What's new

England vs Australia | 4th Ashes Test | Chester-le-Street | 10/8/13 | Day 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
So far things going well for Rogers , but it takes one mistake and it will all over for him.
 
2 victories for DRS in one over. Huzzah.

I was afraid :ajmal :kallis dilemma would ensue
 
lol...has this happened the first time. They need to add a few more options to the DRS graphic.
 
They need to explain how this decision was made.
 
Rogers could have gotten out in any one of 3 different ways in one over if DRS did not exist
 
OZGOD said:
They need to explain how this decision was made.
Click to expand...
Pretty straight forward - Umpire gave Rogers out caught behind, he was unlikely to give him out lbw and as he gave him out caught behind umpires call remains for the lbw is in favor of the batsmen - (not lbw).
 
So he was not given out because he was out caught behind originally, but when DRS showed no edge but Hotspot on the pads, they appealed for LBW but because a) he was not given out LBW originally and/or b) not enough of the ball was hitting the bails he is not out? I'm a little confused.
 
OZGOD said:
They need to explain how this decision was made.
Click to expand...

If the batsman is to be considered out by any other mode of dismissal not given by the on-field umpire, then the review will be made under the assumption that the on-field call was "not out"

:ajmal :kallis
 
OZGOD said:
They need to explain how this decision was made.
Click to expand...

  1. Not caught behind as the ball didnt nick the bat.
  2. LBW was umpire's call, and the umpire never gave him out for the LBW. So thats not out as well.

The DRS graphic should have not shown the verdict as out basically.
 
Last edited:
Kiwi said:
Pretty straight forward - Umpire gave Rogers out caught behind, he was unlikely to give him out lbw and as he gave him out caught behind umpires call remains - (not lbw).
Click to expand...

But the fact is he looked out LBW right. But because umpire didn't give him out LBW he can't be given out LBW on review? Seems odd. I'm not complaining, but the cricket purist in me reckons it's a bit off.
 
OZGOD said:
So he was not given out because he was out caught behind originally, but when DRS showed no edge but Hotspot on the pads, they appealed for LBW but because a) he was not given out LBW originally and/or b) not enough of the ball was hitting the bails he is not out? I'm a little confused.
Click to expand...
If it was hitting the stumps he would have been given out, umpires call was in favor of the batsmen (he gave him out caught behind, not lbw)
 
Nuekboi said:
If the batsman is to be considered out by any other mode of dismissal not given by the on-field umpire, then the review will be made under the assumption that the on-field call was "not out"

:ajmal :kallis
Click to expand...

But that's reinforcing an error isn't it? I'm not complaining from an OZ point of view, but as a cricket purist it seems to be just reinforcing an error made in the first place, no?
 
Nuekboi said:
Rogers could have gotten out in any one of 3 different ways in one over if DRS did not exist
Click to expand...

I'm confused. End of day I reckon he was out LBW. But he lives to fight on another day
 
Gunther said:
Brining in a half cooked Tremlett for Broad when the series is still alive would have been right up there with the decision to play Darren Pattinson in 2008. :boycott
Click to expand...

Tim Bresnen should have got the axe esp as he's not really been delivering with the bat
 
OZGOD said:
But the fact is he looked out LBW right. But because umpire didn't give him out LBW he can't be given out LBW on review? Seems odd. I'm not complaining, but the cricket purist in me reckons it's a bit off.
Click to expand...
If it had been hitting the stumps (as in more than half) he would have been given.
 
OZGOD said:
So he was not given out because he was out caught behind originally, but when DRS showed no edge but Hotspot on the pads, they appealed for LBW but because a) he was not given out LBW originally and/or b) not enough of the ball was hitting the bails he is not out? I'm a little confused.
Click to expand...

because they appealed for caught behind the umpire should have simply said not out caught the over eager third ump in this case went on a fishing trip which was being shown on the big screen.
 
