The Ashes & Hampshire Cricket Summer Thread

It has been mentioned that hotspot doesn't always show up, especially for a feather. The third Umpire said he saw a deflection. This was confirmed by Snicko (although that isn't part of the system). As for Holding's assertion that the noise happened a fraction of a second after Snicko indicated a nick, the noise monitor is continuous...the pictures are a series of individual frames...they could very easily look out of synch. There was nothing else that would make the clear noise that 2 hard objects make...it wasn't the blurred noise of pad for instance. The right decision was reached.

 

Ah well, in that case, a clarification of the rules, when using the technology, might be in order.

 

Well yes, precisely this. I just can't see how he could overturn that decision.

 

It's the old conundrum that I think the right decision was reached in the wrong way, not a problem for the outcome of the match but alarming that for the umpteenth time it seems the wrong call was made by the third umpire given the information at his disposal. As you say, I don't think Holding understood that the noise occurred between frames, seen a few of the commentators have that confusion. The fundamental problem is that the only reasonably strong evidence was the sound, which could not be entirely confirmed with the third umpire not having the benefit of Snicko that we do. Given that the there was no hotspot (Anomaly or not, you can't just start guessing 'Well there's no hotspot but maybe hotspot is wrong'), and at the very most the tiniest of deflections on the ball that I am yet to see, since the onfield decision was not out, by the standard governance for DRS you cannot overturn that decision for me.

 

Good little discussion between Tuffers, Blowers and Maxwell on the merits of technology. They didn't mention that the root cause of the implementing of technology is the media themselves. It's the same for all sports that have had the cameras and punditry turned upon them. Eventually the trust becomes eroded. We can't turn the clock back.

 

Hants need 74 from 48 btw

 

64 off of 42 now

 

An LBW decision by the Umpire on the field was wrong this time...so not just technology. DRS would have said not out.

Also love the woman sitting in the MCC members section with a huge bow in her hair in the MCC colours....good on you, girl. Some older members probably had apoplexy.

 

36 from 24 for Hampshire

 

Again Fran the problem isn't technology it is those that are in charge of wielding it!

 

20 off of 18 Hampshire on the verge again!

 

Ease it home boys!

 

15 from 7 2 wickets in 2 balls, more importantly they were dots.

 

Nice one Jimmy, one more.

 

Can't believe Hampshire muffed that, 20 runs needed from 18 balls with 7 wickets in hand and two batsmen well in, last 3 overs we score 10 runs and lose 5 wickets, two of which were bloody run-outs!

 

There it is!

LBW - Australia all out for 235.

 

Woohoo! That was obviously the umpire going, "**** it, I don't want to work tomorrow."

 

Finally!

He was plumb!

 

I was following the commentators thinking it was caught behind

 

****.... At last we got them all out.