By Brett McKay
November 30th 2009 @ 5:49am
Related coverage
Cricket’s review system continues to puzzle
Australia's Nathan Hauritz appeals unsuccessfully. AP Photo/Tom Hevezi
So the first cricket Test Match on Australian soil played under the now-adopted Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) has been wrapped up inside three days, and still the questions marks fly on how and when to use it.
If West Indian captain Chris Gayle is reading (and I can’t think why he wouldn’t be), I’d answer the “when” question by suggesting not when you get hit on the back-pad plumb in front to an in swinger, not offering a shot.
It’s just a thought, Chris, but you’re the captain and I’m sure you’ll work that out for yourself at some point.
The UDRS was fully adopted by the International Cricket Council (ICC) in a bid to significantly reduce the number of obviously wrong decisions being made in Tests.
Trialled for a period last year in series played in the Caribbean and South Africa, the system was found to be not without flaw, and there were plenty of cricket commentators, players, and fans – myself included – who wondered whether the trial would or should be adopted.
But the ICC is nothing if not determined – on this matter, at least – and the system was formally introduced into Test Cricket this month in series in New Zealand and Australia.
So with the UDRS now in place, the only thing left for fans to do is to get used to it, and for the players to work out when to use it. Or in Gayle’s case, when not to.
The First Test of the Australia-West Indies series, concluded on Saturday afternoon in Brisbane, has highlighted that the puzzle remains for both fans and players.
Despite radio and TV commentators going to length to explain how the system works, I’m still puzzled as to why its been determined that the ball tracker must show the middle of the ball hitting a stump when used for LBW referrals.
I mean, a batsman is still out bowled if the ball grazes the outside of off-stump, so why now must the middle of the ball be shown to be on target?
Now, I realise that in asking this question, I’ve contradicted an earlier opinion of mine where I was concerned the ball tracker would only need to show the slightest shadow of ball on stump for an LBW referral to be given out.
I understand the motivation, and even the logic, in deciding that the middle of the ball must be on target, but surely a quarter or a third of the ball would be enough? It would certainly be closer to what happens in real life, at the very least.
Either way, how much of the ball hitting the stumps is hardly going to be an issue while ever the players keep up their current practice of foolishly using the UDRS as some kind of vain cricketing get-out-of-jail-free card.
The way the UDRS was used in Brisbane proved to be ill-thought for several players, and confirmed that they too are puzzled on how to get the best out of this new system.
Gayle (twice), Shivnarine Chanderpaul, and even Mitchell Johnson were all shown up to have effectively wasted one of the two available referrals in their team’s innings.
In all four cases, the umpire’s original decision was upheld due to no contrary evidence to support the player’s own opinion that he couldn’t possibly have been out.
In Johnson’s case, he was probably a victim of the ‘Hotspot’ cameras showing nothing other than a front-on view, and as the outside edge of his bat could not be sighted by the infra-red camera, he couldn’t be seen to have definitely not hit the ball in his caught behind decision. With no certain opposing proof, the original decision had to stand.
Chanderpaul, and certainly Gayle, showed how to let selfishness get in the way of better judgement, by referring LBW decisions that they had to have known were plumb in front.
Gayle’s two referrals bordered on embarrassing, referring decisions for another look after he twice offered no shot to Ben Hilfenhaus in-swingers. Both deliveries hit him on the back pad directly in front of the stumps, and both referrals were almost immediately shown to have been a waste of the third umpire’s time.
In referring the decisions, Gayle took on the form of a modern-day WG Grace, standing there looking back at the umpire as if it was some kind of crime against cricket and humanity to have given him out.
Unsurprisingly, in the post-match press conference Gayle stated that he wasn’t a fan of the referral system, and that he still had doubts about the technology in use.
“Technology is part of the game; sometimes there are mistakes even with the technology, that’s why I’m not a big fan of it. Might as well just go out there with two umpires in the middle, they either get it wrong or right.” Gayle said.
I’m not quite sure which piece of technology made the mistake in showing that Gayle let the in-swinging deliveries hit his back pad in front of middle and off, but I’d suggest he might want to check the equipment between his ears.
Either way, you’d like to think players have learned the necessary lessons now.
I would imagine now that the referral of LBW decisions, for example, will be limited to only those where the batsman knows he’s got an inside edge, or where the fielding side knows he hasn’t.
Perhaps the ‘Gabba Test will prove to be the point where the penny dropped, and that players will be much smarter from now on in which decisions they refer up for a second opinion.
This would finally – thankfully – see the system used as the ICC intended, to correct obviously dud decisions, and not just by players looking for a selfish reprieve.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(82)
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Just let me gather my breath, that was another long journey…
“I mean, a batsman is still out bowled if the ball grazes the outside of off-stump, so why now must the middle of the ball be shown to be on target?” – Isn’t Hawkeye based on military technology? Don’t they use the same technology in tennis for exactly those mm decisions? If so then why aren’t they good enough for cricket?
Than again, most of us will recall occasions where the ball has hit the stumps and not dislodged the bails, rare as it may be the bails must be off for it to be a wicket, as such I’d recommend saying 50% of the ball has to hit a stump, that is going to be enough in 100% of cases to dislodge the bails.
“In Johnson’s case, he was probably a victim of the ‘Hotspot’ cameras showing nothing other than a front-on view” – Unfortunately I missed the match but isn’t this sort of; “well, duh…”. If hotspot didn’t pick anything up then he didn’t edge it? What’s the point of being able to refer it to use hotspot, the 3rd umpire saying “hotspot didn’t show any nick” and then still giving the guy out?
In all of the tutorials from the commentators, was it mentioned what the procedure is if an umpire’s decision is overturned? Is there subsequent action? If an umpire has two decisions overturned in one match, does he have to miss matches? Is he docked part of his wage?
This system is afterall only in place to check up on the umpires and make sure they are correct, it’s unfair in my opinion but on the same token, it would be contradictory if the administrators let umpires off scot-free when they’ve been proven to have been mistaken.
I honestly hope this goes the way of the Dodo. 3rd umpires for runouts were a huge improvement to the game, it really made concentrating on fielding and affecting runouts an important part of the game, this referral system is a step backwards, we are calling the umpires integrity into play every time and if Gayle is plumb in front then why should he be able to cast ANY doubt over the umpires decision, it’s not the umpire who has stuffed up, it’s Gayle but he gets to put the attention of the umpire?
