Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

3rd Ashes Test

13567

Comments

  • CHG
    CHG Posts: 4,529
    Lyon for Agar, Starc for Pattinson and Warner for Hughes.
    Eng no change are the rumours.
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
    If those changes are correct and the Aussies have any sense, they'll stick Warner in to open and push Watson down to 5 (with Clarke moving back to 4).

    Reckon it could be a straight swap though. Which is great for England.
  • BlackForestReds
    BlackForestReds Posts: 17,952
    Watson will bat six if he plays - him opening against a moving ball would be slip catching practice.

    Smith (Test average 29) will bat at five.
  • CHG
    CHG Posts: 4,529
    Aus won toss and are batting
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
    edited August 2013
    Australia win the toss and choose to bat. England would have also batted.

    Rumoured changes for Australia are confirmed. Clarke says Warner will bat at six.

    England unchanged.
  • CHG
    CHG Posts: 4,529
    like discussed, Smith at 5 and Warner at 6 is a strange decision.
  • McBobbin
    McBobbin Posts: 12,051
    Doesn't matter where Watson bats, he'll be out LBW and waste a review.
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,846
    BlackForestReds said:

    Billy Bowden is no longer an elite umpire. Aleem Dar barring the odd strange decision is probably the best umpire out there along with Marais Erasmus - although the latter clearly missed the seminar on how DRS works.

    The best umpires might be the 4 English ones (I've no idea) but of course we'll never see them! Add in the 4 Aussie umpires, and there aren't many to choose from for 10 Ashes Tests!
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
    edited August 2013
    Aus 70-0, 16ovs

    Rogers 52*
    Watson 18*
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,846
    Have Australia played a ringer here in place of Chris Rogers? 56 in 51 balls?
  • Sponsored links:



  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
    edited August 2013
    Knew posting the score would do it!

    76-1. Watson caught in the slips for 19.
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    waiting for Watson to call for DRS...
  • BlackForestReds
    BlackForestReds Posts: 17,952
    Needed that wicket...we're through to the tail now.
  • McBobbin
    McBobbin Posts: 12,051
    BlackForestReds said:

    Needed that wicket...we're through to the tail now.

    How right you are!
  • BlackForestReds
    BlackForestReds Posts: 17,952
    82-2 Khawaja ct Prior b Swann 1

    Looked a dodgy decision on DRS to me, great take by Prior though.
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    bad DRS decision tbh...
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
    There was another noise as the bat passed the ball though? Is it just me that heard that?
  • BlackForestReds
    BlackForestReds Posts: 17,952
    Callumcafc said:

    There was another noise as the bat passed the ball though? Is it just me that heard that?

    Looked like the bat flicked the top of the pad as it came down.

  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
    After that though, I thought I heard a second noise... maybe I'm going crazy.
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    BlackForestReds said:

    Callumcafc said:

    There was another noise as the bat passed the ball though? Is it just me that heard that?

    Looked like the bat flicked the top of the pad as it came down.

    Exactly, typical Ian Botham ignoring it for his own opinion. Bad commentating, of course Warne is going to be ticked off about it.
  • Sponsored links:



  • BlackForestReds
    BlackForestReds Posts: 17,952
    Callumcafc said:

    After that though, I thought I heard a second noise... maybe I'm going crazy.

    Could have been the batsman dragging his back foot, definitely not out though.

  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    BlackForestReds said:

    Callumcafc said:

    After that though, I thought I heard a second noise... maybe I'm going crazy.

    Could have been the batsman dragging his back foot, definitely not out though.

    it was a click, which snicko showed was made after the ball had passed. But i can totally see how the 3rd umpire came to that decision. Think the commentators are being unnecessarily harsh.
  • lordromford
    lordromford Posts: 7,783
    Callumcafc said:

    After that though, I thought I heard a second noise... maybe I'm going crazy.

    Wrong decision in the end, but without the benefit of snicko, there was definitely a click at about the time the ball passed the bat and that was clearly why the 3rd ump gave it out. It was only snicko that showed the noise to be after the ball had passed.
    kentaddick said:


    typical Ian Botham ignoring it for his own opinion. Bad commentating, of course Warne is going to be ticked off about it.

    This, absolutely. Botham's going on about how you can 'see a gap' which is inconclusive at best, but ignoring the second noise. The guys an arrogant git who thinks everyone else's opinion is worthless.
    Like I say though, after all that, it was a wrong decision that snicko would've corrected.
  • BlackForestReds
    BlackForestReds Posts: 17,952
    kentaddick said:

    BlackForestReds said:

    Callumcafc said:

    After that though, I thought I heard a second noise... maybe I'm going crazy.

    Could have been the batsman dragging his back foot, definitely not out though.

    it was a click, which snicko showed was made after the ball had passed. But i can totally see how the 3rd umpire came to that decision. Think the commentators are being unnecessarily harsh.
    Snicko is not part of DRS (it takes too long to get the results) but they do use ambient sound - so I presume Dhamasena confirmed the on-field umpire's decision based on that rather than hot-spot and the human eye which suggested that it was close, but not out.

    The question I have about snicko though is whether it is perfectly synchronised with the pictures. Sound and light travel at different speeds.
  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,802
    That's why Snicko isn't used, as it takes the producers at Sky ages to sync it.

    DRS tech isn't the problem, it works, it's the umpire in the TMO chair who has made the mistakes
  • Lincsaddick
    Lincsaddick Posts: 32,348
    edited August 2013
    these 3rd umpire calls get worse and worse .. at least the original decision was 'out' so the Aussies are no worse off than if there was no technology to check the decision .. but the whole idea is that referrals eliminate gross errors .. so far in this series this is just not happening
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,846
    Rothko said:

    That's why Snicko isn't used, as it takes the producers at Sky ages to sync it.

    DRS tech isn't the problem, it works, it's the umpire in the TMO chair who has made the mistakes

    again!
  • randy andy
    randy andy Posts: 5,454
    Did the guy in the TMO chair make the error though. As David Lloyd said, he can only give a positive or negative answer to a question posed by the on-field umpire. If the question is something like "Is there a definitive reason to overturn the decision" then the TMO can only say, no. He's not allowed to say that he's 90% sure the batsman didn't hit it, he can't only say he definitely did hit it or he definitely didn't. So in this case with the second "click" noise, the TMO can't say with 100% certainty that the batsman didn't hit the ball, so the on-field decision stands.

    It's harsh on the batsman, and doubly harsh as they lose the referral, but it's hard to argue that the TMO got it wrong without knowing how the question was posed. What is clear is that the TMO isn't allowed to speculate, to overturn the decision he must be 100% certain the on-field decision was wrong.
  • BlackForestReds
    BlackForestReds Posts: 17,952
    The rule is that there must be conclusive evidence to overturn the on-field decision. But I wonder how much more conclusive the evidence needs to be?

    Anyway 146/3, Swann got Rogers LBW for 84 and there was no doubt about that decision.
  • randy andy
    randy andy Posts: 5,454
    The second noise is key. Without snicko it introduces doubt into the third umpire's mind. As it turn out it's probably the bat catching the floor or the boot/front-pad. But in real time and even the slow-mos there's a very woody/clicky noise apparently as the ball passes the bat. With that in mind how can the third umpire be certain enough there was no contact to overturn the on-field decision.

    If the on-field umpire has given not out then the decision would never have been reversed.

Categories

“Marketplace”