Is ignorance bliss?
There have been comments previously, such as "That writer hasnt played a single game of cricket at any level, then how can he judge me, somebody who has played more than a 100 tests?"
Sambit Bal's comment on the Inzamam run out in Test 2 sums up the knowledge of such ex-cricketers.
For those unaware, Inzamam was judged to be run out while taking evasive action from Harmisson's throw, when the rule states as such
The focus of the column was rightly on the ignorant umpires on the field. Simon Taufel is considered the best of the lot. So, I am not sure if this is funny or sad But I am curious to know whether the ICC will come out with a statement or the match referee will express his regret to Inzamam. Ater all, players are hauled up to the referee's office for excessive appealing (Veeru, Ganguly), not appealing, pointing fingers (Harbajan), smiling (Irfan Pathan in Australia Vs Damien Martyn) etc. Dont they deserve to get an apology when something like this happens?
And I wonder how many ex or current cricketers other than Ian Botham were in the dark about the finer points of such rules.
PS: Bal writes about the famous Tendulkar run out at Eden Gardens in 1999 when he was impeded by Akhtar, in an accidental collison. I am not sure if this is accurate though. The law implies that the batsman may not be run out if he is outside the crease to avoid injury. But the Tendulkar run out was in different circumstances. It is true that the run out occured only because of the collision with Akhtar but technically, Pakistan was within their rights to appeal for it and I dont think the umpires messed up over there. That Akram could have withdrawn the appeal as sportsmanship is an altogether different issue. Thoughts?
Sambit Bal's comment on the Inzamam run out in Test 2 sums up the knowledge of such ex-cricketers.
For those unaware, Inzamam was judged to be run out while taking evasive action from Harmisson's throw, when the rule states as such
"...a batsman is not out Run out if (a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down"
The focus of the column was rightly on the ignorant umpires on the field. Simon Taufel is considered the best of the lot. So, I am not sure if this is funny or sad But I am curious to know whether the ICC will come out with a statement or the match referee will express his regret to Inzamam. Ater all, players are hauled up to the referee's office for excessive appealing (Veeru, Ganguly), not appealing, pointing fingers (Harbajan), smiling (Irfan Pathan in Australia Vs Damien Martyn) etc. Dont they deserve to get an apology when something like this happens?
And I wonder how many ex or current cricketers other than Ian Botham were in the dark about the finer points of such rules.
PS: Bal writes about the famous Tendulkar run out at Eden Gardens in 1999 when he was impeded by Akhtar, in an accidental collison. I am not sure if this is accurate though. The law implies that the batsman may not be run out if he is outside the crease to avoid injury. But the Tendulkar run out was in different circumstances. It is true that the run out occured only because of the collision with Akhtar but technically, Pakistan was within their rights to appeal for it and I dont think the umpires messed up over there. That Akram could have withdrawn the appeal as sportsmanship is an altogether different issue. Thoughts?
posted by Toney at
8:43 AM
39 Comments:
Well.. even the BBC called it incorrect http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4455642.stm
also read on. Afridi diggin the pitch .:)
Umpire Darrell Hair referred the decision to the third umpire, who duly gave Inzamam out even though the rules of the game state a batsman cannot be run out when taking evasive action from a throw if he has not left his crease.
Then as play ended, Shahid Afridi was seen scuffing the wicket with his boots.
Laws: What is the 'protected area' of the pitch?
England batsman Kevin Pietersen, at the crease with Bell, immediately asked Afridi what he was doing, apparently concerned about the effect his action might have on the condition of the pitch.
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 09:08
Pakistan was right in appealing at Kolkatta..they couldnt have known that SRT had grounded the bat and then moved out....and Eng was not much wrong today either. They couldn't have known(atleast accurately) that Inzy, when playing the shot, didn't move out of the crease, but infact lifted his foot only to evade the throw. The umpires should have seen...or atleast asked the third umpire. Although I'm not sure if they can ask these questions outside the jurisdiction of 3rd ump? But they are not asking him to pass judgment, just what he sees in the replay.
To me, without having watched the action this morning, it looks like a simple case of on-field umpires mistaking it to be a simple case of batsman stepping out a bit to play, and not grounding the bat. And their mistake, then, in not asking the third ump. This is what Tresco said about his conversation with Hair about it I spoke to Darrell [Hair] and he said he thought he might just have lifted his foot, but it's the first time I've seen it referred to the third umpire while we've been fielding."
I don't think the umpire was being ignorant of the rule...just carelessness of not thinking of all possible alternatives immediately. Looks like another one of simple umpiring errors.
By
worma, at 09:12
Our own game seems to be in danger of being washed out .. Yaga's to Indra may not even help ..
