So, Overton? Got moxey and given us a selection pickle? Or should we be getting Wood/Crane/some other X-factor bowler in stat?
Depends what the wicket is like. If it's a fast track then Wood has to play but if it's a bunsen burner then we might have to risk Crane. But it has to be Overton that gives way simply because we can't drop Woakes as he is the better batsman - Overton (8), Broad (9), Crane (10) and Anderson (11) is too long a tail.
I would also move Bairstow up to 6 because Moeen likes to get on with it too much and to break up the left handers having to face Lyon - although they should be a lot better at playing him than they have demonstrated to date.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Ah, i think i understand your point now , and its quite a good one if i have understood it correctly.
So, using Smiths lbw as an example..
1) he was given out by umpire. 2) DRS suggests the pitch of the ball was outside leg, but this could be construed as 'Umpires call' however the rules state that it is not out. 3) in terms of hitting the wicket (now irrelevant) the ball was umpires call but would have been deemed as out.
Therefore, if point 3) is out then why isnt 2) regarded the same way (by umpires call)?
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Tennis it tracks where the ball actually went. In cricket we're trying to predict where the ball would have gone had it not hit pad. That's why there is umpires call but only for the stumps not for where it pitched as we know that with certainty.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
So, Overton? Got moxey and given us a selection pickle? Or should we be getting Wood/Crane/some other X-factor bowler in stat?
Depends what the wicket is like. If it's a fast track then Wood has to play but if it's a bunsen burner then we might have to risk Crane. But it has to be Overton that gives way simply because we can't drop Woakes as he is the better batsman - Overton (8), Broad (9), Crane (10) and Anderson (11) is too long a tail.
I would also move Bairstow up to 6 because Moeen likes to get on with it too much and to break up the left handers having to face Lyon - although they should be a lot better at playing him than they have demonstrated to date.
As it's the WACA, presumably it will be fast and bouncy
Until today, Woakes's place has looked vulnerable, but he's scored runs and in the last half hour bowled much better. Indeed Overton might still be dropped unless he bowls really well in the second innings
So, has Overton played himself into the side for the foreseeable future? I think his bowling should be nowhere near this Test side, but the Australians haven't got him out yet. Maybe see how he goes in the second innings, bowling and batting...
Nowhere near. He's taken 3-113 so far. That's not exactly stellar. I hope he stays in and I am sure he will continue to improve. But England will have plummeted a long way if a return of 3-113 is sufficient to guarantee a berth for "the foreseeable future".
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Tennis it tracks where the ball actually went. In cricket we're trying to predict where the ball would have gone had it not hit pad. That's why there is umpires call but only for the stumps not for where it pitched as we know that with certainty.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
Thanks Canters - so what they are, effectively, saying is that technology, in the case of the ball hitting the stumps after it has hit the batsman's pads, is actually less reliable than the umpire e.g. the umpire gives the bat not out, the technology shows that the ball is actually clipping the bails but the batsman is still not out because of the umpire's decision. And yet technology has all the gifts afforded to it but the naked eye has just that and a decision that has to be made in a nanosecond.
With regards to the ball pitching outside leg, am I right in saying that the first Smith review for LBW was given not out because more than half of the ball pitched outside leg but that some part of the ball did pitch in line? If that is the case, then, in my opinion, it should be given out.
Strange decision by Smith granted, when Australia win tomorrow or Wednesday it will be completely forgotten about though
As Starc said in the post match interview, England will still have to bat twice under the lights to win/save the game, so it's not as if England have avoided this proble
I like his confidence. Although, of course, England will be looking to bat just once under the lights, in order to win the game.
If we bowl them out for 100 (which, at 53-4, with both Australia's star batsmen back in the hutch, should the the aim), we'll be chasing an improbable 320-odd. At 80 per session, if we are not bowled out, we will win before tea on day five. There is no way we will be batting in the final scheduled session of the match, if we get them out for under 100.