What ever happened to the cricket gods evening things up?
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Hi Freud, I had a feeling you’d be making comment on the length after I read through this just before. There appears to be a difference in where I and the Eds put paragraph breaks, and that’s aded to the length today. Anyway, not a big issue.
Not sure what Hawkeye is based on, but I do know it’s better than it was, where once upon a time it had a happy knack of seemingly always hitting the stumps, despite being well wide to the naked eye.
For Johnson’s case, as soon as the appeal (and finger) went up he was shaking his head as if to say he didn’t hit it, and so referred it. Now because Hotspot is only front-on, we couldn’t actually see the outside edge of his bat on the infra-red, and so therefore couldn’t see if there was or wasn’t a mark on the edge. With no compelling evidence to override the decision, it had to remain. My point was that a square-on shot would have shown the outside edge, and then we would have know for sure. Ian Healy said tongue-in-cheek during the call that maybe players will have to start turning their bats to show the outside edge to Hotspot!!
Your question about remedial action for the umpires is a good one, very good actually, and I don’t know the answer. I’m not sure if it’s come up yet that umpire has proven to be wrong several times in a Test. You would like to think there is some kind of workshop for the Ump in question though.
In Gayle’s two referrals, Ian Gould came out of it with reputation in tact, and indeed both umpires had a good Test on that front. Gayle, however, came out of this Test looking like a monumental goose for the way he referred his two LBWs. No doubt he will have to start thinking about when to use the system better, and that’s why I suggested that I don’t think garden-variety LBWs will be referred for a look, unless they’re really bad.
On the whole, the system seems to be working well for mine, and once players use it a little better than currently, the intended purpose will be met..
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Well at least we know now when Gayle is walking back to the sheds shaking his head in disbelief to take it with a grain of salt.
Hawkeye at Wiki – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye – Some of the engineers have worked on military development before and from memory when this thing first came out, it’s initial purpose had been to track missiles.
On the Johnson one though,surely they had to give him not out, I mean, if he nicked it, it shows, if he didn’t then it doesn’t show, that must be definitive enough otherwise the technology isn’t definitive enough to be used in international cricket.
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Freud, I think they got the Johnson one right actually. Forget about the on-field decision for a moment, because obviously the umpire had enough evidence to lift his finger.
Once Johnson referred it though, there had to be enough evidence to show he didn’t hit the ball. Now in this case, and as HotSpotInventor and I discussed last night, the problem wasn’t so much in the technology, but just that Johnson’s bat was on such an angle throughout his shot that the front-on Hotspot camera couldn’t see his outside edge. So that’s not to say that he did or didn’t hit it, just that it couldn’t be established from front-on. A side-on camera would have seen the outside edge, and then – and only then – would we have seen whether there was or wasn’t a hot spot on the edge.
Without this evidence though, the original decision had to stay..
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
A thought-provoking post, Brett.
I support UDRS. I agree that it is not perfect at this stage but it will evolve in years to come till it is near perfect.
But why is the technology so clear-cut in tennis and so haphazard in cricket?
Mark said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
I don’t watch a lot of tennis but isn’t it the case in tennis that the replies are used to show where the ball actually landed, rather than predicting where the ball may travel? Presumably a fixed camera down the line can pick up the point of impact pretty easily whereas predicting exactly where the ball may hit has to be less accurate.
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Mark, your understanding of the referrals in tennis is pretty right, except that they use Hawkeye to track the ball and show its landing spot, rather than actual replays (presumably becuase they don’t have cameras quick enough to pick up the impact?)
And that’s where the criticism comes from – a fixed camera would be a lot better than trcking and prediction software, becuase you’re working with what actually happened, not what might have happened.
That’s exactly my main gripe about Hawkeye in cricket – by all means show the projection of the stumps behind the batsman, but why aren’t we using actual footage of where the ball pitched and hit, rather than the Hawkeye projection and prediction??
Chop said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Hawkeye in tennis is much better because you can see the exact spot it bounced, there is no prediction required and IIRC they have something like 8 cameras around a much smaller area to get the exact point of impact.
The technology suits tennis much more than it does cricket and that’s why it works better.
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
so Chop, does that mean Tennis doesn’t use the tracking software any more, they’re only using the actual footage??
Chop said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
No they have specific cameras which are used to pin point the flight of the ball wherever it is on the court.
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/?page_id=1011
This link explains it well once you get rid of the sales BS….
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
thanks for that Chop, that does explain it well. And you’re right about the sale BS too. The sooner we can use actual footage in LBW decisions, the more comfortable I’ll be about Hawkeye in general..
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Kersi, to be honest, I don’t know that it is so clear-cut in tennis, and the teething problems remain in some cases. Balls that appear well in on-camera still occasionally show up to be long on Hawkeye.
As I said to Freud above, Hawkeye is certainly better than it was, and I’m still not completely comfortable with the prediction element of Hawkeye after the point of contact, becuase for mine, that’s where the margin for error increases. I can live with it being used for tracking where the ball pitches and the point of impact though.
No doubt thought Kersi, some teams are utilising the UDRS better than others…
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Being a M*A*S*H fan, I prefer Hawkeye and Hotlips to hawkeye and hotspots! You know where you stand with Captain Benjamin Pearce and Major Margaret Hoolahun (spellings could be wrong). Captain Chris Gayle has to hone his surgical, nursing and appealing skills.
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Kersi, I can assure you I get way more enjoyment out of Alan Alda’s Hawkeye than I do out of Tony Greig’s….
coops said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Interesting article Brett. The issue I took out of the first test was how long before the batsman/fielding skipper figures if he wastes a bit of time thinking about it, a signal (as simple as a player removing a cap or somehting equally as covert) can be passed from the dressing room (after watching a replay or two) so the batsman/skipper knows whether or not he should refer the appeal with a better idea of the outcome. Just quietly, I think Ricky has already cottoned on to this with his referral’s taking a longer period of ‘thought’ when he is in the field…
I don’t think I like it. Over a career I’m sure the bad decisions are probably evened out by ‘generous’ decisions (like the plumb LBW I survived on Saturday… gotta love 4th grade!)
