Sri Lanka spin wizard Muttiah Muralitharan says umpires have to use technology on low catches rather than taking the word of the player.
Muralitharan’s Melbourne Renegades’ teammate Jos Buttler was at the centre of controversy in Sunday night’s opening one-day international clash at the MCG.
England wicketkeeper Buttler claimed a low catch off Australia batsman David Warner and Warner was happy to go after Buttler indicated the ball had carried.
However, the on-field umpires referred the incident to third umpire Kumar Dharmasena.
The Sri Lankan official viewed video footage before instructing his colleagues to recall Warner, who by this stage was near the boundary rope where he’d been told to wait.
“You can’t take the word, because at the moment everyone is very, very competitive,” Test cricket’s record wicket-taker Muralitharan told reporters on Monday.
“They are not cheating but almost everyone feels that I took the catch. But sometimes that’s not the case.
“If the umpire thinks it’s the right way going with the technology, so you go with the technology.
“Taking the word, sometimes people will honestly say yes. Sometimes you take a catch and sometimes it happens.
“You also don’t know if you’ve caught it or not because you feel like you’ve caught it, but in the end, sometimes you’ve missed it.
“So you have to go by the technology.”
Warner was on 22 at the time, while Australia were 0-82 chasing 270 for victory.
The reprieve allowed the home side to add 163 for the first wicket before Warner was out for 65.
Australia went on to reach their target with six wickets and 26 deliveries to spare to take a 1-0 lead in the five-match ODI series.
Alastair Cook said the incident had come at a crucial time in the match.
“I thought it was a pretty clean catch,” the England skipper said.
“It hit his fingers and it bounced up.
“I only saw it a couple of times on the big screen. I thought it was a wrong decision.”
Warner’s Australia ODI teammate Glenn Maxwell also felt England were unlucky.
“I think Davey was pretty convinced he was out,” Maxwell told reporters.
“He was about a metre away from jumping over the rope.”
Maxwell says it’s a grey area in the game.
“If you take the fielder’s word and the batter’s happy to go, I think that’s where it should be left,” he said.
“If the batter wants to stay, I think that’s when it should go up there (to the third umpire).
“It looked like it was probably out to me.”
trev
Guest
You have to respect the opinion of perhaps the greatest bowler of all time. If the technology is there, why not use it? Or should we ask fieldsmen to give their word for runouts if they think they hit the stumps before the batsmen get home?! Ironically if Greg Chappell (or the umpires) had taken the word of Martin Snedden when he caught him in the 'underarm game', NZ would have won easily and the 2nd worst event in cricket (behind Bodyline) would never have happened.
soapit
Guest
i have no info of my own so have to rely on the net from wikipedia: "A laboratory kinematic analysis of 42 non-Test playing bowlers" sounds reasonably scientific to me but like i said if you have any facts that show that to be wrong then bust em out.
Silver_Sovereign
Guest
That's a laugh. Murali giving advice about the spirit of the game. Thanks Chuck!!
One-eyed Jack
Guest
I thought it looked out on review. Bounced off his fingers. The third umpire is guessing that it hit the ground first. Can someone please point to the where the laws of cricket specify that the batsmen is to be given the 'benefit of the doubt'.
beyondthestump
Guest
I don't think it is that simple. The ball may touch a blade of grass due to its lenght but the ball may still continue on a downward trajectory as it hasn't actually hit the turf (ie the hard ground) yet. In that instance personally I would have no issue in a catch being awarded. The benefit of video replay is great but it certainly can create more doubt sometimes.
Armchair expert
Guest
Correct, but this is the first time I recall the catch being referred when the batsman was happy to walk, the other issue with referrals is the inconsistency, I've seen the same type of catch given out on referral, Atherton caught by M.Taylor in 98/99 springs to mind, as for taking a fielder's word for it, that went out the window when Ponting claimed a Clarke catch to dismiss Ganguly when replays suggested otherwise and even the catcher Clarke was unsure.
jameswm
Guest
Warner might not have been checking to see if Buttler caught it that closely.
Australian Rules
Guest
Warner *knew* he nicked it. Buttler *believed* he caught it. The umpire wasn't sure, so it went upstairs. On review, the 3rd ump believed there was enough doubt to support the field ump's original decision of not out. Seems a pretty simple solution.
JGK
Roar Guru
Except it wasn't really that scientific.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Yep. They only refer it if they don't know. If the human eye were able to get into the best position at all times and slow it down to see in detail then the argument could stand, but 2D or 3D, seeing a close-up image in slow motion actually does show it better than the umpires would be able to see it.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Yes it does. If your fingers are totally underneath the ball and jam down into the ground and some grass pokes up through your fingers and touches the ball, then it's a catch, but if it touches the grass just in front of your fingers on it's way in then it's not a catch.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
No, it's the power of looking more closely. The frame where it hit his fingertips the ball was basically on the ground.
soapit
Guest
i think we're getting to the point where not all benefit of the doubt has to go to the batsmen. so much technology can find doubt in all sorts of places where it wasnt before.
soapit
Guest
except for one part...the fact that the law was changed after a scientific study of bowlers (not including murali) found that most straighten and exceeded the limit at the time. it recommended the change to 15 deg. doesnt fit the narrative i suppose
JGK
Roar Guru
Isn't that what we already do and if the umpire doesn't know either way (for instance, he had an obstructed view) then he goes to the replay.
Straight Ball
Guest
It is ridiculous to say 'you have to go with the technology'. It is meaningless and begs the question. Relying on the technology really means that a person needs to look at a 2 dimensional image made on a screen on what can only be seen properly in 3 dimensions. Relying on that screen to make a judgement is using inferior evidence than what is available to the human eye. Always remember that the image created by the human-eye (and produced in the human brain) is superior to the camera image for the purpose of making a judgement on what has happened in 3 dimensions. The umpires are in the best position - and have the best technology (the human eye and brain) to make the decision. This is a case where the existence of machines confuses the irrationally-minded. Only people can make the decision. Here, the choice is between a person looking at the distorted image given by a lens on a screen or a umpire who sees the event in real-time and in 3 dimensions. The only rational choice is to go with the umpire and his superior human eye.
Straight Ball
Guest
Go with your initial thought - the rest is the power of suggestion (which is powerful).
JGK
Roar Guru
I think Murali's right - you can't take the fielders word because the fielder often doesn't know themselves. OK, the technology may not be perfect at the moment but it is still only not clear on lineball calls in which case I am happy for the BOTD to go with the batsmen.
jameswm
Guest
It had to have caught some grass.
jameswm
Guest
Fiction Wasim? Hmmm... I wish it was. Fact is the laws did change and Murali's action then became passable. He doesn't "bowl" his doosra much these days anyway. His offie is pretty clean.