I think Australia will win. I think England *could* win. But there is no way England will be batting under the lights two more times in this match.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Tennis it tracks where the ball actually went. In cricket we're trying to predict where the ball would have gone had it not hit pad. That's why there is umpires call but only for the stumps not for where it pitched as we know that with certainty.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
@cantersaddick has just enhanced his already stellar reputation as CL's leading data analyst.
So.....we have a chance of avoiding total embarrassment. They are of course still comfortably in the driving seat.......but we may have the opportunity to at least make a fight of it and get some brownie points into the bargain, if nowt else.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Tennis it tracks where the ball actually went. In cricket we're trying to predict where the ball would have gone had it not hit pad. That's why there is umpires call but only for the stumps not for where it pitched as we know that with certainty.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
Fantastic points Canters.(also shows you've got eff all work to do ) However, AA does add one fascinating observation in this in as much as , maybe Umpires call should be effective for the whole delivery and not just the prediction part. In that case, maybe the pitching of the ball should also have some relevance re Umpires call - and in Smiths case would have been out.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Tennis it tracks where the ball actually went. In cricket we're trying to predict where the ball would have gone had it not hit pad. That's why there is umpires call but only for the stumps not for where it pitched as we know that with certainty.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
Thanks Canters - so what they are, effectively, saying is that technology, in the case of the ball hitting the stumps after it has hit the batsman's pads, is actually less reliable than the umpire e.g. the umpire gives the bat not out, the technology shows that the ball is actually clipping the bails but the batsman is still not out because of the umpire's decision. And yet technology has all the gifts afforded to it but the naked eye has just that and a decision that has to be made in a nanosecond.
With regards to the ball pitching outside leg, am I right in saying that the first Smith review for LBW was given not out because more than half of the ball pitched outside leg but that some part of the ball did pitch in line? If that is the case, then, in my opinion, it should be given out.
I'm no expert and I think your question is more on the ICC's use of the technology rather than the actual technology.
What they are effectively trying to do is create a forecast based on hundreds of factors about the ball that has been bowled. As someone who works in forecasting I can tell you there is no such thing as a correct forecast. It's more about the best guess given what has happened and what looks like it might happen. If a forecast turns out to be 'correct' then it's as much by chance and by judgement, if you were to break down that 'correct' forecast into its components I can guarantee that some will be out but the differences (some positive some negative) will offset each other to equal zero.
I think that they are simply recognising that with trying to predict where the ball would have gone there is a margin for error so in the cases where the technology is marginal they go with the umpires decision as the umpire has as good a guess as anyone. I think that this is linked to the ICC wanting to use technology to remover bowlers not marginal calls.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Tennis it tracks where the ball actually went. In cricket we're trying to predict where the ball would have gone had it not hit pad. That's why there is umpires call but only for the stumps not for where it pitched as we know that with certainty.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
Fantastic points Canters.(also shows you've got eff all work to do ) However, AA does add one fascinating observation in this in as much as , maybe Umpires call should be effective for the whole delivery and not just the prediction part. In that case, maybe the pitching of the ball should also have some relevance re Umpires call - and in Smiths case would have been out.
Haha I'm making a forecast as we speak!
As AA said:
"With regards to the ball pitching outside leg, am I right in saying that the first Smith review for LBW was given not out because more than half of the ball pitched outside leg but that some part of the ball did pitch in line? If that is the case, then, in my opinion, it should be given out."
I tend to agree. I don't think the issue is with whether there is an umpires call on that part of the process but in the rule itself.
The people that make that technology are certain that they can mark where the ball pitches with 100% accuracy and it can be tested because it actually happens. So if the technology shows that more than half the ball is outside the line then that has to be the decision. The introduction of an umpires call there isn't the right way to go in my opinion that would imply there is a margin for error there in which case the whole technology gets thrown into doubt.
