Australians ask for clarification regarding 3-metre rule after Azhar Ali's non-dismissal

[Zeeraq]

Tim Paine was asking umpires for clarification regarding over 3-metre LBW rule, Aaron Finch also confirmed that Tim Paine was asking for clarification.

 

[CricketDon]

Vital the captains knows the rules. Their clueless reviews don’t help

 

[Abdullah719]

'Strange' DRS rule could be tweaked: Finch

Aaron Finch believes a "strange" quirk of the Decision Review System guidelines could, in time, be tweaked after Australia were denied an lbw review that satisfied all the requirements of the laws of the game for the second time in as many Tests.

Struggling to fight their way into the second Test late on day two after squandering a 137-run deficit in Abu Dhabi, Australia thought they had Pakistan batsman Azhar Ali dismissed on 53, but the No.3 survived a reviewed lbw shout off Jon Holland because he had been struck more than three metres away from the stumps.

Holland's delivery had pitched in line with the woodwork, hit Azhar in line and ball-tracking showed it would have gone on to hit the stumps, yet the right-hander was adjudged to be not out due to a nuance of the DRS's regulations.

The 'three-metre' rule isn't actually part of the Laws of Cricket, but rather was added to the ICC's playing conditions in 2011 due to a belief ball-tracking technology is less accurate the further it has to predict a ball to travel.

Finch admits Australia were not aware of the rule until they were denied the wicket of Haris Sohail in identical fashion during the first Test off Nathan Lyon.

"We didn’t really know about it until last Test, about the three metres," Finch told reporters after Australia went to stumps trailing Pakistan by 281.

"Pitching in line, hitting in line, hitting the stumps, to me that’s strange. I understand the element of predicting the path of the ball. That’s something that’s gone against us a couple of times, but that’s the game, that’s the rule, and we’ve just got to deal with it.

"As the technology improves ...I think in time it will be 100 per cent accurate, or 99 per cent accurate. Rules like that are always tinkered or changed slightly."

As he did after the Sohail decision in Dubai, captain Tim Paine took the issue up with on-field umpires on Wednesday, holding an extended discussion after stumps were called.

Asked about the talks between Paine and umpires, Finch said: "Yeah it was just a bit of confusion again. Where they’re three metres down the wicket, if it's still hitting the stumps and hitting in line, can we tinker the rule?

"I know it's sounding sour at the moment because we've been on the receiving end, but it's certainly not. We understand where the rule's at now. But maybe if it's hitting in line and if all three are still red, maybe there's a chance to overturn it."

The issue of giving batsmen out when they've advanced down the wicket has proved a divisive one.

The view of former Australia batsman Dean Jones that umpires can't conceivably give an lbw when the batter is struck so far down the wicket reflects a traditional outlook held by many.

But international umpires have proved increasingly willing in recent years to give out what would previously have been laughable appeals, the most famous example for Australian fans being the Steve Smith call at the WACA off Keshav Maharaj two years ago.

While Australia might have already played themselves into an unwinnable position when Azhar was spared, a late wicket would have brightened the mood of the Australian camp having earlier been bowled out for just 145.

Acknowledging his side had also let Pakistan off the hook on day one after reducing them to 5-57, Finch lamented another first-innings batting failure following on from their collapse of 10-60 in their first dig of last week's series-opener

"That first innings is always key to set up the game," Finch said. "We've seen Pakistan in the first Test go really big in the first innings and that gives them freedom in the second innings to play as aggressive as they want or as conservative as they want.

"Same again in this game, we've left ourselves a little bit too far behind the game. So as soon as (Fakhar) Zaman (who has scored 94 and 66 on debut) comes out and plays aggressively … then all of a sudden you're unsure whether to keep your catchers in or retreat and try to control the scoreboard.

"That's the beauty of going big in your first innings, you control the game. It goes a long way to winning games if you're setting up that first innings.

"Traditionally wickets do get harder and harder to bat on, so we've probably left ourselves a little bit too much work to do at the back end of games in the past, which no doubt we'll address and hopefully we can keep improving on that."

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/aar...est-day-two-holland-ali-highlights/2018-10-18

 

[Syed1]

Thank you S Ravi, best ump in the world. We need to immediately bin that anti-Ravi thread. Pure gibberish.






