England v Australia - 1st Test Trent Bridge

[Billy the Fish]

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.

He's bloody WRONG then isn't he.

There is clear doubt in both cases, you can't argue it both ways so the benefit goes to the bowler in one instance and the batsman in the other. It has to be CONSISTANT.

Can you not see that?

 

[Bold Seagull]

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.

Front on camera was all he had really. Front on camera shows a nick. There is no way on earth he can be 100% sure to overturn an on field umpire. Dreadful.

 

[Simster]

Yeah I guess the overturning of the Trott decision is indeed a poor one.

I don't think the not out of the stumping was unreasonable though.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Bairstow and Root have shown nothing to justify being there

Err, come again.

Who would you have picked ahead of them? And what would you expect from Root - a 22 year old - to justify being included in the side for this match?

 

[Chesney Christ]

Front on camera was all he had really. Front on camera shows a nick. There is no way on earth he can be 100% sure to overturn an on field umpire. Dreadful.

This.

Hans, for once, you've got it VERY wrong. Typical bowler....

 

[grawhite]

Err, come again.

Who would you have picked ahead of them? And what would you expect from Root - a 22 year old - to justify being included in the side for this match?

Might have opted for Trott to open with cook, and take a little pressure off of Root. If Petersen had had more cricket, i would have said him to open.

 

[Chesney Christ]

"BBC Sport's Sam Sheringham at Trent Bridge
Jonathan Trott

"I've just been chatting to an ECB press officer who says Jonathan Trott is absolutely adamant that he hit the ball from Mitchell Starc before it thudded into his pad."

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Front on camera was all he had really. Front on camera shows a nick. There is no way on earth he can be 100% sure to overturn an on field umpire. Dreadful.

I agree with you that the overturning aspect here IS important, and that he probably didn't have enough conclusive evidence to OVERTURN the not out decision (as I said, when arguing the point earlier, I was not aware about the out-of-action hotspot, and had assumed they'd checked both).

Perversly though, in real time I WOULD have given it, and there would probably not be enough conclusive evidence to have overturned that to NOT out...

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Never been a fan of the Review System and never will be. Takes away the Umpires decision and makes decisions like that appalling, you can now see why the BCCI don't like the system and will never use it.

Get rid of it.....

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yeah I guess the overturning of the Trott decision is indeed a poor one.

I don't think the not out of the stumping was unreasonable though.

I agree. I can accept the stumping as he wasn't 100% (even though it pretty much looked nailed on, but there he couldn't be certain).

Trott's is a dreadful dreadful use of the system. To create a controversy from a system that is meant to eliminate it. As with LBW's, even when Hawkeye shows it hitting the stumps, it has to be a full ball etc. to overturn the umpire's decision. There is no way the 3rd umpire should be interfering with the on field decision in this situation when he can't be sure.

In fact, as soon as side hot spot was not available, he should have been sticking with the on field decision.

I can't believe how much I'm fuming over this one!!

 

[Bold Seagull]

I agree with you that the overturning aspect here IS important, and that he probably didn't have enough conclusive evidence to OVERTURN the not out decision (as I said, when arguing the point earlier, I was not aware about the out-of-action hotspot, and had assumed they'd checked both).

Perversly though, in real time I WOULD have given it, and there would probably not be enough conclusive evidence to have overturned that to NOT out...

and had Dar given it out, I wouldn't be complaining if Trott had reviewed it and the 3rd umpire stuck with that decision.

The point is, once the 3rd umpire realised he didn't have enough evidence, he has to stick with the on field decision. There is no controversy then, as everyone can see the pictures are at best inconclusive.

He's created a controversy. Either he's not been trained, he's an idiot, or he's got something riding on the Aussies!

 

[Chesney Christ]

I agree with you that the overturning aspect here IS important, and that he probably didn't have enough conclusive evidence to OVERTURN the not out decision (as I said, when arguing the point earlier, I was not aware about the out-of-action hotspot, and had assumed they'd checked both).

Perversly though, in real time I WOULD have given it, and there would probably not be enough conclusive evidence to have overturned that to NOT out...

Perhaps it wasn't given in the first place because the on-field umpire saw an inside edge, which it has since been reported that Trott is adamant he got. He was also CLEARLY very bemused by the decision.

Watching on the telly, you and I are not in a position to say with 100% certainty that it didn't get a nick. Only on the field can such small nicks be detected.... in my opinion.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Why haven't we heard from the Barmy Army until now, was there a planned protest from banning the Trumpet? we need to shut up these plastic Fanatics somehow and we haven't done it.

 

[Mellotron]

For those who don't think it took a nick, how do you explain the clear deviation immediately after the bat?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Perhaps it wasn't given in the first place because the on-field umpire saw an inside edge, which it has since been reported that Trott is adamant he got. He was also CLEARLY very bemused by the decision.

Watching on the telly, you and I are not in a position to say with 100% certainty that it didn't get a nick. Only on the field can such small nicks be detected.... in my opinion.

That's fair. I agree.

How much communication actually is there between the on-field and third umpires? For example, is Daar able to say while he's reviewing it, "I heard a nick"? in which case the 3rd umpire would be duty bound to find conclusive evidence that he didn't, before overturning it.

 

[Munkfish]

Why haven't we heard from the Barmy Army until now, was there a planned protest from banning the Trumpet? we need to shut up these plastic Fanatics somehow and we haven't done it.

what are you talking about?

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Perhaps it wasn't given in the first place because the on-field umpire saw an inside edge, which it has since been reported that Trott is adamant he got. He was also CLEARLY very bemused by the decision.

Watching on the telly, you and I are not in a position to say with 100% certainty that it didn't get a nick. Only on the field can such small nicks be detected.... in my opinion.

Before Clarke made the decision to review it, you had two or three Aussies intimidate Aleem Dar to try and change his mind. He knew immediately that Trott hit that onto his pad.

 

[dougdeep]

I love it how people expect refs and umpires to get it right every time. You should try concentrating for hours and even days. Your mind has to wander on occasions, especially after a dull spell of play.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Who is the third umpire in this test, anyway?

 

[Basil Fawlty]

what are you talking about?

The Barmy Army have been ridiculously quiet throughout the two days. Even at 9 down, the Barmy Army were dead quiet.....