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Coops, this is something we’ve spoken about over a few quiet ales, and I think the specific example we came up with was a mic’d up Mike Young taking up his position beyond the rope, and either removing his cap, or suddenly standing to indicate to go ahead with the referral.
I think it could well happen, especially with teams having their own video analysts on staff now. If something looks suss live, a quick review on the laptop, tell Mike to take his cap off or stand up, Ricky gives the signal, and up we go.
It’s certainly more scientific and purposeful than padding up to an in-swinger and referring it because there’s no way I should be given out!!
vinay verma said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Brett..this is as bad as a miked up Hansi Cronje recieving tactics from the coach. The Spirit of Cricket is a phrase people only pay lipservice to.
I would not have the UDDERS (UDRS) as it only holds up play and calls into question the Umpire’s integrity. The actual players at club and grade level will not be able to avail of this so it is only going to be at the Elite Level. I also question how much the Elite Sportsman is continually pandered to. Who is this meant to help? The viewer in the lounge room,who is loath to go out to the game? The sponsors and the advertisers who want maximum exposure for their buck? How is this going to affect the majority of park,school and club cricketers.
We should be looking to make the game better at the grassroots..these are the kids who will end up playing for their country. Anyone who has played cricket at a half decent level knows the good and bad even out. Central to the ethos of Cricket is to respect the Umpire’s decision. If people want to compromise their ideals in the interest of modernity than they are missing the point.
Chop said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
I don’t see how this calls the umpires integrity into question. The umpire presumably makes the best call he can in a split second.
If the technology is conclusive enough to show that the umpire is wrong, why not have the opportunity to correct it.
I think this system is much better than the previous replay system in that it’s aim is to eliminate the total stinker decisions (hence using the middle of the stump and ball) and even if the decision is proven wrong by the technology, if it was a reasonable decision by the umpire it stands.
I think it’s the perfect level of technological interference in cricket.
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Vinay, everything you say here is quite true, and I’m sure you recognised my and Coops’ comments above as the hypothetical (but not unrealistic) scenarios they are.
Re your questions about the benefits to the garssroots from the UDRS, I’d suggest they’re exactly the same benefits the third umpire brought to the grassroots 15 (?) years ago – none. But the third umpire survived its initial teething problems, and even got better over time, and I would expect the same to occur with the review system.
We absolutely should be looking after the grassrots, but we have to remember that it’s the top level that funds the grassroots, and therefore any enhancement will always be done from the top down. We’ve all been on the receiving end of decisions in Grade or District cricket that we’d love another look at, but we all accept that we can only make do with what we’ve got. We’re happy to have two appointed umpirs currently, never mind being able to refer it upstairs.
I’m not a massive fan of the UDRS either Vinay, but I know there’s more chance of me getting a seat on the ICC Board than there is of it being abandoned now that it’s been fully adopted. It’s just something we have to get used to at the top level, as much as we might not like it.
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Cricket won’t ever be a sport that is played the same at the highest level as it is at its grassroots and we shouldn’t force grassroots cricketers into using powerplays and third umpires for the sake of synergy.
The third umpire was a huge boost with runouts, look at the standard of fielding now compared to say 25 years ago, remember the summers of Johnty Rhodes and Ponting or Symonds ripping down the stumps from square of the wicket, often they were close calls and would previously have been given not out but I’m very happy with the 3rd ump, it’s not 100% but it’s accurate enough for me to accept.
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
completely agree Freud, and that’s exactly what the attitude needs to be in relation to UDRS. As Greg says above/below (where am I here?) this will never get us to 100% accuracy, but it will get us pretty bloody close. Iron out what little bugs crop up, and benefits will pay for themselves.
coops said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
vinay… hear hear!!! Call me a luddite, but I couldn’t agree more, however and to the detriment of the game at all levels and society in general, such beliefs seem to be dying a slow death.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
If technology is there why not use it? Not that an umpire’s integrity is questioned. We are all humans and we all make mistakes and umpires are humans.
Batting is the only aspect of a sport, any sport, in which there is no second chance in that innings. If you are out for a low score, you are out. Perhaps from the next match. Perhaps forever or for a long time. Ask Phillip Hughes.
You may bowl two full tosses and a half volley and conceed 18 runs in three balls but you have got other three balls to take a wicket. The captain may give you another over or more even if you give away runs without taking a wicket.
You may drop a sitter but you are still on the field to take a screamer.
You may serve a series of double faults and are 0-5 in tennis. But you are not out of the match. You can still win 4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 6-3.
In soccer you may miss shooting an easy goal but you are not off the field.
In batting when you are out, you are out in that innings. OUT! If you are not an all-rounder, your career can be terminated by just one BAD decision.
That’s why I am all for a UDRS for a batsman. If bowlers and fielders can appeal, why can’t a batsman? But only against what he considers a shocking decision.
vinay verma said | November 30th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Kersi,with the utmost respect I beg to differ. I have a microwave but I dont use it to cook. Referals only at the discretion of the umpire and that too only for runouts and stumpings. Batsmen have too many advantages already. Bigger bats,helmets,pads,smaller grounds,only one bouncer…But I come back to the central premise. The Umpire’s decision is final. No argument. That is what cricket was meant to be. What is the point of preserving Test Cricket if we destroy one of the basic tenets. The Spirit of Cricket flows from this.
Cricket should take a lesson from another old game..Golf..Players actually call a penalty on themselves.
And cricket is a team game. If one batsman is out there are ten others. It is rare that all ten are out to bad decisions. I though very hard how I could possibly agree with you but I cant on any of your points.
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
“Batting is the only aspect of a sport, any sport, in which there is no second chance in that innings” – Do bowlers get to call decisions into doubt?
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
Freud, they do now at least have avenue to refer…
Greg Russell said | November 30th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
I’m strongly with Kersi on this one: anything that helps (within reason) to get more umpiring decisions correct is a good thing.
The mistake is to reject the UDRS, as seems to be the most common objection, because it is not 100% perfect. Why is it better to have (say) 90% of decisions correct (without UDRS) rather than 98% (with UDRS) just because the technology does not lift it that extra distance to 100%? I really don’t get it that many people have this attitude. By the same logic we’d be better off just to decide everything by the toss of a coin, because umpires don’t get things 100% correct.
