I was just about to slate Jos Buttler on facebook for botching a simple run out vs the Netherlands, citing the incident as evidence of why the lad, as good as he is, should not be anywhere near the test team if Matt Prior can score runs at an average of more than 5.
If you haven't seen the incident, the Netherlands batsman (apologies for not knowing his name) was miles of of his ground trying for two in something like the 18th over. The throw came in, and Buttler duly removed the bails, with the batsman so far out that he continued running in the direction of the dug-out without further ado. But wait, the umpires are checking something - there is a suspicion the Buttler knocked the bails of with his elbow before he caught the ball. For those of you sketchy on the laws, if both bails are removed pre-contact of ball with glove, a stump must be removed from the ground to constitute breaking of the wicket. If one bail stays on and then is removed when the keeper has the ball in hand, that's fine.
A couple of replays (or more accurately, the same replay a couple of times) is shown from the square leg position which appear to show, very clearly, the bails being removed before Buttler catches the ball, and it doesn't take long for the 3rd umpire to relate his 'not-out' decision. Shortly after the batsman is called back to resume, another replay from the bowlers position is shown on TV which shows, even more clearly, that only one bail was knocked off, then Buttler caught the ball and got rid of the over. It should have been out.
Now, notwithstanding the fact it it really shouldn't have been an issue if the wicket keeper had been doing his job properly, it gives me something else to write about which should kill at least half an hour: namely, umpiring incompetence in the face of flaw-exposing technology.
This was further illustrated in England's earlier game against Sri Lanka, when a clear catch (as clear as it gets, actually) being given not out because low catches always look dodgy on TV. That's a line that is routinely used by umpires to justify their dodging making a decision. And that's not to mention the 2013 England Ashes series, where there were more DRS-based mistakes than a pre-school spelling test. These errors are compounded by (sometimes) ambiguity over the 'protocol' (think of Trotts first ball lbw, where some of the tech wasn't available because it was being used for another replay) or (always) by bad decisions being paraded in front of the crowd on a massive screen. When you have 20,000+ boozy Englishmen and Aussies gathered in a relatively confined space and stick replays like Usman Khawaja's phantom nick (not out - given out) or Ashton Agar failing to get his foot behind the line (out - given in) in front on them for scrutiny you're simply asking for trouble. Because every single one of those drunken fans, dressed as nuns and cartoon characters, now know themselves to be a superior umpire to the two blokes in the middle and the muppet in charge of the replays. Which is a ridiculous situation and should not be allowed to happen.
You hear a lot about DRS being introduced to 'eliminate the howler'. All well and good, but giving captains more reviews not less means that they will be used tactically, especially in tight situations and especially now that they are reset to 2 after 80 overs in tests. Batsmen have referred nicks they probably got bat on on the off chance that hotspot would show nothing, especially the last recognised batsman with the team at 100/5. And every batsman, EVERY batsman, is going to refer the low catch, given umpires track record with giving benefit of the doubt. Personally, I would like to see a change of policy as far as these are concerned, with the catch assumed to be clean unless you can see it bounce clearly - as in change direction and move up. 90% of these are clean catches that just aren't being given.
Other than that, proposed changes include giving discretion over whether a decision is reviewed or not to the umpires. Hmm. Well that would certainly lend a different dynamic to the situation and it seems to work in rugby, but then how long before they review everything? Umpires would effectively be absolved of responsibility for their decisions, unless limits are imposed on WHAT they can review. So where do you draw the line there? Can you check whether a ball pitched outside leg for an lbw but not have the benefit of the predictive path to see if it would have hit the stumps?
Or - and I'm about to suggest something a bit controversial here so bear with me - how about simply finding competent umpires? I don't know if you've ever noticed, but nobody ever complains when the umpires get stuff right, it's only when they get it wrong. So the answer, it seems to me, would be to get new umpires, or improve the ones we have, until they get the decisions right. And, lets face it, if 20,000+ pissed up half naked lunatics can tell if a foot's behind the line or not, why can't the sober, extensively trained and experienced umpire watching in high definition at close quarters in the comfort of a van, brew at hand? How hard would it have been to check that second stump angle for Jos Buttler's run out? How difficult would it be to give more benefit of the doubt to the fielder, to use balance of probability rather than working out if the batsman has a straw to clutch at?
Overall I'm a fan of using the technology. It's a constant source of exasperation to me when the most lucrative sport on the planet (i.e. football) refuses to use simple technology not to get more decisions right (and in football, there are no foots-on-the-line. Decisions are far more obvious and work over much wider margins, with the possible exception of tight offsides). But it's far easier for the idiots at FIFA to dig their heals when they can point to these issues as evidence that the tech doesn't work. My point is, the tech DOES work. The people don't, and the ICC should really be doing something about that. So far, their response has been to chuck more reviews at the captains, which simply does not address the root of the problem.
In other news...
England, as I write, are 37-4 chasing 134 against the Netherlands. Speaking as someone who has said, for a while, that I don't think Ashley Giles is the man for the coaching job and that the likes of Moeen Ali and Jos Buttler shouldn't be considered for test selection, I face a moral dilemma as to whether I want England to win or not.