On a more serious note, DRS is so garbage, so if the bowler bowls it underarm and the ball barely gets above ankle height and batsman plays it at more than 3m then it will be declared not out lmao

 

[barah_admi]

People fail to understand basic cricketing rules. A batsman being too far down the pitch and not being given LBW has ALWAYS been a factor in cricket.

People need to know more about the sport they claim to watch.

 

[MMHS]

People fail to understand basic cricketing rules. A batsman being too far down the pitch and not being given LBW has ALWAYS been a factor in cricket.

People need to know more about the sport they claim to watch.

I believe, 3 metres rule is not basic cricket rule; rather in DRS review they can't confirm the projected trajectory of the ball beyond a certain distance, therefore Umpire's call is not over ruled, if the impact is beyond 3 metres. That's, what is given by field Umpire stands. Had batsman been given out in either of the cases and batsmen reviewed, he would have been still out as long as other 2 are RED or Orange - regardless of impact point being more than 3 metres from stumps.

The logic DRS uses, exactly same logic is used by Umpires as well - they are less willing to give LBW on front-foot, because from the impact (on front-foot), still ball might need to travel 6-7 feet to reach stump line and Umpire has to be sure that, yet ball would have been hitting (on line & height). 3 metres is just an accepted cut-off, to set where the tolerance lever (of machine's projection) passes critical limit; it's not a cricket rule.

Batsman too far down escapes LBW in most cases, not by default rule, rather because Umpire can't be cent percent sure about ball hitting sticks from that distance - so benefit of doubt goes to batsman. DRS applies same logic, but since it's a machine - it needs precise limits, which is set at 3 metres. For human Umpires, you can say that limit is - "too far down" in their judgement, in good faith & without negligence.

 

[barah_admi]

I believe, 3 metres rule is not basic cricket rule; rather in DRS review they can't confirm the projected trajectory of the ball beyond a certain distance, therefore Umpire's call is not over ruled, if the impact is beyond 3 metres. That's, what is given by field Umpire stands. Had batsman been given out in either of the cases and batsmen reviewed, he would have been still out as long as other 2 are RED or Orange - regardless of impact point being more than 3 metres from stumps.

The logic DRS uses, exactly same logic is used by Umpires as well - they are less willing to give LBW on front-foot, because from the impact (on front-foot), still ball might need to travel 6-7 feet to reach stump line and Umpire has to be sure that, yet ball would have been hitting (on line & height). 3 metres is just an accepted cut-off, to set where the tolerance lever (of machine's projection) passes critical limit; it's not a cricket rule.

Batsman too far down escapes LBW in most cases, not by default rule, rather because Umpire can't be cent percent sure about ball hitting sticks from that distance - so benefit of doubt goes to batsman. DRS applies same logic, but since it's a machine - it needs precise limits, which is set at 3 metres. For human Umpires, you can say that limit is - "too far down" in their judgement, in good faith & without negligence.

I did not say it had to be exactly 3 metres but a batsman coming too far down the wicket was always unlikely to be given out. That is the point. Nothing controversial about it.

And yes, with regards to DRS it is due to minimising error, as would be the case with any scientific system.

The decision is not controversial at all to me.

 

[wrongun]

I'm not too fussed if the rule changes or not, but I bet batsmen start training with a 3m spot marked on the pitch and practice getting that far forward to the spinners, or even how far out of the crease they need to bat to get there on front foot vs medium pacers.

 

[MMHS]

I'm not too fussed if the rule changes or not, but I bet batsmen start training with a 3m spot marked on the pitch and practice getting that far forward to the spinners, or even how far out of the crease they need to bat to get there on front foot vs medium pacers.

Why? You are still confused - playing forward will always benefit regarding LBW, but 3 metres has no impact here. If Umpire gives a batsman out LBW, it’ll stand after review regardless of where the impact was as long as there are no Green out of 3 conditions (& inside edge). Only advantage is, if he is given not out, and fielding side reviews, despite other 2 being Red, he won’t be given out (alter Umpire’s call), because of impact distance being 3 metres or more.

Playing forward using feet to spinners or medium pacers is part of a batting technique, not a tactics to get advantage of that 3 metre rule.

 

[par]

I'm not too fussed if the rule changes or not, but I bet batsmen start training with a 3m spot marked on the pitch and practice getting that far forward to the spinners, or even how far out of the crease they need to bat to get there on front foot vs medium pacers.

If the batsmen are ready to come down the track for more than 3m and miss the ball sometimes.