The scientist in me agrees with Brett’s argument about that if any of the ball grazes the stump, then technically something should be out. However, I accept what is presumably the ICC’s argument, which is that there is a margin of error to the predicted path, and grazing the stump may actually be missing the stump. After all, the batsman is meant to get the benefit of the doubt – that is one of the fundamental principles of umpiring.
Further, over the weekend in NZ we were told that the third umpire is not allowed to be shown whether the predicted path will actually hit the stumps. Accordingly, viewers also were only shown the predicted path up until just before the stumps, i.e., exactly what the third umpire was shown. The third umpire would then use this information to say “definitely out” or “on-field decision”, i.e., say there was enough doubt to hand the decision back to the umpire on the field, just as with “ref’s call” in the NRL. There were a couple of situations like the latter, where not surprisingly the on-field umpire then stuck with his original decision. So if Channel 9 viewers were actually shown the ball grazing the stump on referrals (I did not see enough of the test to know – I found the WI simply too pathetic to watch), as Brett seems to imply, then they should be aware that the third umpire did not see this.
Finally, Brett wrote
“I would imagine now that the referral of LBW decisions, for example, will be limited to only those where the batsman knows he’s got an inside edge”
In NZ’s second innings in Dunedin, “Two-metre Peter” Fulton did get out LBW in this way, but he lacked the confidence to ask for an appeal, even though he pointed to his bat as he left the crease. This emphasizes what I see as the main point of Brett’s article, which is that at this stage the referral system is throwing up a lot of interesting human psychology.
As any physical scientist knows, psychology can be a pseudo-science. Psychological frailties do not amount to factual (scientific) evidence that the UDRS is a failure!
vinay verma said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
Greg,Cricket is not played in the Laboratory,and one of the redeeming features of cricket is the human element. Technology is being advocated because the players dont trust each other. Ricky Ponting tried to get opposing Captains to agree to accepting the player’s word. Most captains disagreed. The very best umpires get it right most of the time. I did not see any of the original decisions overruled. Either in Brisbane or Dunedin. So what is the point of the referal then.
Dave Richardson stated last week one of the aims was to get more batsmen walking otherwise they would be shown as not being “kosher’ should hotspot say otherwise. If we are going to use technology to change peopl’es’ behaviour you may as well give them all a lobotomy.
If every cricketer,as he is growing up is educated to play not only within the laws but also within the spirit we would not have batsmen shaking their heads and pointing to the bats when given out. There are some really good umpires out there in Taufel,Dar and Rauf, There are some who are shocking like Asoka de Silva.Benson is good most of the time and Steve Davis is reliable. Daryl harper can be contrary but they do their best and players have a responsibility too. The incessant appealing for batpads is bordering on cheating. Captains have to start pulling their players into line. You cannot show disrespect to the Umpire.
I am for limited use for runouts and stumpings. The rest leave it to the man in the white coat. It is admirable how greats like Tendulkar,Ponting and Dravid walk off without too much fuss most of the time. This is what makes the game great. You know you are not out but you accept the Umpire’s decision. I may well be in the minority here but I feel strongly about the Umpire being an integral part of the game . And not to be messed about with by Hawkeyes or Hotspot.
Greg Russell said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Vinay, I do not disagree with anything you write, but one has to be realistic. In the grade of cricket I used to play (before I had children), the convention was that batsmen walked when caught behind. On the basis of many years of observations, I would have to say that the better the batsman, the more likely it was that he would not walk – sad but true.
Off the top of my head, there was at least one umpiring reversal, and it was crucial: McCullum was given out lbw on the second last ball of day 1, but on appeal it was overturned. The next day he and Vettori put on another hundred runs, and that was crucial in setting up NZ’s win.
Now whether that lbw reversal was correct is another matter indeed …
vinay verma said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Greg,firstly ,if you did disagree with me my first reaction would be to check my facts. Secondly I would see if your explanation and reasoning was more plausible. Thirdly I would offer more explanation for my reasoning. I think your analysis of cricket is reasoned (perhaps too reasoned) pertinent and astute. On another post you remarked that Martyn and Taylor played differently and I accept that in the offside/legside they are different. What i was remarking on was their timing and apparent effortlessness. There is also a similarity in that they are both not always in line with the ball and play away from their body. Martyn was capable of playing onside but he had to have a broken finger to do that. 2003 World Cup Final.
Yes there was that reversal.It did have an effect.
Greg Russell said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Hey Vinay, I have heaps of respect for what you write, and I was not in essence disagreeing with you (in fact I wrote “I do not disagree with anything you write”). Obviously you play cricket to the highest ethical standards, and I would like to think that I do too. Perhaps you are privileged that most of the people you play with also adhere to your high standards, but my own experiences are that many do not. It is simply human nature – one dreams all week of scoring a century, and then on the second ball one gets a faint edge through to the keeper. It is bloody hard in these circumstances to turn and walk off the field, and my experience is that many do not. That’s all I was trying to say. I can only imagine that at higher levels the ruthlessness is even greater, not least of all because livelihoods become involved. I remember Justin Langer talking about the 1998-9 series in Pakistan, when his test career was hanging by a thread. First ball he got wrapped on the pads, he looked at umpire Bucknor, and thought “If you raise your finger, my Australian career is over”. Bucknor didn’t, Langer got a century (I think that was the match that Taylor scored his triple century), and the rest is history. Imagine if that was an edge behind and the onus had been on Langer to walk? I was really just trying to bring this element of Realpolitik to your attention. I agree that the world would be wonderful “If every cricketer,as he is growing up is educated to play not only within the laws but also within the spirit”, and that this dream should be pursued. But because Adam ate the apple he was offered in the Garden of Eden (or whatever equivalent religious story you prefer to use here), your dream will never be fully realized.
Have I made myself clear, my friend?
And thanks for the Taylor-Martyn clarification – I get it now.
vinay verma said | December 2nd 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Greg,there is a small corner of me that is realistic and I try to ignore it as far as possible. I am aware that vows are taken with the utmost solemnity and then broken with frightening alacrity. And priests are defrocked quicker than it takes to hit the delete button.
However fruitless and windmill despair moments do not deter me. The churlish will say Gilchrist walked only when he knew he was blatantly out. I prefer to think he walked even when it was not so obvious to the umpire,like in the 2003 match against Sri Lanka. I think Aravinda walked up to him from mid on and shook his hand and I am not sure who the umpire was but I think he was applauded.Polly Umrigar was another walker and if memory serves me right Doug Walters was also one to leave without a fuss.
I was also not suggesting that the competitions i played in were run by Mother Teresa. Conversely they were not run by Stalin.
We agree on the big picture and that is important. Keep well
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Vinay, I’d argue that the number of cricketers not playing within “the spirit of the game” as you say is the absolute minority, broadly speaking, and probably even correlates to a degree to within those playing the game professionally..
Justin said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
Spot o Greg – its a built in margin of error. The system is designed to get rid of the howlers, which I think it will go a long way to doing. Just because players like Gayle have completely stuffed up and then complain does not mean it is a poor system.
From what I have heard and seen in the two tests in NZ and AUS it hasnt been the system at fault but the players.
This strikes me as a little poetic given the current hysteria – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Ms37yt3lg
Chris Gayle take note!
simonjzw said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Anyone who follows tennis closely will tell you the players don’t have a lot of confidence in the accuracy of the technology. It’s another opinion on whether the ball is in or not but not necessarily a better opinion.
That’s the reason why, in cricket, the ball tracker has to hit middle stump, to allow for the error in the system and ensure the ball would actually hit the stumps.
Personally I don’t think the technology is fool proof enough to be used for LBW decisions. The umpire is in the best spot to judge LBWs so let him him judge.
I do think there is an argument for catches and edges where the technology can clearly show if the ball carries or if contact has been made with the bat.
The main reason tennis has stuck with a system that isn’t perfect is that it’s taken the heat out of player confrontations with linesmen. It’s very rare to see a McEnro like explosion these days – Serena Williams being the notable exception.
HotSpotInventor said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Once our 3rd and 4th Hot Spot cameras arrive back from NZ after the Pakistan series finishes in mid December we are planning on running all 4 of our cameras for the MCG Boxing Day test…..Two from front on as normal and two from side on, which will be moved by a cameraman each over to the opposite end……This will mean we will have 3 camers on the batsman on srike at all times…..This should alleviate the “Mitchell Johnson” situation where he did not turn his bat towards the front on camera.
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
HSI, if you are who you suggest you are, then this really is very good news.
I suggested to a mate today when we were discussing the very topic of Mitch Johnson’s dismissal that a side-on Hotspot camera would have whether shown whether there was a nick or not, but also that I didn’t expect that such expense would be borne for very limited use.
If this was always part of the plan, to bring in side-on cameras too, then well and good. And thanks very much for firstly finding this thread, but secondly for clarifying this for us.
HotSpotInventor said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
At present we have struggled to get anyone apart from the broadcasters to pay for our system with the ICC and Cricket boards being reluctant to contribute to the costs of technology…..From what I understand this discussion is going on as we speak in Dubai……We just want to try the 4 camera setup while we can and put to bed if we actually do get the very faint nicks……From what we have seen in other sports such as Tennis and Squash the hot spot can only last for 0.2-0.3 of a second…..By the time the bat follows through to the front on camera then the hot spot could have dissipated…..With our cameras running at 100 frames-per-second then we shouldn’t have any problem seeing a hot spot if-in-fact there is one……Will let you know more as we find out more.
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
HSI, that would be really cool if you could keep us posted. In the Johnson case, you knew we weren’t going to see a nick from front-on, though I also thought they could have allowed the vision to continue, in case the edge came into view after the completion of the follow-through. We’ll never know now. But yeah, you’d think a side-on camera should show something, or nothing, as Mitch was hoping.
Interesting though that the ICC and local boards are leaving it to the broadcasters to pick up the tab. It’s like they want to rid Test cricket of the majority of obviously wrong decisions, but not if they must foot the bill. And they make how much a year in revenue?!? Absurd!!
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Afternoon all, some quick points of reply:
Kersi, I too can see the benefits of the referral system, and as a batsman, it’s long overdue!! I can see Vinay’s point about questioning umpires decisions (because that’s what this is), and would prefer the umpires used the system themselves somehow, but I’ll learn to live with it.
Greg, you’re spot on with my main point: the system will take a while for players to work out, but that’s becuase they’ve never had this sort of option before. For the first time in their cricketing lives, they can possibly be subjected to less dud decisions. Again, as a bat myself, that can only be good.
I do feel the need to clarify something though – I’m not suggesting that only a fraction of the ball needs to be shown to be on target, in fact that was my biggest criticism of the system when it was being pitched. What I am wondering about is why now they went as far as the ‘half-ball’ line, because in my mind that seems excessive if anything. I do agree though that it brings in something of a “human” margin for error, and again, it’s something I’ll learn to get used to it.
And Simon, just to clarify, the ball-tracker needs to show the middle of the ball going on to hit A stump, not the ball hitting middle stump.
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
Brett I made the point earlier, the ball can hit the stumps and not dislodge the bails, this must be accounted for in the technology and I think the only fair was of doing so is saying 50% of the ball must be on course for a stump or bail, this not only allows a margin-of-error to the technology but also will include those rare occasions when the bails stay on.
Also, is the system in place for bowlers and fielding captains to call an umpires not-out into question?
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
Before Hawkeye, for a short period, there was another thing that Channel 9 used, a line between the stumps and a transperent picture of where the stumps were in comparison to the batsman.
Now again, this was never definitive but one always got the picture whether the ball pitched in line and could generally tell the height.
My problem with Hawkeye is that it does away with the batsman, yes the ball might hit the stumps but we know there is a difference if the batsman is standing on his stumps or has a good stride in, we know that some players are 5′5 and others are 6′5, things like this which the umpire has to weigh up in his decision but Hawkeye doesn’t bother with.
davido said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
The mistake with the system is that it is based on the paradigm of overturning the umpires decision when it really should be based on getting the right decision.