If you haven't seen the incident, the Netherlands batsman (apologies for not knowing his name) was miles of of his ground trying for two in something like the 18th over. The throw came in, and Buttler duly removed the bails, with the batsman so far out that he continued running in the direction of the dug-out without further ado. But wait, the umpires are checking something - there is a suspicion the Buttler knocked the bails of with his elbow before he caught the ball. For those of you sketchy on the laws, if both bails are removed pre-contact of ball with glove, a stump must be removed from the ground to constitute breaking of the wicket. If one bail stays on and then is removed when the keeper has the ball in hand, that's fine.
A couple of replays (or more accurately, the same replay a couple of times) is shown from the square leg position which appear to show, very clearly, the bails being removed before Buttler catches the ball, and it doesn't take long for the 3rd umpire to relate his 'not-out' decision. Shortly after the batsman is called back to resume, another replay from the bowlers position is shown on TV which shows, even more clearly, that only one bail was knocked off, then Buttler caught the ball and got rid of the over. It should have been out.
Now, notwithstanding the fact it it really shouldn't have been an issue if the wicket keeper had been doing his job properly, it gives me something else to write about which should kill at least half an hour: namely, umpiring incompetence in the face of flaw-exposing technology.
This was further illustrated in England's earlier game against Sri Lanka, when a clear catch (as clear as it gets, actually) being given not out because low catches always look dodgy on TV. That's a line that is routinely used by umpires to justify their dodging making a decision. And that's not to mention the 2013 England Ashes series, where there were more DRS-based mistakes than a pre-school spelling test. These errors are compounded by (sometimes) ambiguity over the 'protocol' (think of Trotts first ball lbw, where some of the tech wasn't available because it was being used for another replay) or (always) by bad decisions being paraded in front of the crowd on a massive screen. When you have 20,000+ boozy Englishmen and Aussies gathered in a relatively confined space and stick replays like Usman Khawaja's phantom nick (not out - given out) or Ashton Agar failing to get his foot behind the line (out - given in) in front on them for scrutiny you're simply asking for trouble. Because every single one of those drunken fans, dressed as nuns and cartoon characters, now know themselves to be a superior umpire to the two blokes in the middle and the muppet in charge of the replays. Which is a ridiculous situation and should not be allowed to happen.
You hear a lot about DRS being introduced to 'eliminate the howler'. All well and good, but giving captains more reviews not less means that they will be used tactically, especially in tight situations and especially now that they are reset to 2 after 80 overs in tests. Batsmen have referred nicks they probably got bat on on the off chance that hotspot would show nothing, especially the last recognised batsman with the team at 100/5. And every batsman, EVERY batsman, is going to refer the low catch, given umpires track record with giving benefit of the doubt. Personally, I would like to see a change of policy as far as these are concerned, with the catch assumed to be clean unless you can see it bounce clearly - as in change direction and move up. 90% of these are clean catches that just aren't being given.
Other than that, proposed changes include giving discretion over whether a decision is reviewed or not to the umpires. Hmm. Well that would certainly lend a different dynamic to the situation and it seems to work in rugby, but then how long before they review everything? Umpires would effectively be absolved of responsibility for their decisions, unless limits are imposed on WHAT they can review. So where do you draw the line there? Can you check whether a ball pitched outside leg for an lbw but not have the benefit of the predictive path to see if it would have hit the stumps?
Or - and I'm about to suggest something a bit controversial here so bear with me - how about simply finding competent umpires? I don't know if you've ever noticed, but nobody ever complains when the umpires get stuff right, it's only when they get it wrong. So the answer, it seems to me, would be to get new umpires, or improve the ones we have, until they get the decisions right. And, lets face it, if 20,000+ pissed up half naked lunatics can tell if a foot's behind the line or not, why can't the sober, extensively trained and experienced umpire watching in high definition at close quarters in the comfort of a van, brew at hand? How hard would it have been to check that second stump angle for Jos Buttler's run out? How difficult would it be to give more benefit of the doubt to the fielder, to use balance of probability rather than working out if the batsman has a straw to clutch at?
Overall I'm a fan of using the technology. It's a constant source of exasperation to me when the most lucrative sport on the planet (i.e. football) refuses to use simple technology not to get more decisions right (and in football, there are no foots-on-the-line. Decisions are far more obvious and work over much wider margins, with the possible exception of tight offsides). But it's far easier for the idiots at FIFA to dig their heals when they can point to these issues as evidence that the tech doesn't work. My point is, the tech DOES work. The people don't, and the ICC should really be doing something about that. So far, their response has been to chuck more reviews at the captains, which simply does not address the root of the problem.
In other news...
England, as I write, are 37-4 chasing 134 against the Netherlands. Speaking as someone who has said, for a while, that I don't think Ashley Giles is the man for the coaching job and that the likes of Moeen Ali and Jos Buttler shouldn't be considered for test selection, I face a moral dilemma as to whether I want England to win or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment