Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Logan Modahal » Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:02:41


Wrong Noball call in which Langer was caught. It sucks
 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Colcha » Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:17:20


Quote:
> Wrong Noball call in which Langer was caught. It sucks

Why was it wrong, it was close, but not wrong. You have to have something
behind the line and he had nothing. It was a very tight call for an umpire
to make at such pace, but he was not wrong.

Colin

 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Will Sutto » Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:51:31

Quote:

> Wrong Noball call in which Langer was caught. It sucks

The first of many

 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Paul Robso » Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:51:35

Quote:


>>Wrong Noball call in which Langer was caught. It sucks

> The first of many

Took longer than I'd expected.
 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Satya Nit » Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:13:45

Quote:



> > Wrong Noball call in which Langer was caught. It sucks

> Why was it wrong, it was close, but not wrong. You have to have something
> behind the line and he had nothing. It was a very tight call for an umpire
> to make at such pace, but he was not wrong.

To be honest I'm not a 100% convinced he had nothing behind the line.
At least a few millimeters were possibly behind it if not a few
atoms(!) - the comms sugested otherwise but I was not convinced. But
more importantly Bucknor is really not in a position to make such a
close call. For one thing, parallax error might make it appear that
his foot was farther out than it was. For another, there's no way he
can be consistent with that sort of a call. In fact, a few overs
later, Nehra overstepped by a lot more than he did for the ball in
question but he was not called. I'd say this idea of introducing a 3rd
on-field umpire for no-balls is an excellent one. In any case, as far
as this incident goes, that's just the rub of the green really. Langer
played well and India bowled badly so he deserves his subsequent
success. It's not as if an egregious edge was not given or anything.
Marginal call is my verdict.

Somewhat off-topic but related nonetheless is the issue of LBW's and
the on-field umpire's role. I am firmly in the camp of using all
available technology to assist the umpire, provided it's been proven
they work. For example, I like Hawkeye for LBW's and I think it should
be used. If properly caliberated, the error whilst using it is bound
to be less than the error with the human element involved, IMO. I
realise this stance will be unpopular with the old timers here, but
there is a lot more at stake in the modern game and worrying about
whether more technology dimishes the role of the umpire is a bit naive
IMO. Yes, I realize the tradioinalists will point out that if such
reasoning is pushed to it's logical conclusion, the umpires will in
the end be reduced to counting balls and signalling boundaries. But
that ignores several things such as judgement calls the umpire is
forced to make without having the benefit of technology. For example,
yesterday, Langer was impeded by Agarkar (accidentally IMO) from
returning back to his crease at the non-strikers end. Bucknor quickly
called dead ball as the play was in progress, so even if Zaheer had
thrown down the wicket, Langer would have been safe. This is precisely
what a good umpire will bring to the game that all the technology in
the world cannot - judgement calls, keeping the players away from each
other's throats, inspecting the condition of the ball, deciding on
wides, intimidatory bowling, sledging, etc. So, introducing available
technology does not necessarily make the role of the umpire obsolete.
It dimishes it a bit perhaps, but used properly, it could potentially
enhance his effectiveness. And that is all I ask for as a fan.

Satya (who thought the umpiring was spot-on yesterday - Ricky
Ponting's not-out call off Agarkar was probably the top decision of
the day)

 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Raghu Jetle » Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:16:13

Quote:

> Satya (who thought the umpiring was spot-on yesterday - Ricky
> Ponting's not-out call off Agarkar was probably the top decision of
> the day)

Was it a catch or LBW ?
And what do you mean by "top decision" - was it correct or incorrect ?
 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by yeska » Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:29:17

Quote:


>>Satya (who thought the umpiring was spot-on yesterday - Ricky
>>Ponting's not-out call off Agarkar was probably the top decision of
>>the day)

>Was it a catch or LBW ?
>And what do you mean by "top decision" - was it correct or incorrect ?

It was a loud snick which Patel caught. Subsequent snickometer snips
showed that punter had
grassed the bat and the noise was from that. When the snick happened the
ball was a bit past
the bat. It was a good decision, but basically it is difficult for the
umpire to to make the decision
in real time. I think he just gave the b-o-d to the bat. The umpire got
lucky, as it could have been
been easily the other way also.
 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Ragupati Chandrasekara » Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:05:24

Quote:


> > Satya (who thought the umpiring was spot-on yesterday - Ricky
> > Ponting's not-out call off Agarkar was probably the top decision of
> > the day)

> Was it a catch or LBW ?

Appeal for caught behind.Bat hit ground and the Indians went up in
appeal.I thought it was out myself,watching it live,'cos the ball did
deviate once it passed the bat.Snickometer, a couple of overs later,
conclusively proved that the noise could've only been bat hitting ground.

Quote:
> And what do you mean by "top decision" - was it correct or incorrect ?

It was correct and it was a terrific decision. Comms were
suggesting that a bit of the grass came off the wicket when bat hit ground
but I didnt see it on the telly.

Cheers,
Ragu[who thought that spell of bowling was Aggy's best in a long time]

1 is equal to 2 for sufficiently large values of 1
--Anonymous

 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Shariq A. Tar » Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:02:57

Quote:

> Wrong Noball call in which Langer was caught. It sucks

Maybe Langer played the shot because he saw the umpires's outstretched
hand....or maybe because he heard the shout...being a blackbelt in
Karate Langer probably has quicker reflexes and a better peripheral
vision than most test cricketers.Ofcourse, there is this other thing
about the umpires being trained to give the benefit of doubt to the
batsman

Shariq

 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Lord Snoo » Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:52:18

Quote:


> > Wrong Noball call in which Langer was caught. It sucks

> The first of many

Did you watch the game or hear the commentary? If you did, you would whine too.
It was a fuzzy decision to say the least.
 
 
 

Langer gets to bat second time in the same Innings: First Umpiring decision against India.

Post by Colcha » Sat, 06 Dec 2003 07:01:04



Quote:


> > > Wrong Noball call in which Langer was caught. It sucks

> > Why was it wrong, it was close, but not wrong. You have to have
something
> > behind the line and he had nothing. It was a very tight call for an
umpire
> > to make at such pace, but he was not wrong.

> To be honest I'm not a 100% convinced he had nothing behind the line.
> At least a few millimeters were possibly behind it if not a few
> atoms(!) - the comms sugested otherwise but I was not convinced. But
> more importantly Bucknor is really not in a position to make such a
> close call. For one thing, parallax error might make it appear that
> his foot was farther out than it was. For another, there's no way he
> can be consistent with that sort of a call. In fact, a few overs
> later, Nehra overstepped by a lot more than he did for the ball in
> question but he was not called. I'd say this idea of introducing a 3rd
> on-field umpire for no-balls is an excellent one. In any case, as far
> as this incident goes, that's just the rub of the green really. Langer
> played well and India bowled badly so he deserves his subsequent
> success. It's not as if an egregious edge was not given or anything.
> Marginal call is my verdict.

> Somewhat off-topic but related nonetheless is the issue of LBW's and
> the on-field umpire's role. I am firmly in the camp of using all
> available technology to assist the umpire, provided it's been proven
> they work. For example, I like Hawkeye for LBW's and I think it should
> be used. If properly caliberated, the error whilst using it is bound
> to be less than the error with the human element involved, IMO. I
> realise this stance will be unpopular with the old timers here, but
> there is a lot more at stake in the modern game and worrying about
> whether more technology dimishes the role of the umpire is a bit naive
> IMO. Yes, I realize the tradioinalists will point out that if such
> reasoning is pushed to it's logical conclusion, the umpires will in
> the end be reduced to counting balls and signalling boundaries. But
> that ignores several things such as judgement calls the umpire is
> forced to make without having the benefit of technology. For example,
> yesterday, Langer was impeded by Agarkar (accidentally IMO) from
> returning back to his crease at the non-strikers end. Bucknor quickly
> called dead ball as the play was in progress, so even if Zaheer had
> thrown down the wicket, Langer would have been safe. This is precisely
> what a good umpire will bring to the game that all the technology in
> the world cannot - judgement calls, keeping the players away from each
> other's throats, inspecting the condition of the ball, deciding on
> wides, intimidatory bowling, sledging, etc. So, introducing available
> technology does not necessarily make the role of the umpire obsolete.
> It dimishes it a bit perhaps, but used properly, it could potentially
> enhance his effectiveness. And that is all I ask for as a fan.

> Satya (who thought the umpiring was spot-on yesterday - Ricky
> Ponting's not-out call off Agarkar was probably the top decision of
> the day)

At the end of the day, if it was that close that its hard to call, then the
benefit of the doubt is always in the batsmens favour anyway.

Colin