Lack of UDRS mars series....predictably!

Anyone that knows me probably knew this post was coming!   Once again the BCCI have proven themselves to be more stubborn then sensible, and in doing so there is the risk of some career-ending wrong decisions.   It only needs Cook or Prior to get bad ones over the rest of the summer and it could wreck a hard-worked for career.

There's too many wrong decisions in the series already to list them all, but it would be interesting to know how the umpires are feeling.   I'd be surprised if they prefer to have their howlers upheld with everyone knowing that it's a wrong decision before the batsman has even got to the changing room.

Controversy at Steyning in the 2nd XI

After the 1st XI away game had been washed out on Saturday we went back and watched the end of the 2nd XI game v Wisborough Green.   Chasing 155, Steyning had to come off after about a dozen overs or so due to a shower and then again after 24 overs, by which time it looked like a game that Steyning were highly likely to win.   Needless to say the Wisborough skipper was reluctant to continue after the second rain break and he suggested that the conditions were dangerous.   

 

Part of his argument was that one of his players, fielding at gully, had been hit flush on the side of the head shortly before the second shower came.   His suggestion was that the conditions had caused the player to get hit, but the reality was that the player simply shouldn't have been fielding there - most players on the pitch would have caught it, or at the very least dropped it having got their hands to it.   That he didn't was a reflection of his skill rather than the conditions.

To make matters worse, Wisborough had no umpire which left the decision making down to the sole umpire from Steyning.   Not surprisingly he had the Steyning side in his ear suggesting play continue and the Wisborough skipper suggesting it shouldn't!

In the end, the Wisborough captain conceded the game rather than continue which seemed a very strange decision.   He was still suggesting that the conditions were too dangerous to play, so I took a few photos of the conditions, complete with clock so it's clear that at least another hour of play would have been  possible.

 From the square

 From the clubhouse

 One wicket end

And the other!

The question no one was quite able to answer was why you'd choose voluntarily to spend much of your Saturday playing cricket but then suddenly not want to play part way through.   The likelihood of losing surely doesn't answer that one because he conceded the points anyway so theoretically the Wisborough skipper must have genuinely thought it was too dangerous to play.   If so, he was very wrong, which the photos demonstrate.

However it came about, a good win for Steyning 2s, who are top of their league.

Poor Joe Root

I feel very sorry for Joe Root...no evidence he edged it but much suggesting the contrary and yet he's gone.   No problem with the technology, but once again the implementation of it that's the problem.   Instead of the batsman having the benefit of the doubt, the bowler got it.   And, although I didn't see it, I gather it's the second time in the day as the same happened to Steve Smith.

The only way round this is to get over the worry about taking responsibility away from umpires.   It shouldn't matter what their original decision is - if there's no evidence to prove the batsman is out then it's not out.   

Strange weekend

A complete TFC on Saturday in a 220+ run win following a decent contribution to a ten wicket win on Thursday but the best bits were on Saturday which started late because an official of our league chose to interview the already late oppo skipper before the game.

It was one of those noisy fielding sides full of inane football type statement of the bleeding obvious teams ( one of the opening batsmen admitted to me that he'd expected it so had taken a nurofen before he went in to bat). I'm umpiring - big appeal for LBW from the whole team ( including deep square and extra cover - I hate that but it may be an age thing). 'Not out'. Team instantly and politely silent but at the end of the over the bowler, again politely, queries it ' because it pitched outside leg and wasn't going to hit'. Accepted perfectly.

Next over he decides to go round the wicket and ' Umpire, would you mind moving please..............................to your left ? ! '

My new hero suffers

So Ed Cowan comes into the Test side at last and is given out caught behind when he didn't hit it and LBW when ball-tracker showed that it was missing. I expect he's wondering why he bothered.

On the other hand Hussey (three times) and Ponting (once) survived because the umpires review system was not available - a major contribution to Australia's win.
Statistics are supposed to show that use of the review system increases accuracy of decisions from 95% to 97% - how they prove that I've no idea but Cowan's experience seems to be a fairly strong contra. But India don't want to use it because it's not perfect (I can't think of anything that is) and so it's not used in their Test matches. But there seems to me to be no reason why you shouldn't allow their opponents access to it even if India don't have such access in the same match and I bet that would bring them round quickly.

Imperfect light

Once again, after the first 4 days of the 2nd Test of South Africa v Australia all saw the players leave the field due to imperfect light, the first day of the Australia v New Zealand series began with the players coming off in imperfect light. Not bad light, but imperfect light. Michael Clarke was arguing to stay on despite New Zealand having two set batsmen at the crease.

The final day of the South Africa match was completed because there was a result on the cards so clearly the conditions weren't dangerous or the umpires would have had no option but to take the players off again? So point 1 on my list to better market Championship and Test cricket is to take the players off only when it's dangerous. It should be a once a season occurrence rather than near daily....

Thrilling Test cricket

I'm not necessarily suggesting the standard of the cricket was that high, although I don't think it was bad, but the South Africa v Australia 2nd Test at The Wanderers was a classic. Patrick Cummins, an 18 year-old on debut for Australia, must be pinching himself after taking 6 for in South Africa's 2nd innings and then clinching the win with a crucial nerveless 13 not out off 15 balls.

This match comes off the back of a quickfire 1st Test where South Africa suffered the ignominy of being bowled out for 96, only to then bowl out Australia for less than half that (even allowing them a final wicket partnership of 26) and winning by 8 wickets.

And outside of this series the recent Zimbabwe v New Zealand match where Zimbabwe threatened a fantastic win on the final day before falling 34 runs short was another thriller.

So great games but still a small audience at the ground at today's final day in South Africa....one to consider. Simon Hughes has recently pondered how to support Test cricket to ensure it's place at the top of the cricketing pile. Hughes mentions bad light as an issue, and that should be point 1 on any agenda to increase the crowds at Tests. Having come off early for bad light every day of the match (despite floodlights being available), the umpires were left in a tricky situation today because the Test was reaching a thrilling conclusion, so the game was completed in darker conditions then they'd come off in on previous days (according the commentators). So clearly conditions weren't dangerous to the players then, or they would have had to come off no matter what the match situation was?

Let's start with the basic step of getting the light issue right and go from there....the matches are certainly offering great entertainment for those that watch them on TV or at the ground.

A bit of a lottery...

...when there's no UDRS. In Sri Lanka's crucial second innings against Pakistan, Sangakkarra looked incredibly unlucky to be given our LBW, and then Angelo Mathews was plumb not playing a shot but not given....

A sad tale...

...not only because the player that had to be held down clearly has some issues, but also because of the way the league reacted in relation to the umpires that had to call the game of....

Dubious Decisions

Did anyone notice that Dhoni took the ball in front of the stumps when he stumped Pietersen the other night in the T20 game?

On dubious decisions, it seems to me that the position over LBW decisions is getting more bizarre. Not for the first time this season a batsman was given not out for one that would have missed off and leg and hit middle about half way up. Also, there have been several occasions when Sky commentators complain that a batsman was given not out because it would have clipped the stumps, or so hawkeye tells us. I am not a good enough mathematician to work out how many fractions of one degree this is but it is an incredibly small margin.

My plea is that either the technology should be used to the full or not at all. If none is used then Sky should only be able to show the game in real time, a bit like it used to be all those years ago.

More on player discipline...

My County Sussex have been quick to do exactly as I suggested counties would do following the James Foster ban and have demonstrated to all that they take discipline seriously by issuing a statement about how they are disciplining Murray Goodwin. You'll note that there is no actual punishment for Goodwin though - just a verbal ticking off for now.

Interesting view from Derek Pringle yesterday too. He hopes that the push for greater player discipline may bring the umpire back to the centre of the game. Which got me thinking....has the crass implementation of the UDRS by the ICC and national boards led to a loss of respect for umpires? I certainly don't think it can help that players get to review decisions rather than umpires having sole discretion on when to use technology.

And Pringle also raises drinking with umpires after the close of play. That's something that has dropped off in club cricket too in my experience, although I do sometimes share a pint with an umpire or both of them.

Pints or not, it appears that under my watch Steyning won't be retaining the Sussex League fair play award, but I'm at a loss as to what I could have done differently to achieve a 10 out of 10!