I think there should be a rule change. As others above have said the rule was brought in to prevent aggressive leg side bowling (or something like that) Anderson's ball was in no way against the spirit of that time and wasn't dangerous. Now we have such increased accuracy with technology I would change the rule so that it is the whole ball has to pitch outside leg rather than half for the decision to be overruled. So if any part of the ball pitches in line that's okay.
Where the ball pitched though is surely where it made contact with the pitch surface - in which case the centre of the ball made contact with the pitch outside the line.
Overton showed a lot of bottle and stick ability which is more than Vince, Root etc showed. The batsmen should be ashamed of themselves. We bowled well in the evening session in what I would call English conditions. I think the Aussies have already got enough.
Where the ball pitched though is surely where it made contact with the pitch surface - in which case the centre of the ball made contact with the pitch outside the line.
But how big is the centre? The fact that more than half the ball made contact outside the line does not mean that some past of the ball didn't pitch in line does it?
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Tennis it tracks where the ball actually went. In cricket we're trying to predict where the ball would have gone had it not hit pad. That's why there is umpires call but only for the stumps not for where it pitched as we know that with certainty.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
Fantastic points Canters.(also shows you've got eff all work to do ) However, AA does add one fascinating observation in this in as much as , maybe Umpires call should be effective for the whole delivery and not just the prediction part. In that case, maybe the pitching of the ball should also have some relevance re Umpires call - and in Smiths case would have been out.
Haha I'm making a forecast as we speak!
As AA said:
"With regards to the ball pitching outside leg, am I right in saying that the first Smith review for LBW was given not out because more than half of the ball pitched outside leg but that some part of the ball did pitch in line? If that is the case, then, in my opinion, it should be given out."
I tend to agree. I don't think the issue is with whether there is an umpires call on that part of the process but in the rule itself.
The people that make that technology are certain that they can mark where the ball pitches with 100% accuracy and it can be tested because it actually happens. So if the technology shows that more than half the ball is outside the line then that has to be the decision. The introduction of an umpires call there isn't the right way to go in my opinion that would imply there is a margin for error there in which case the whole technology gets thrown into doubt.
I think there should be a rule change. As others above have said the rule was brought in to prevent aggressive leg side bowling (or something like that) Anderson's ball was in no way against the spirit of that time and wasn't dangerous. Now we have such increased accuracy with technology I would change the rule so that it is the whole ball has to pitch outside leg rather than half for the decision to be overruled. So if any part of the ball pitches in line that's okay.
I predict we will have them reeling at 70-7 within the first half hour before the tail wags, they make 150 and then bowl us out for 98.
Starting to regret paying for BT
Overton and Woakes survived quite comfortably out there, tomorrow under the sun I can see the likes of Marsh, Payne and Cummins making decent runs, as the ball only seems to swing under the lights, and will be soon be soft.
I predict we will have them reeling at 70-7 within the first half hour before the tail wags, they make 150 and then bowl us out for 98.
Starting to regret paying for BT
Overton and Woakes survived quite comfortably out there, tomorrow under the sun I can see the likes of Marsh, Payne and Cummins making decent runs, as the ball only seems to swing under the lights, and will be soon be soft.
Yes but that's exactly the time that Moeen comes on and turns it square. Doesn't it?
Where the ball pitched though is surely where it made contact with the pitch surface - in which case the centre of the ball made contact with the pitch outside the line.
But how big is the centre? The fact that more than half the ball made contact outside the line does not mean that some past of the ball didn't pitch in line does it?
The centre would be a point and therefore have no dimensions.
Where the ball pitched though is surely where it made contact with the pitch surface - in which case the centre of the ball made contact with the pitch outside the line.
But how big is the centre? The fact that more than half the ball made contact outside the line does not mean that some past of the ball didn't pitch in line does it?
The centre would be a point and therefore have no dimensions.