The first link is more scary ..
http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/map/INXX0202?from=LAPmaps&name=index_large_animated&day=1
http://weather.msn.com/local.aspx?wealocations=wc:INXX0075
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 09:13
ravi: SRT reached the crease and came out. The similarity in Inzy and Sachin's dismissal is that its the same rule in question.
By
worma, at 09:16
I am 100% sure his bat reached the crease and then he got Shoaib's shoulder in his face....bat lifted as he took a step back. I have the picture in my head...of only I could show it here ;-)
By
worma, at 09:21
Worma,
SRT left the crease, not to avoid injury but because of the collision. Inzi was never attempting to take a run in the first place. So, IMO there's no similarity other than the fact that both were given run out.
And I dont know whether the umpire was being ignorant or careless. If I were in their position, I would prefer to be called ignorant than careless.
Also, they cannot ask the third umpire about such specifics. The 3rd umpire can only judge whether the batsman is out of the crease or not. And that is his basis for hitting the button. It is upto the impires on the field to decide whether this was a batsman making a genuine attmept to score a single (how hard is it, when the batsman hits it back to the bowler, the bowler tries to hurl down the stumps and the batsman, being in the way, stands a very good chance of being hit?)
By
Toney, at 09:21
ravi, SRT reached the crease, grounded the bat. Then, on the collision, his bat was in the air and with our kind of luck in that game, the ball hit the stumps. I have no problem with that though. Bowlers are within their right to get behind the stumps or go collect the ball, unless something was done on purpose.
By
Toney, at 09:23
ravi: boss I'm in Finland...so atleast the travel time is less ;-)
toney: We know Inzy was not trying to run...but it *could* have been a case of batsman taking a step forward while playing the shot...something like when you play to forward shortleg and the fielder flicks on to the stump, remember that is also not actually an attempt to run a single...yet its a genuine way of running him out. Not saying this happened...but this seems to be what the ump was thinking.
Call it carelessness or whatever, it seems like a simple wrong judgement on part of umpire...same as in giving lbw to a ball pitched outside leg. here also they had only a fraction to watch Inzy's actual stride out(that too from square leg).
But yes, if the umpires can 'ask' about such details from third ump then the carelessness is bigger.
By
worma, at 09:27
and toney, I think the same rule applies to SRT case also. He was forced out of the crease...or rather went out to avoid injury(yeah Akhtar's elbow on face is serious threat of injury...sort of instintive reaction to it.)
By
worma, at 09:28
ged: yeah..my point, exactly.
By
worma, at 09:35
yorker: third ump is to be blamed if its in his jurisdiction to interpret those rules. If he's to make line calls only..then cant blame him, right?
By
worma, at 09:41
Did you guys read the Ten Most controversial decisions http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/226675.html.
There are some beauties there
By
Toney, at 09:48
Worma,
Is thisinked, that third Umpire only makes Line call.
In SRT scenario, what if the Regular umpire is not even sure that SRT has completed the run?
May be he referred this to third umpire to find out the same..
The Red light given by umpire means the batsmans walks out. He should be aware fo the rules before switching that on.
If third umpire just has to switch on the R/G lights .. we would very well have an eagle(tech) sitting there .. not a cricketing umpire...
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 09:53
Well.. I am not sure what question Third umpire is asked .. but sure the answer he gives means eithr of the two things .
Either BAtsman is OUT or NOT OUT.
In that case the Question asked ot him is : IS THE BATSMAN OUT?
Now i think it is just Logical that he applies the cricketing rules before he glows any light .
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 09:57
pankay, yorker: I repeat, I am not sure if its in third umpire's jurisdiction to decide on the matter of rules to be applied...or whether the 'run was complete' or not. There isn't a rule book about third umpire rights, is there? I think he just makes the line-call...that at the time of dislodging of bails, what was the position of the bat. But I may be wrong on this.
I am also not sure how much can the field umpire 'ask' unofficially from the third ump, if that was possible it should have been done in both cases. In any case, both these examples are of mis-judgment on the part of on-field umpire (in case of SRT it was actually a lesser mis-judgment since probably the umpire couldnt have imagined it as a possiblity, while today Hair should have taken it into account). But anyway, a simple mistake, like an LBW to a ball pitched outside leg. Nothing more, IMO.
By
worma, at 10:02
pankaj, yorker,
I think this is how roloes are defined. For a run out, the on-field umpires decide whether the batsman can be legally given. They consider all the factors, such as attempting to run, ducking or moving away to avoid injury, fielder's role in impeding a batsman and whether this was intentional etc. But, since the actual even of the batsman's position when the bails were removed happens so quickly, they allow the third umpire to rule on this.
So, by the time the run out is referred to the 3rd umpire, all that is left (in the on-field umpires' minds) is whether the batsman has reached the crease in time. And the 3rd umpire is a dummy, who just decides this.