Captains and player discipline

The other day I commented on CMJ's piece worrying about a deterioration in player discipline. As I wrote on Cricket Burble a while ago, I don't feel it's fair to saddle the captain with all player discipline issues and I'd like to see umpires challenging individual players that say things out of earshot of the captain.

So interesting then to see that James Foster has been banned for 2 games for persistent discipline issues at Essex. He's guilty of a big breach of discipline himself - the CMJ piece says that he had a slanging match with the umpires in front of TV cameras. But this ban comes as a result of 5 Essex disciplinary issues in the last 12 months - not the specific Foster case.

"The regulations make it absolutely clear that the captains are responsible for discipline on the field and ensuring no repetition occurs."

That is what they say, yes. However, it's simply not possible for a captain to ensure that no repetition occurs - the only way that can be done is through non-selection of the likes of Stuart Broad. All the other counties will now presumably put in place procedures that demonstrate they've taken action whenever a player is reported by an umpire, so they can demonstrate that they've tried to do something to avoid a repeat. But that doesn't really address the issue that the captain could be the best captain in the history of the game, but they still can't totally stop individual ill-discipline.

I'd like to see individual fines and penalties increased, and if the captain is deemed to have encouraged ill-discipline they might receive an even greater fine than the individual in question. While Foster's individual actions have demonstrated that he has set a very poor example, I fear for the precedent penalising the captain for the ill-discpline of his/her players sets. What might it lead to? Use your most dispendable player as captain for the toss and admin potentially?

As a captain in club cricket, I support the umpires wherever possible and do what I can to prevent ill-discipline. But I also know that it's impossible to ensure no repetition occurs. So why have regulations that aren't humanly possible to achieve?

Fantastic decision by Taufel

Taufel just gave Sehwag out LBW to a short left-arm over ball from Riaz. Quality decision - as Mike Atherton said on commentary the instinct is to assume that from left-arm over, short balls must pitch outside leg. This time Taufel knew different. It would be interesting to know if the umpires review the bowling actions of the two teams coming into the match to check how they tend to shape the ball and how wide of the crease they tend to go. Riaz on this occassion was very tight to the wicket.

On another note, there's been some criticism of Dhoni for batting first but whatever the result I think he's done the right thing. It's by all accounts a good batting track that will get slower as the match goes on which suggests batting first is a good idea, but equally it takes the pressure of the Indian batsmen. As it is the pressure will be on India's bowlers, but most importantly, Dhoni himself as captain of the side bowling second, and I think he's happy to take that role on.

How is the UDRS accuracy checked?

I love the fact that more decisions are being made correctly - I think it's all that professionals who dedicate much of their lives to improving their performance deserve. But I've got a question....

How does anyone REALLY know whether a decision was made correctly or not?

If there is a way of telling, can we use that for the UDRS please and then we'll get 100% accuracy on decisions?

UDRS in the spotlight again

The lesser version of the UDRS without hotspot is being used in the World Cup, but I doubt anyone knew there was a rule that if the batsman gets more than 2.5m forwards then the on-field umpire can ignore the technology. That seems strange as the accuracy of the technology, from what I understand, is more variable based on how far the ball travels between bounce and impact, rather than distance to travel after impact, but if that's the case, that's the case.

All that needed to happen was that the replays need to be shown in order - front foot from the bowler, did it hit him 2.5m or more away from the stumps, then the straight on replay (only when everyone is aware that it's likely to be irrelevant).

Not surprisingly, the additional layer on the UDRS annoyed MS Dhoni, and Andrew Strauss admitted he didn't know about it. Slightly worrying that no-one has thought to read the laws and match rules inside out as one misinterpretation can prove crucial - maybe the Bell incident will ensure that Strauss has the appropriate bed time reading.

India lag way behind the rest on UDRS

Time and again India say that they aren't happy with the accuracy of technology and therefore won't use it. But then Dhoni continually criticises the umpires for wrong decisions, and it's proven there are more wrong decisions without the UDRS than with it. The fact that India or any other country are allowed to decide if they use technology leaves the ICC rightly open to criticism, not to mention the fact that the players can use reviews and technology isn't used whenever the umpires want it.