Didi Hamann ‏@DietmarHamann
DRS is challenging the new offside rule in football to be the most confusing one ...Big let off for Rogers #Ashes
 
Bashira_taeli said:
  1. Not caught behind as the ball didnt nick the bat.
  2. LBW was umpire's call, and the umpire never gave him out for the LBW. So thats not out as well.

The DRS graphic should have not shown the verdict as out basically.
Click to expand...

They need to have a system like in Seppo football where when one of the referees throws a flag on the field he has to say in a mic to the whole stadium the reason why a foul was called. So everyone knows what the reason is.
 
Well whatever, Rogers needs to make the most of his life here. He was out IMO but survived due to umpire's error. It wasn't really a howler though as it was confusing.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>It's very simple. Ump gave caught behind, proven wrong, so overturned. Ump's LBW call was not out, hence that stays with ump's call <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Ashes&src=hash">#Ashes</a></p>— Brydon Coverdale (@brydoncoverdale) <a href="https://twitter.com/brydoncoverdale/statuses/366154357802151936">August 10, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Even though Uzzy is averaging more than Inzy after 7 Tests (though he isn't after 9 Tests) I'm not convinced. He doesn't have a solid enough defence for first drop and he isn't assertive enough either. Give him till the end of this series but I don't think he's the answer to our long standing No3 problem.
 
OZGOD said:
So he was not given out because he was out caught behind originally, but when DRS showed no edge but Hotspot on the pads, they appealed for LBW but because a) he was not given out LBW originally and/or b) not enough of the ball was hitting the bails he is not out? I'm a little confused.
Click to expand...

It's annoying that he was given not out caught by the third ump when he was clearly out lbw. The third ump should have total power in these situations, or not be there at all.
 
Broad is looking unplayable. Mohd Asif from Pakistan is another bowler who'd have thrived in these conditions
 
Robert said:
It's annoying that he was given not out caught by the third ump when he was clearly out lbw. The third ump should have total power in these situations, or not be there at all.
Click to expand...
Who are you kidding? :waqar
 
Kiwi said:
Even Ishant would have been dangerous here ...
Click to expand...

No kidding mate. Broad is clearly bowling well. Learn to give credit where it's due

P.S. Infact Ishant had bowled some great spells in England during our disastrous tour, only for the batsmen to mess it up
 
Robert said:
It's annoying that he was given not out caught by the third ump when he was clearly out lbw. The third ump should have total power in these situations, or not be there at all.
Click to expand...

I think the DRS is designed less to overcome howlers as it is to CYA for the on field umps. Because it's set up to support the decisions made by the on field umps than to make a determination on what really happened. If I set my allegiance aside I reckon Rogers was out, but apparently because he wasn't given out LBW he can't be given out on review. I'm not complaining as an Ozzie but from a theoretical sense it doesn't really make sense IMO. But whatever it's done and it's not the first time a batsman has escaped with a life. It was pretty marginal to be fair. But Tony Hill is a sh1t umpire for sure.
 
Robert said:
It's annoying that he was given not out caught by the third ump when he was clearly out lbw. The third ump should have total power in these situations, or not be there at all.
Click to expand...

but it's umpires call if not enough of ball hits the stump

If they reverse umpire's call, every ball that clips the top of leg stump will be given out on review and i'm positive there's a margin of error in hawkeye
 
Last edited:
Sandeep99 said:
No idding mate. Broad is clearly bowling well. Learn to give credit where it's due
Click to expand...
I thought you of all people would understand? The English give Indians flack when they score on flat wickets but it's perfectly fine when one of their own lives up to the bowling equivalent of a FTB?
 
Kiwi said:
Just look at their averages :facepalm: they play most of their cricket in helpful conditions too! :nehra
Click to expand...

Funny how none of our batters get credit for that.

Kiwi said:
I thought you of all people would understand? The English give Indians flack when they score on flat wickets but it's perfectly fine when one of their own lives up to the bowling equivalent of a FTB?
Click to expand...