As Pankaj said , you dont need an umpire to do this, any tech could, provided they know what to do.
Tis the case for catches too. The 3rd umpire doesnt judge whether the batsman edged the ball. All he judges on, from the replays is whether th ball was caught fairly.
By
Toney, at 10:05
sahir,
I was going to state that exact incident !!! And IMO, the 3rd umpire judged on the edge rather than the legality of the catch (although officially he gave a diff version). And that is not the right decision. I remember the commentators also correctly analyzing the situation.
By
Toney, at 10:08
yorker, dude...its not as simple as that. If his brief is strictly defined to answer the question asked by onfield ump, and if on-field ump's brief is defined to ask only certain questions...then what can you do?
btw...is there anywhere a rule book (or some such) which defines the whole 'scope' of third ump?
By
worma, at 10:14
Third Umpire/TV Replays
2.1 General
The Home Authority will ensure a seperate room is provided for the third umpire and that he has access to a television monitor and direct sound link with the television control unit director to faciliate as many replays as is necessary to assist him in making a decision.
The third umpire shall call for as many replays from any camera angle as is necessary to reach a decision. As a guide, a decision should be made within 30 seconds wherever possible, but the third umpire shall have discretion to take more time in order to finalise a decision.
The on-field umpire has the discretion whether to call for a TV replay or not and should take a common-sense approach. Players may not appeal to the umpire to use the replay system - breach of this provision would be constitute dissent and the player could be liable for discipline under the Code of Conduct.
2.2 Run-out, Stumping, Caught and Hit Wicket Decisions
In all Test and One Day International matches, the on-field umpire shall be entitled to call for a TV replay to assist him in making a decision about a run-out, stumping, caught or hit wicket appeal.
An on-field umpire wishing the assistance of a TV replay shall signal to the third umpire by making the shape of a TV screen with his hands.
If the third umpire decides the batsman is out a red light is displayed; a green light means not-out. Should the third umpire be temporarily unable to respond, a white light (where available) will remain illuminated throughout the period of interruption to signify to the on-field umpires that the TV replay system is temporarily unavailable, in which case the decision will be taken by the the on-field umpire.
When reviewing the TV replay, if the third umpire finds the batsman has been bowled rather than hit wicket or stumped, he shall display the red light to show the batsman was dismissed.
2.3 Caught Decisions
Should the bowler's end umpire be unable to decide whether or not a catch was taken cleanly, he shall first consult with the square leg umpire.
Should both umpires be unable to make a decision, the bowler's end umpire may then call for the third umpire to review a TV replay of the catch as in 2.2 (b).
The third umpire has to determine whether the batsmen has been caught, not whether or not he hit the ball.
The third umpire shall communicate his decision by the red/green light system as in 2.2 (c).
2.4 Boundary Decisions
In all Test and One Day International matches, the on-field umpire shall be entitled to call for a TV replay to assist in him in making a decision about whether the fieldsman had any part of his person in contact with the ball when he touched or crossed the boundary line or whether a four or six had been scored. A decision is to be made immediately and cannot be changed thereafter.
An on-field umpire wishing the assistance of a TV replay shall signal to the third umpire by use of a two way radio - the third umpire will convey his decision to the on-field umpire by this method.
The third umpire may initiate contact with the on-field umpire by two way radio if TV coverage shows a boundary line infringement.
2.5 Batsmen Running to the Same End
In the event of both batsmen running to the same end and the umpires are uncertain over which batsmen made his ground first, the on-field umpire may call for a TV replay to assist him in making a decision.
The procedure in 2.2 (c) shall apply.
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:20
if the third umpire finds the batsman has been bowled rather than hit wicket or stumped, he shall display the red light to show the batsman was dismissed.
This makes me feel he is given some intelligence...
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:22
pankaj: thx for that rule guide. And yes it does show some intelligence is given to third ump. But otherwise the rule is surprisingly unclear on run-out. Unlike for catch where it clearly says what the third ump shall *not* adjudicate on.
By
worma, at 10:24
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:24
pankaj,
Your post about the 3rd umpiring conditions makes it clear that he has no powers as such and can only deliver the decision based on spicif events, such as batsman not making his ground, catch not taken fairly, fielder stepping over the boundary ropes etc
By
Toney, at 10:25
pankaj, is there more stuff on 3rd umpire? I am sure MCC/ICC has something written up to define roles
By
Toney, at 10:25
I realsie Toney that there is a lot of other stuff existign ..
But I still feel that TU is there to assist the right decision ..