Thanks and this makes it so much easier for me the next time I give a batsman not out and the bowler queries why. I shall tell him:
"I'm afraid that, whilst it is true to say that some part of the ball did indeed pitch in line, because the centre 'point' of the ball did not, I have no choice other than to give the batsman not out".
That should satisfy the bowler. And make me an absolute genius for knowing what and where the "point" of the ball is.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Tennis it tracks where the ball actually went. In cricket we're trying to predict where the ball would have gone had it not hit pad. That's why there is umpires call but only for the stumps not for where it pitched as we know that with certainty.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
Fantastic points Canters.(also shows you've got eff all work to do ) However, AA does add one fascinating observation in this in as much as , maybe Umpires call should be effective for the whole delivery and not just the prediction part. In that case, maybe the pitching of the ball should also have some relevance re Umpires call - and in Smiths case would have been out.
Haha I'm making a forecast as we speak!
As AA said:
"With regards to the ball pitching outside leg, am I right in saying that the first Smith review for LBW was given not out because more than half of the ball pitched outside leg but that some part of the ball did pitch in line? If that is the case, then, in my opinion, it should be given out."
I tend to agree. I don't think the issue is with whether there is an umpires call on that part of the process but in the rule itself.
The people that make that technology are certain that they can mark where the ball pitches with 100% accuracy and it can be tested because it actually happens. So if the technology shows that more than half the ball is outside the line then that has to be the decision. The introduction of an umpires call there isn't the right way to go in my opinion that would imply there is a margin for error there in which case the whole technology gets thrown into doubt.
I think there should be a rule change. As others above have said the rule was brought in to prevent aggressive leg side bowling (or something like that) Anderson's ball was in no way against the spirit of that time and wasn't dangerous. Now we have such increased accuracy with technology I would change the rule so that it is the whole ball has to pitch outside leg rather than half for the decision to be overruled. So if any part of the ball pitches in line that's okay.
Which is where I was trying to get to.
Yes. I was just highlighting it shouldn't be fine through the DRS system or through an umpires call issue but a definitive rule change.
Where the ball pitched though is surely where it made contact with the pitch surface - in which case the centre of the ball made contact with the pitch outside the line.
But how big is the centre? The fact that more than half the ball made contact outside the line does not mean that some past of the ball didn't pitch in line does it?
The centre would be a point and therefore have no dimensions.
Thanks and this makes it so much easier for me the next time I give a batsman not out and the bowler queries why. I shall tell him:
"I'm afraid that, whilst it is true to say that some part of the ball did indeed pitch in line, because the centre 'point' of the ball did not, I have no choice other than to give the batsman not out".
That should satisfy the bowler. And make me an absolute genius for knowing what and where the "point" of the ball is.
If you're umpiring on the new square at Loring Hall, the ball might roll along the ground anyway after the first bounce, so you could take your pick of the various points at which it pitches.
Where the ball pitched though is surely where it made contact with the pitch surface - in which case the centre of the ball made contact with the pitch outside the line.
But how big is the centre? The fact that more than half the ball made contact outside the line does not mean that some past of the ball didn't pitch in line does it?
The centre would be a point and therefore have no dimensions.
Thanks and this makes it so much easier for me the next time I give a batsman not out and the bowler queries why. I shall tell him:
"I'm afraid that, whilst it is true to say that some part of the ball did indeed pitch in line, because the centre 'point' of the ball did not, I have no choice other than to give the batsman not out".
That should satisfy the bowler. And make me an absolute genius for knowing what and where the "point" of the ball is.
In reality, of course, a ball makes an indentation, the size and shape of which depends on the pitch conditions and the velocity of the delivery. But, in practical terms it's easier to assume the contact is made at a point, congruent to the centre the lowest surface of the ball at the moment of contact.
Comments
I would also move Bairstow up to 6 because Moeen likes to get on with it too much and to break up the left handers having to face Lyon - although they should be a lot better at playing him than they have demonstrated to date.
So, using Smiths lbw as an example..
1) he was given out by umpire.
