A Question

An Indian Batsman (Tendulkar or Raina, I can't remember ) was trapped LBW but was given not out by Billy Bowden as he thought the batsman had hit the ball.

My question is: Could England have appealed it to show it did not hit the bat?

I know neither of the sides were allowed to appeal LBW decisions but could England have appealed to show the bat made no contact with the ball and then allowed Bowden to decide whether it was LBW or not?

You can't appeal against LBW decisions full stop, either to prevent yourself being out via LBW, or to give someone out via lbw.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:You can't appeal against LBW decisions full stop, either to prevent yourself being out via LBW, or to give someone out via lbw.

Its all very bizarre, surely its all in with the DRS or its all out.

So if its a clear no ball on a LBW shout the Batsmen can't refer, but he can on a catch?

I think DRS should be mandatory for LBWS then we wouldn't have problems like these. Hopefully the ICC will act and change the rules on it.

Where reasonable doubt occurs maybe. No need to review plumb lbws.

The partial application of the DRS in this series is fairly bizarre - the only thing the umpires can check for an LBW is whether the bowler oversteps, yet he can check everything about a catch (where I think the technology is not as reliable as the hawkeye / ball tracker anyway).

Either we go back to using technology for purely objective decisions only (run outs and stumpings) and rely on the umpires' decisions for lbw and catches (accepting that they get some wrong), or all technology should be applied equally to all Test series.

The hypothetical I came up with the other day was if a batsman is given out caught bat and pad, but appealed the decision because he hadn't hit the ball. As I understand the rules at the moment, the umpire does not then have the right to give the batsman out LBW even if the only reason he wasn't given out that way initially was because the umpire detected a non-existent nick.

Just to clear this up, because I have been a bit confused by it: So no lbw decisions can be reviewed? Because my understanding was that the Indians didn't like the predictive element of hawkeye so that was why it was not there, but you can't even overturn an lbw if you have smashed it into your pad? Because there is no doubt about that, you either have hit it or you haven't...

I have a different question. If you came on to bowl against the openers -bowled an inviting flighted slow ball that was called a wide but the batsman was out stumped. If that happened ten times in succession what would your bowling figures be?

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I have a different question. If you came on to bowl against the openers -bowled an inviting flighted slow ball that was called a wide but the batsman was out stumped. If that happened ten times in succession what would your bowling figures be?

0-0-10-0?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I have a different question. If you came on to bowl against the openers -bowled an inviting flighted slow ball that was called a wide but the batsman was out stumped. If that happened ten times in succession what would your bowling figures be?

0-0-10-0?

0-0-10-10 I think

JDizzle wrote:Just to clear this up, because I have been a bit confused by it: So no lbw decisions can be reviewed? Because my understanding was that the Indians didn't like the predictive element of hawkeye so that was why it was not there, but you can't even overturn an lbw if you have smashed it into your pad? Because there is no doubt about that, you either have hit it or you haven't...

Yeah even f you accept that the predictive hakeye isnt good enough ts retarded to not be using the ball tracking element.

I also dont get why its OK to have hotspot, which isnt a reliable null indicator (as proved by Broads review in thsi test which had it worked properly wouldve been given out according to snicko)

The whole thing with not trusting hawkeye is ridiulous anyway, if an umpires willing to give aplayer out when hes halfway down thepitch ( as he did in this test) why cant the predictive elements of hakeye, which are more reliable and consistent (fair).


As it with this test there was only one serious mistake, others were on borderline calls. It had no real affect on the game.
Bt you can see from how upset Broad was about no being able to review the problems it can cause. The tests snce DRS has been n have generaly been played with much better feeling between umpires and players. If India are so worried about "problem"officials to the point where they hound them out of the game why be so resistant to the chance to challenge them?
England wanted to appeal an lbw early in the first innings, again the players werevisibly upset that they couldnt. No doubt the umpire was made to feel uncomfortable too wondering if he had madea mistake.Had the full review system been in place he wouldve been shown to have made a good call, felt more vconfident, and the england players wouldt feel agrieved. Even if he had made a poor call there and had it overturned he and teh palyerswould no that it hadnt affected the game in anyway and everyone could just get on without and ill feeling lingering around.
For me thats the real value of an entrely consistent emprical system versus the spot judgement of an emotional human. So long as the technology is operated correctly it gives everyone and equal chance of a fair call, and the players know they have been judged on all the available evidence.

Umpires never cease to amaze me by how well they do making the majority of calls. Its the real hinkers that can totaly swing a game that really stand out, and they will keep happening if noone has the opportunity to review them. As a result umpires willcontinue to look bad even when they arent. When a guy can get hounded out for being a "problem" when they have a 96% correct call rate, you have a problem in the sport.

I think the difference between hotspot and snicko is the time it takes to get ready - snicko takes a couple of minutes as the audio and video needs to be synched (and there's a human factor involved in creating it too)

Raymond wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I have a different question. If you came on to bowl against the openers -bowled an inviting flighted slow ball that was called a wide but the batsman was out stumped. If that happened ten times in succession what would your bowling figures be?

0-0-10-0?

0-0-10-10 I think

Are wides counted against the bowler then?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Raymond wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I have a different question. If you came on to bowl against the openers -bowled an inviting flighted slow ball that was called a wide but the batsman was out stumped. If that happened ten times in succession what would your bowling figures be?

0-0-10-0?

0-0-10-10 I think

Are wides counted against the bowler then?

Yes. It's kind of hard to blame them on anyone else

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Raymond wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I have a different question. If you came on to bowl against the openers -bowled an inviting flighted slow ball that was called a wide but the batsman was out stumped. If that happened ten times in succession what would your bowling figures be?

0-0-10-0?

0-0-10-10 I think

Are wides counted against the bowler then?

Yes. It's kind of hard to blame them on anyone else

Fair enough, I'm never too sure on that.
How about no-balls, are they counted on the bowlers analysis?

^
Yes

Oh well.
I'm sure they never used to be, or is that just my memory playing tricks on me?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Oh well.
I'm sure they never used to be, or is that just my memory playing tricks on me?

Have been since the 80s, so no your mind is perfectly fine, for now.

Thanks guys.

Thanks from me too.

In the unlikely event that this was the only appearance made by this remarkable bowler in his career he wouldn't have a strike rate as he would never have delivered a legitimate ball. But I suppose that's no different to a batsman with no average because he's never been out.