In all Test and One Day International matches, the on-field umpire shall be entitled to call for a TV replay to assist him in making a decision about a run-out, stumping, caught or hit wicket appeal
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:29
pankaj,
Oh, I agree about the :right decision" part. But rules are rules. Also, there is this debate on how much poers to hand over to the 3rd umpire. And the role for 3rd umpire was restricted mainly to stop the purists from revolting
By
Toney, at 10:30
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:31
basically the same stuff.. but Sholay link sounds like a dharmendra fan link :)
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:33
jd,
I think the match referee decides on that, not the 3rd umpire. ANd I am sure there are conditions for those clearly defined too
By
Toney, at 10:51
http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/test_playing_conditions.pdf
3.2 Third Umpire/TV Replays
The following shall apply in addition to Clause 3.1:
3.2.1 General
e In the circumstances detailed in Clauses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4 and 3.2.5
hereunder, the on-field umpire has the discretion whether to refer the appeal to the third umpire for a decision or not and should take a common sense approach. Players may not appeal to the umpire to use the replay system - breach of this provision would constitute dissent and the player could be liable for discipline under the ICC
Code of Conduct.
So, in Inzy's case the on-field umpire has the freedom of asking the 3rd umpire if Inzy is run-out or not.
3.2.2 Run Out, Stumping and HitWicket Decisions
c If the third umpire decides the batsman is out a red light is displayed; a green light means not-out. Should the third umpire be temporarily unable to respond, a white light (where available) will remain illuminated throughout the period of interruption to signify to the on-field umpires that the TV replay system is temporarily
unavailable, in which case the decision will be taken by the on-field umpire. (As an alternative to the red/green light system and where available, the big replay screen may be used for the purpose of conveying the third umpire’s decision.)
This rules does not define that the 3rd umpire has to ONLY rule on what the on-field umpire has asked of him. The rule say that 3rd umpire has to decide if the batsman is out or not. Period. If the third umpire decides the batsman is out. That means ICC is giving the 3rd umpire freedom to apply whatever rules are neccessary to be applied in order to reach a decision whether the player is out or not. Eg.) The appeal may have been for caught-behind and 3rd umpire is asked, if the 3rd umpire finds that ball did not hit the bat but the batsman was LBW then he can very well give his judgement as LBW out. He is not just required to give a YES / NO decision. He is required to give HIS BEST decision after applying all the rules that may be neccessary to be applied. In Inzy's case, the 3rd umpire could have judged whether he was going for a run or trying to avoid injury. Since he rules Inzy out, it is a mistake on his part.
That is what I think the rule book says....
By
Unknown, at 11:01
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:06
sorry . ruchir ..
The LBW example .. is the one I don't subscribe .. to .. I missed that first..
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:12
I wont rate LBW with CBehind ..
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:13
Yes Kb .. agreed.. mine was intended for Ruchir.
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:22
pankaj, kban1:
True, 3rd umpire does not rule in LBW. I should have used a different mode of dismissal.
My point was that rule book says that 3rd umpire has to decide whether the batsman is out or not. His role is not limited to giving a YES / NO answer. His role is to give judgement on whether the batsman is out or not.
In Inzy's case, the 3rd umpire was "probably" asked to rule on the run out and he simply gave a YES / NO decision that YES Inzy is out.
What he should have done was to see the situation a few seconds before ball hitting the stumps and applied ICC rules book and decided if Inzy was going for the run or was he avoiding being hit by the ball. In it was the latter then he was not-out.
That is why I say that 3rd umpire made a mistake in giving Inzy out.
By
Unknown, at 11:26
Yes Ruchir,
This is the post I would subscribe to :)
By
Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:30
wow.. that's been a good discussion going on in this comment's section.
Full marks to worma... right SRT reached the crease and then due to the impact of collision, the bat had risen into air from the ground. So, the same misuse of the law occurred in both these instances.
Good comments from worma all through
By
______, at 12:53
BIG DIFFERENCE between SRT case and this case of Inzy is that SRT case (arguably) affected result of the match... and the series.
By
LinkLover, at 17:56
Prem, actually I think SRT incident was even more horrible than this Inzy one.
In SRT's case umpire could easily see that he had grounded his bat at some point, he did not need third umpire to confirm that. And it was also easily obvious that bat lost contact with ground while SRT adjusted his upper body to avoid injury (or else why would a batter do that, knowing the risk of getting run out?). So why should have umpire referred it to third umpire? Third umpire could only decide/judge if bat was in the air at time ball hit stumps, but if you know run was completed, asking third umpire is useless, isn't it?
Now in Inzy's case, let us say (and I believe so) that umpires were not sure that Inzy was out of his crease even before Harmy threw the ball (remember that it was a close decision). If he was out of crease before throw, nobody would have had problem with this decision right? So how do you blame umpires on ground for referring to third umpire? And then when it is time for third umpire to judge, and all he can do is say out or not out, as per the rules, what would he do? He had to give him out.
Prem, you still have not shared why you think "umpires did not mess up there". Please come clean :-)
By
LinkLover, at 18:32
Post a Comment
<< Home