2) DRS suggests the pitch of the ball was outside leg, but this could be construed as 'Umpires call' however the rules state that it is not out.
3) in terms of hitting the wicket (now irrelevant) the ball was umpires call but would have been deemed as out.
Therefore, if point 3) is out then why isnt 2) regarded the same way (by umpires call)?
Very good point.
To clarify. There is no margin for error on where the ball has been as it happened and the believe the technology is 100% accurate for tracking what actually happened. It's predicting where the ball would have gone after an impact had that impact not happened where the difficulty arises. This is because we have no way of accuracy checking it as the ball was interfered with. So there has to be some margin for error hence umpires call.
Until today, Woakes's place has looked vulnerable, but he's scored runs and in the last half hour bowled much better. Indeed Overton might still be dropped unless he bowls really well in the second innings
With regards to the ball pitching outside leg, am I right in saying that the first Smith review for LBW was given not out because more than half of the ball pitched outside leg but that some part of the ball did pitch in line? If that is the case, then, in my opinion, it should be given out.
If we bowl them out for 100 (which, at 53-4, with both Australia's star batsmen back in the hutch, should the the aim), we'll be chasing an improbable 320-odd. At 80 per session, if we are not bowled out, we will win before tea on day five. There is no way we will be batting in the final scheduled session of the match, if we get them out for under 100.
I think Australia will win. I think England *could* win. But there is no way England will be batting under the lights two more times in this match.
They are of course still comfortably in the driving seat.......but we may have the opportunity to at least make a fight of it and get some brownie points into the bargain, if nowt else.
However, AA does add one fascinating observation in this in as much as , maybe Umpires call should be effective for the whole delivery and not just the prediction part. In that case, maybe the pitching of the ball should also have some relevance re Umpires call - and in Smiths case would have been out.
What they are effectively trying to do is create a forecast based on hundreds of factors about the ball that has been bowled. As someone who works in forecasting I can tell you there is no such thing as a correct forecast. It's more about the best guess given what has happened and what looks like it might happen. If a forecast turns out to be 'correct' then it's as much by chance and by judgement, if you were to break down that 'correct' forecast into its components I can guarantee that some will be out but the differences (some positive some negative) will offset each other to equal zero.
I think that they are simply recognising that with trying to predict where the ball would have gone there is a margin for error so in the cases where the technology is marginal they go with the umpires decision as the umpire has as good a guess as anyone. I think that this is linked to the ICC wanting to use technology to remover bowlers not marginal calls.
As AA said:
"With regards to the ball pitching outside leg, am I right in saying that the first Smith review for LBW was given not out because more than half of the ball pitched outside leg but that some part of the ball did pitch in line? If that is the case, then, in my opinion, it should be given out."
I tend to agree. I don't think the issue is with whether there is an umpires call on that part of the process but in the rule itself.
The people that make that technology are certain that they can mark where the ball pitches with 100% accuracy and it can be tested because it actually happens. So if the technology shows that more than half the ball is outside the line then that has to be the decision. The introduction of an umpires call there isn't the right way to go in my opinion that would imply there is a margin for error there in which case the whole technology gets thrown into doubt.
I think there should be a rule change. As others above have said the rule was brought in to prevent aggressive leg side bowling (or something like that) Anderson's ball was in no way against the spirit of that time and wasn't dangerous. Now we have such increased accuracy with technology I would change the rule so that it is the whole ball has to pitch outside leg rather than half for the decision to be overruled. So if any part of the ball pitches in line that's okay.
Let's see how the second innings goes
Starting to regret paying for BT
"I'm afraid that, whilst it is true to say that some part of the ball did indeed pitch in line, because the centre 'point' of the ball did not, I have no choice other than to give the batsman not out".
That should satisfy the bowler. And make me an absolute genius for knowing what and where the "point" of the ball is.
Does a no ball count in a batsman's 'balls faced' stats ?
You can score off a no ball, so it counts.