Wrong decisions?
I just caught a glimpse of the first 3 wickets on the highlights package and thought both Vaughan and Pietersen were both unlucky (So too Strauss).
Vaughan didn't look like he nicked it (the Snicko showed a thuddy type contact rather than a sharp nick) and Pietersen didn't look like he hit the ball with the bat and that the ball hit him outside off stump. In both cases the benefit of the doubt should have kept both men in.
Does anyone else agree or were both legitimately out?
And another thing... how comes South Africa are allowed to appeal against decisions such as the Amla decision at Headingley? I thought as England refused to undertake the appeal process both teams are unable to appeal.
4 comments:
Don't think they officially appealed against the Amla decision as such. When it was claimed, he walked, and the changing room then told him to stand his ground and force the umpires to make a decision, which they then decided to do using the 3rd umpire. This sort of unofficial appeal has been going ever since video replays came in, if you stand your ground and make the umpires make a decision, instead of assuming you're out, often they'll take the safe option and check it.
Does make a bit of a mockery to not use the appeals system though, as this is pretty close to it.
I thought the umpires were gutless in the Amla case. While I think the correct decision is the vital thing - however it is come to - it had been agreed that appeals wouldn't be used and then South Africa effectively had the benefit of an appeal....they watched the replay and then told their batsman to stand his ground. The umpires needed to wave him on his way or otherwise teams will instruct batsmen to walk off slowly so as to have maximum time for the dressing room to watch replays and then advise them.
There was a Pietersen case similar to this last year, but the slight difference was that the two teams hadn't discussed and rejected allowing players to refer decisions.
I can't comment on the Vaughan one as haven't seen any of the replays, but Boucher certainly didn't think it was out. The couple of replays that I saw of Pietersen's suggested he was out LBW - he seemed to be hit in line and then keep on moving so that it appeared he was hit outside the line, but I don't think he was. Reading Mike Atherton this morning, he subscribed to the view that Pietersen wasn't out caught, but wasn't unlucky either as he was LBW.
What happens if they were allowed to appeal and england questioned the caught decision of pietersen, could the third umpire give him out for lbw( even though he was out for caught)?
Karan
That's all in the terms of how they use referrals....it's details like that which stopped referrals being used in this series as the sides couldn't agree. Personally, I'd like to see the third umpire allowed to make whatever the appropriate decision is, so in yesterdays example they'd be able to give the LBW.
Unfortunately Peter Moores advocates the umpires using technology rather than the players asking for referrals, so while that is the case England won't be able to agree on terms with anyone. If the umpire is the one to call for the help of technology then he'll start to call on it a lot and it will break the game up more than necessary, so I don't think Moores will find any other country to agree with him on that.
Post a Comment