Take Mitchell Johnson’s decision. The right decision would have been to give the benefit of doubt to the batsman. Instead the benefit of the doubt went to the umpire.
As to the precision of the technology – according tomy mate a prof of maths at melb uni it is quite possible to get extremely accurate path predictions. Whether the technogy does or not is a moot point. As long as the technology is consistent then it is far better than what we have had up to date.
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
spot on Davido, we should be focussing on the 98% correct, not the 2% possibly not. And quite true about the accuracy, the key is indeed consistency. Of course, this also assumes the same system is in use in all countries..
davido said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Yes, would love to know more about who is running the technology etc. The possibility for abuse definitely exists.
If you can bribe players to play poorly then surely this technology is not corruption proof.
Dont sue me hotspotguy! Merely pointing out the necessity for a system to be ‘bulletproof’ in all regards.
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
Freud, the bowling side does also have two referrals per innings available too. The Windies within a few overs last Thursday referred an LBW appeal against Ponting up, which they lost, and then one not too much later they should have but didn’t, which of course showed Ponting was probably out.
Your point about ball speed is quite valid, and something that Hawkeye obviously doesn’t account for. It’s a fair assumption though that a 140km/h+ delivery is probably going to dislodge bails. I agree with you about Hawkeye, and said above I’d much rather we used the actual footage rather that the prediction software.
Fred Magee said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
Brett, as usual a great read. One of heartening aspects of cricket (even when playing) was that generally decisions evened out in the end. That said, all sports have reached a point where we want decisions to be as correct and accurate as possible. Hence, the call for utilising the technology available.
Perhaps the one element that the ABC team emphasised during the Test (being at work meant having to listen on the web) was that the key to the referral system was that the technology had to provide enough evidence that the decision may have been incorrect. I am happy with this for inside edges, run outs etc but I firmly believe that the best place to make a LBW decision is at the other end of the pitch.
As for the Windies strategy, it was almost as if they started the game with the view that Gayle and Chanderpaul would be the only beneficiaries of the referral system – in fact, I was surprised that Chanderpaul didnt refer to see if it could have been a no ball!
I am happy to give the system a run this summer but over time, I am sure it will be tweaked to improve it. Lets hope so anyway. That and fingers crossed big Douglas Q Bollinger gets a run in Adelaide.
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
G’day Fred, as I said in the column, I think we’ll see a move away from referring LBWs now, unless an inside edge in involved, in which case, Hotspot will be the ultimate source of the evidence; it’s literally there in black and white.
If in time for LBWs, the Hawkeye tracking was removed, and instead we used the actual footage to establish where the ball pitched, and the point of impact with pad, then along with Hotpost, I think we’d have a fairly childproof system. You still might get the very occasional scenario such as the Mitch Johnson case where camera angles don’t quite work, but all in all, the really bad decisions will be removed, and that’s always been the main intent.
Sylvester said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
I watched most the NZ v Pak test and was really pleased with how the system worked. I’m pretty sure all the referred decisions showed an error would have been made otherwise.
It would have been good to see some decision either upheld or overturned which weren’t just a matter of umpires judgement about LBWs, ie a caught behind or Fulton’s edge into his pads (still can’t understand what he was thinking, not much obviously).
The only contentious point, whether a decision that would have been given on review but for a no-ball, has been sorted by the ICC too. A no-ball will not count as an unsuccessful challenge.
dasilva said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
My answer to the referral problem http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/02/15/a-simpler-way-to-reduce-mistakes-from-umpires/
remove umpire referral to 3rd umpire as well as player challenge
Have the umpire adjudicate as normal.
Have the 3rd umpire review every appeal automatically (30 seconds review of every appeal. The 3rd umpire will initiate the review process not the umpire on the pitch so if a mistake is suspected, the 3rd umpire will contact the umpire on the pitch and notify them that they are reviewing the decision) and if there is a clear mistake. The 3rd umpire overule the umpire on the pitch
davido said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
Actually, that is a really good idea.
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
How is that a good idea? Thats the second time in a week that Dasilva has encouraged a game to stop so people can have a look at the telly, that’s not sport, it’s micro-management.
If the 3rd umpire reviews every appeal then;
1) What is the point of the two umpires in the middle? They are either there to make decisions or they aren’t
2) You’ll get tactical appeals to halt the game
3) The way India (and Australia about 10 years ago) appeal for everything, the 3rd Umpire’s job would become impossible.
4) Replays aren’t necessarily available in 30 seconds, just because we’d like to be able to be clear and concise, doesn’t mean it’s realistic – there is a big difference between the coverage of an ODI in Sydney or the sticks in Sri Lanka.
All-in-all, another crap suggestion their Dasilva, if we can’t leave it up to the cricket gods (my and mayn other “traditionalists” preference) then you at least have to limit the impact of technology, if you’ve got a bloke watching every delivery, every time there is an appeal you might as well not have umpires, you’ve got a rule-lord sitting in a box controlling the game, 99% accurately but not within the spirit of the game.
davido said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:33am | Report comment
Ok, maybe i misunderstood.
I understood Dasilva to be saying the game goes on as normal with reviews in the background.
If a review picks up an eror then it is relayed back to the umpire who will then amend the decision.
It would need a review to happen pretty quickly for it to not interfere in the game. ie. before the next ball was bowled.
This way the technology would be assisting rather than replacing the umpire. Let’s recognise that the umpire is not perfect and that any assistance is not a bad thing.
I am for technology for three reasons.
1. it has the potential to be consistent
2. if has the potential to eliminate bias
3. it can take some of the ‘heat’ out of the game that seems to have come into it in the last few years.
Just one more point – an absurd one, but eye glasses are ‘technology’ and no one objects to them assisting the umpire.
And one more point – I do not like this ‘first draft’ review system which has at it’s core the concept of ‘challenging’ the umpire.
To my mind the idea of challenging the umpire is repulsive and unsportsmanlike.
dasilva said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
davido has the right interpretation
The game goes on regardless until the 3rd umpire intervenes.
If the next delivery is bowled before the 3rd umpire can intervene then bad luck to the players who were wrong done. If the 3rd umpire needs that long to overule the decision then it’s not an obvious mistake
Therefore there is no tactical delays etc
3rd umpire has the impossible job?
