

 

[Sussex on Leith]

Worst 3rd umpire i have seen in a long while, bottled it on Agar decision and bottled it on Trott too.

Worst I've seen for about 3 hours. Two absolute shockers.

It's all very well saying "hot spot doesn't show anything" (and from only one angle, they didn't have the other because they were preparing to show the Root wicket and it can't play and record at the same time - another point of interest/controversy), but you could see from the very first replay that the ball deviated sharply from bat on to pad. You don't need hot spot to give that not out, you just need eyes.

You could see from Aleem Dar's reaction that he was as mystified as Trott. And if anyone proposes we should "let it go", they can do one - I wouldn't let a blatant refereeing shocker go if it cost the Albion a match, and the same goes for this.

Long way to go though. C'mon boys, show some fight.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I thought I was going MAD that I saw the clear deviation and no one else did?!

Trouble is, other than Botham, they're all such apologists for the game, don't want to upset the apple cart. Fact is, that wasn't even a little nick to me, it takes a big kick.

IF Darr had given it out on the field and the batsman reviewed it and it stayed out, I could take that.

BUT Darr gave it not out. How on earth can the 3rd umpire be certain enough to overturn a decision made by someone 22 yards away!?

I'm stunned.

 

[Chesney Christ]

there is just something not quite right with Cook when playing in England. .

You're talking shit. As always.

Cook's overall batting average in test matches is 49.02. His average in the last Ashes series down under (probably the hardest series for any cricketer to prove themselves in) was 127.66. His average in our last test series against the World No.1 (South Africa) was 40.28, and his average in the last series against the World No. 2 (away from home against India) was 43.73.

 

[grawhite]

What you are saying is EXACTLY the reasoning that the stumping was given not out, and I can understand it.

In irrelevant in the Trott discussion. The 3rd umpire gave it out because he DIDN'T consider there was a doubt.

Without the full use of hotspot, you cannot give a batsman out on a hunch he didnt hit it.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Agreed. Looked absolutely stone cold OUT, live. Can't believe he didn't give it.

I can tell you're a bowler....

 

[halbpro]

What you are saying is EXACTLY the reasoning that the stumping was given not out, and I can understand it.

In irrelevant in the Trott discussion. The 3rd umpire gave it out because he DIDN'T consider there was a doubt.

But the lack of the side on hot spot introduces doubt surely? He doesn't have all the relevant facts.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Without the full use of hotspot, you cannot give a batsman out on a hunch he didnt hit it.

I agree with this aspect, yes.

I watching on the sly at work, with no sound, so hadn't heard about the other hotspot camera being out of action.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Without the full use of hotspot, you cannot give a batsman out on a hunch he didnt hit it.

Completely agree.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I can tell you're a bowler....

'kin right

 

[Bold Seagull]

Without the full use of hotspot, you cannot give a batsman out on a hunch he didnt hit it.

Too bloody right. I can't believe people are just accepting this one. It's a genuine shocker created by the review system which is there to only eliminate the shockers.

Totally against the spirit of the game, the reason we have a review system, everything. Undermining an on field umpire with that decision is a disgrace. Absolute disgrace.

I'm not even sure this is just me being artisan, I don't want to see technology creating controversy when it should be eliminating it. So so wrong.