Personally I hope the ICC and India see sense soon because the use of the UDRS in some matches just makes it even clearer when mistakes are made in non-UDRS matches. India won by one run against South Africa in their last ODI match but during the chase South African's Johan Botha edged the ball down to 3rd man for a single, only to be given out LBW despite the fact the ball had missed the pad completely. You could easily argue that just that one wrong decision changed the result and South Africa will now go into the World Cup again trying to get rid of the chokers tag, perhaps unfairly in this case.

And anyone reading the New Zealand v Pakistan bulletins couldn't do so without reading about regular umpiring howlers. The latest of the 7 wrong decisions in the first 3 days was Younis Khan who, with Misbah, was going to open up a significant lead for Pakistan in all probability. Instead, he was given caught off the pad and Pakistan lost 6 wickets for 90odd to finish their innings.

Be patient cricket lovers from all around the world. Even the BCCI and ICC will catch up eventually. It would be great for the game if India go out of the World Cup due to an umpiring howler in a tight match as that might finally get the BCCI out of the dark ages, but assuming that doesn't happen, on present form it may be 2020 before the BCCI and ICC get themselves sorted out....

Aggression and frustration from SA

Having thought they got the worst of the umpiring (in the absence of the UDRS) in the 2nd Test, South Africa seemed to get really hot under the collar today. Tendulkar was out caught behind in the first over of the day for 49 but he wasn't given (in fairness to the umpire, not even the bowler Steyn went up for it). Then they thought they got Tendulkar caught behind later on, although from the replays I saw it didn't look like that was the case.

And finally they acted like small children when a Steyn delivery to Harbajan clipped the outside of off-stump quite hard and they mistakenly thought it was an outside edge. To have seen that the ball hit the stumps but didn't disloge the bails was a brilliant piece of umpiring by Gunner Gould. I'm surprised the match referree hasn't taken any action for the way that South Africa reacted to that one.

It's no excuse for players openly questioning the umpires decision, but wouldn't it be simpler to replay and demonstrate to players and crowd alike that it wasn't out...or in the case of Tendulkar in the first over of the day, that it was out? Unless of course you have someone like Ponting who ignores the video evidence and goes off on one anyway!

South Africa v India decider

While England have been retaining The Ashes a remarkable game was going on in South Africa where India came back from being thrashed in the 1st Test of the series, to take the second match and level the series between the top 2 sides in the world. Just one innings of over 40 from man-of-the-match VVS Laxman in the match tells the story of two supposedly strong batting sides struggling. The series is now on a knife-edge and will make brilliant viewing.

It's a pity that captain's only speak about the UDRS when they suffer poor decisions, but that's better than nothing I suppose, with Graeme Smith asking for it to be used in all series after one highly questionable and one terrible umpiring decision helped India wrap up the match.

Incidentally, the fourth of New Zealand's ducks at the top of the order was Ross Taylor who was given out LBW to a ball going over the top of the stumps....

The worst decision ever?

Well that really was a shocker from Billy Doctrove. Ryan Harris called for the review immediately because he'd inside edged onto his pad. It was exactly the type of decision where the technology should help make the correct decision. It was very difficult to tell live that he had hit it (so no criticism of the umpire in the middle), but on replay a small dot showed up on the inside edge on Hotspot, and the TV replay from extra cover seemed to show a deviation. The dot on Hotspot was only small because Harris' bat was coming across the ball and it hit the back edge of the bat, but there was no doubt it was there.

Doctrove thought otherwise and I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to think of a worse decision ever. There's plenty of poor ones in the list of wrong decisions from a couple of years ago, but this one takes the biscuit. Oh dear...

Bad light makes me seeth

The umpires got out of jail when it rained shortly after they took the players off for "bad" light at the Gabba. Would it have been considered bad light in a Twenty20? Of course not, because it wasn't *really* dangerous for the batsmen or fielders. And as I've Burbled before conditions are either dangerous or they aren't - it shouldn't matter what format of the game is being played.

I would suggest that if the umpires can't get this right, the responsibility for addressing bad light should be moved to the ICC referee.

[Definition of "dangerous" in the legal dictionary is apparently "creating a risk of bodily injury", but injuries are part of sport so I'd suggest that in this context it should be interpreted as "creating a risk of death"?]