Not really. He has the job of what normal cricket fans do. Watch the game and point of obvious mistakes.
As Tony Grieg said, only way you are going to get rid of obvious mistakes is if you give the 3rd umpire power to overule the umpire on the pitch without referrals.
I think Freud interpretation of video reviews is the current one. We stopped the game. The crowd waits before the umpire makes the decision.
I’m changing that to the game goes on, the 3rd umpire work with the decision in the background., calls the umpire on the pitch if there is a mistake.
Freud
My other article on football was not about stopping the game. It’s about reviewing every goal or penalty.
There are natural breaks in the game. There’s on’y an average of about 2-3 goals a game. Why not make all the goal decision right. It often takes about 2-3 minutes after a goal been scored before the game is restarted, about a minute when a penalty is awarded and the kick is set up. Why not take advantages of the time it takes to set things up.
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Das, on first thought, this sounds like a good idea, but I think I’m with Freud on this; I think it would add a fair bit of downtime to an already long day – just think how many unsuccessful appeals we have each day, and then add 30 seconds of nothing to each of those.
I think the system as is is pretty good. The players said 3 referrals was too many, and two seems a good number, assuming your captain doesn’t waste one on himself..
Chop said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
I think 3 is a better number of referrals, but am happy to see how it’s played out over the summer.
dasilva said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
Brett McKay
No it wouldn’t
The 3rd umpire will watch the game live similar to how the commentators and the tv viewers watch the game live. If he sees a mistakes, he will call the umpire on the pitch and say he is reviewing the decision. only then will the 30 seconds review will be done.
All 4 points that Freud makes will become irrelevant if it is implementing that way especially the umpire having an impossible job (it’s still an easier job then umpiring on the pitch).
If it is implemented that way there should be no increase time wasting or tactical appeals. There would only be a marginal delay in the game.
Freud of Football said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
Oh yes Dasilva, the third umpire will watch the game on TV, bowlers will no longer appeal but head back to their mark and if the 3rd umpire thinks out, he’ll let everyone know – talk about taking the spirit out of the game.
Within 30 seconds a spinner has already bowled his next delivery and a quick bowler would be at the top of his run, your idea would totally screw up the dynamics of cricket.
I’m all for free thinking but let’s keep it realistic. Your suggestion does away with on-field umpires, ruins the timing and emotion of the game and would leave the rules entirely in the hands of a man watching TV.
dasilva said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Freud
First thing, umpires aren’t the attraction of any sports. I don’t watch the cricket to see how good the umpires are (similarly I don’t watch football for that reason either). Sport shouldn’t be used as a vehicle to showcase the talents of the umpire. If getting rid of on-field umpires (which my idea is not suggesting) will improve decision making without impacting the flow of the game I’ll be all for it. However, so far technology isn’t that advance or practical to get rid of on-field umpires yet.
However my idea will not remove the power of the on-field umpire. All line ball decision will have to be adjudicate on the spot. If the decision isn’t so clear cut that the 3rd umpire can’t intervene before the next delivery is bowled, then the decision of the on-field umpire will stand (which may solve the over-rate issue). Therefore dismissal have more time for the 3rd umpire to decide whether to review the decision then a non-dismissal (which is fair enough as the benefit of the doubt generally goes to the batsman). Only when the 3rd umpire initiates the review process, only then the game is stopped and the 30 second wait will proceed. I also never said that the umpires can reverse a decision when there is no appeal.
The way I see it, the 3 umpires are working as a team rather then working independently.
Brett McKay said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
DAS, I can see merits in your idea, but I think currently the technology isn’t fast enough to allow all appeals to be reviewed with no stop in play.
The average Test over takes about 3-4 minutes to bowl, so around 30-40 seconds per ball. If there’s an LBW shout given not out, even with some time for head shaking and cursing under the breath, the bowler would be back at the top of his mark ready to run in again within 20 seconds or so. I just don’t think that’s enough time to get a good enough look.
And that only has to happen five or six times in a day for yet another over of time to be lost..
davido said | December 1st 2009 @ 3:10am | Report comment
Just an aside on why technology is good.
I think technology can eliminate Bias. Bias is something which Australia has suffered from. For instance, Croucher (1982) used simple breakdowns of types of dismissal by team and location for England versus Australia in 1946–1980. He concluded that English batsmen were out LBW EQUALLYoften in each country, whereas Australian higher order batsmen (1–5) were out LBW more often in England than Australia.
Allegations of Bias were why neutral umpires were introduced. It is also a great reason for introducing technology.
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Davido, I think the introduction of the Elite panel has all but killed any thoughts of biased umpiring, as everyone knows that the best umpires are being used.
I’ve actually suggested since the Ashes finished that if we’re already appointing the best umpires in the world, why does it matter if they’re neutral? Why couldn’t Mark Benson and Simon Taufel do an Ashes series for eg? The umpires have to earn their spot on the Elite Panel, and so unbiased decsion-making is part-and-parcel of earning that spot.
If we’ve already established who the best Umpires are, then they should be able to umpire at ‘home’ too…
Freud of Football said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Interesting to note that according to Davido’s info would point to a bias only amongst the Pom’s. More than likely it just had to do with the surface and different ball but thats cricket, the fans love their stastical anamolies and base far too many conclusions on what the numbers say.
davido said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
The study cited is only one study, there are several suggesting various biases (?) in LBW decisions.
None of the studies conclude, as far as I am aware, that it is a conscious favoring of one team by another by the umpires. Indeed, one of the recent studies has shown that neutral umpires have made little difference to bias in LBW decisions.
Nevertheless there exists measurable and statistically significant differences between the rate of LBW’s for certain teams in certain countries. And I am by no means excluding Australia from this.
However, I suggest it is on a player by player basis we should be concerned. Ie. Warne seemed to get a massive amount of dodgy decisions in his favour. Tendulkar seems to need a good few plumb LBW’s before he gets given out LBW. And so on.
We should also be concerned with the PERCEPTION of bias. All should not only be fair but it should be seen to be fair.
Freud of Football said | December 1st 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
You’re right, it is on a player-by-player basis. While Warne used to get a massive number of dodgy decisions he would have missed out on about the same amount, he would often have 2-3 appeals an over and of course often it was just overdone, at other times he was simply so dominant the batsman seemed to have no idea and couldn’t play him.
Further, there are certain players that are affected by their technique. We all know Ponting loves to plant that front foot early in his innings and try to play to leg but it’s just screaming LBW-opportunity.
I’m sure someone like Ponting would be more vulnerable to the umpires for looking somewhat goofy in his technique than someone like Martyn whose feet were more or less always in the right place.
Also, there are the bunnies who seem to get a hard deal, I remember seeing McGrath given out at least 3-4 times to very poor lbw’s, as always he was fuming but no-one took him serious because he was a number 11, generally however he was correct.
davido said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
I too have noticed this attitude towards tail end batsmen as well.
It must really burn those guys, they get few chances to show everyone they can do it. And then no-one gives a toss when they get ’stiffed’.
Freud of Football said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
That’s true, I think it’s often a case of the umpire’s just don’t take them seriously. I mean if you give Tendulkar out to a questionable LBW in front of a packed house in India you might cause a riot, if you give McGrath out to a line-ball decision whose going to care?
dasilva said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
It doesn’t matter whether there is real bias. As long as there is perceived bias, you are going to get problems and diplomatic incidence.
I think the best way to go around it, is that umpires from the countries involve can adjudicate the match as long as both sides agree to that before hand.
Therefore volatile matches such as India and australia or India and Pakistan can have the neutral umpire status.
Other matches we can have the best umpires available and the side can’t complain about bias because they agree to let the umpire stand beforehand.
Jameswm said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Great call on Gayle’s selfishness. Maybe he was hoping for a no-ball!
Healy might have said tongue-in-cheek about the batsmen turning their bat to show no nick on hotspot – but I think they’ll learn to do that quick smart!
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Maybe James, but I think we’ll get better outcomes if HotSpotInventer’s revelation yesterday (see above) that we may see side-on Hotspot cameras for the Boxing Day Test. Remember where you read it first
Kersi Meher-Homji said | December 2nd 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Vinay and Greg,
The real act of sportsmanship was shown by skipper GR Viswanath during the Golden Jubilee Test between India and England in Bombay (now Mumbai) in February 1980. England was 5-58 in reply to India’s 242 when rescued by Ian Botham and Bob Taylor adding 171 for the 6th wicket and England went on to win by 10 wickets.
However, the stand of 171 could have been much smaller when Taylor was declared caught behind by wicket-keeper Kirmani. As Taylor started walking back disappointed, Vishwanath called him back. Good on you, Vishy!
Brett,
Now to something entirely different. Do you know that you were quoted in The Weekly magazine of November for your Roar column? This was after NSW won the Champions T20 League when you had written, “A champion team can defeat a team full of champions.” Something to ROAR about!
Brett McKay said | December 2nd 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
No Kersi, I didn’t know that – do you have a link??
Do I get royalties for this?!?!
Freud of Football said | December 2nd 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Get your lawyer on the phone Brett
Kersi Meher-Homji said | December 2nd 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Brett,
I was in the waiting room at an opthalmologist. And my eyes popped out (without the dilating drops!) on reading your name. It was from The Weekly. The Sydney Directory does not mention The Weekly but lists The Weekly Times, published in Ryde. You may ring them. It was published in the sports section in either the first week of November or the last week of October.
Royalty is nothing compared to the Right Regal Honour bestowed on a fellow Roar contributor!
Brett McKay said | December 2nd 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Kersi, could it have been The Week magazine? Check out http://www.theweekmagazine.com.au/theweek/ and see if it rings a bell (or re-pops an eye!). If this is them, the website list some contact numbers and I’ll certainly be in contact with them..
(if any of you guys watch Family Guy, you’ll know what I mean by “I want my money…”)
Kersi Meher-Homji said | December 2nd 2009 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
Yes, Brett, that’s the magazine. Either it was in the 30 October or 7 November 2009 issue.
You may contact 02 8346 4200 and try to get a free copy.
As it was just a line, don’t expect payment! (I know you are joking.)
But to be mentioned in the same paragraph as Peter Roebuck and other well-known names is a compliment.
Compliment for you and for The Roar!
Brett McKay said | December 2nd 2009 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
Cheers Kersi, I’ll definitely get onto them. I am kidding about the royalties, by the way!! Thanks very much for letting me know, I’ll let you know how I get on.
By the way, I mentioned to Vinay somewhere on The Roar recently about catching up during the SCG Test. I’ll send you an email in the next week or so to check your movements, and if a few of us are going to be in attendance, we’ll see if we can tee something up.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
I’m all for it, Brett.
Looking forward to your e-mail re the SCG catchup.
How we have diverted from the topic of UDRS! By the way, you are heading for a century of comments. What’s your highest “score”?
Brett McKay said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
Kersi, The Roar would not be what it is if we didn’t have diversions!!
Prior to jumping from Blue to Red, the PB was around 120, but since then the 5th Test live blog hit 212, and a recent piece on the ACT Govt pulling out of the FIFA World Cup bid got to 155. This one would easily be among the higher scores though..
Freud of Football said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
http://www.cricinfo.com/ausvwi09/content/story/438322.html – first casualty already.
Scrap the system, it’s unfair in its current form. I have nothing against the use of technology in sports but calling the decisions of the umpires into question only for some “overlord” sitting in a box to overturn them is wrong. With the third umpire on run outs it was only ever when the field umpires weren’t certain, it was never there to correct the decisions being made.
Benson’s not happy and I can certainly understand why.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | December 6th 2009 @ 9:15pm | Report comment
Freud,
The Sri Lankans are equally upset that UDRS was not used in the India-Sri Lanka series. According to their skipper Sangakkara from CricInfo:
The absence of the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) in the Test series against India, which he said cost Sri Lanka “over 500 runs”. The UDRS once again figured prominently at the media conference after India beat Sri Lanka by an innings to become the top-ranked Test team, with Sangakkara saying that the three-match contest was the best advertisement for having the review system.
It’s a dilemma, isn’t it? To have UDRS or not to have UDRS?
davido said | December 6th 2009 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
To my mind, perfect it may not be. But it will stay in some form or another. Even if it is just to assuage those feelings Sri Lankans are suffering right now.