English grounds are not as helpful as you think - not for some years. For example Durham isn't a swing ground and the wicket is not a seamer either.
 
Last edited:
Kiwi said:
I thought you of all people would understand? The English give Indians flack when they score on flat wickets but it's perfectly fine when one of their own lives up to the bowling equivalent of a FTB?
Click to expand...

Our batsmen had played poorly in 2011 tour and I completely admit it. It doesn't mean I have to undermine good cricket
 
49 for 2 off 13 overs.

This is where Pakistan tends to find itself in One Dayers, albeit with less runs and more wickets down.

Still captain on the crease
 
chacha kashmiri said:
but it's umpires call if not enough of ball hits the stump

If they reverse umpire's call, every ball that clips the top of leg stump will be given out on review and i'm positive there's a margin of error in hawkeye
Click to expand...

I don't want to belabour the point. But didn't more than half the ball hit the stumps? I thought it was given not out on review because they didn't originally appeal for LBW but for caught behind, even though it looked out LBW on review.

I'm confused;/
 
OZGOD said:
But that's reinforcing an error isn't it? I'm not complaining from an OZ point of view, but as a cricket purist it seems to be just reinforcing an error made in the first place, no?
Click to expand...

I think its a benefit to the batsman.

Clarke goes as I speak. Crap loose shot
 
@Kiwi, If 'helpful conditions' are taken into account, none of the bowlers like Hadlees, Shane Bonds would be considered great.
 
Bambi on fyahhh. Maybe it's time for me to go to bed
 
Let's see what kind of cojones Steve Smith has
 
That was a truly woeful shot from Pup given the circumstances. Making Bambi look like Big Bird. I have a horrible feeling I will wake up this arvo and find out we have been rolled for 120.
 
Robert said:
English grounds are not as helpful as you think - not for some years. For example Durham isn't a swing ground and the wicket is not a seamer either.
Click to expand...

True. I think Pakistan's tour of 2010 where the bowling from both sides was superb, the batting from one was terrible and the pitches were more lively than usual did a lot to change the perception of English pitches on this board. The whitewash of the Indian's probably did too.
 
Sandeep99 said:
@Kiwi, If 'helpful conditions' are taken into account, none of the bowlers like Hadlees, Shane Bonds would be considered great.
Click to expand...
They averaged in the low 20's with decent conditions. Broad averages 33, despite playing the majority of his games in England against lower quality batsmen.
 
Now its Chris Rogers' job as the experienced guy to guide Australia through (because everyone knows Watto wont)
 
Rogers needs to go on with it and score a big one, and the rest of these batsmen need to learn to score big without Clarke.
 
Wristy_Shuffler said:
True. I think Pakistan's tour of 2010 where the bowling from both sides was superb, the batting from one was terrible and the pitches were more lively than usual did a lot to change the perception of English pitches on this board. The whitewash of the Indian's probably did too.
Click to expand...

Pitches during India tour were not really difficult. Our batsmen bottled it big time
 
Kiwi said:
They averaged in the low 20's with decent conditions. Broad averages 33, despite playing the majority of his games in England against lower quality batsmen.
Click to expand...

Broad has time, he can certainly improve like Anderson
 
OZGOD said:
Rogers needs to go on with it and score a big one, and the rest of these batsmen need to learn to score big without Clarke.
Click to expand...
Don't lose hope... there's still Watto :afridi #australianboomboom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
England (371) defeat West Indies (121 & 136) by an inning and 114 runs to win the 1st Test match and lead the 3-match series 1-0
2
Replies
146
Views
2K
batandballbattle
B
B
England (416 & 425) convincingly defeat West Indies (457 & 143) by 241 runs in the 2nd Test match to win the series 2-0 with one match to play
2 3 4
Replies
287
Views
3K
James
James
The Bald Eagle
England (50/2) hand a crushing 8-wicket defeat to Oman (47/10) to keep their hopes alive in the ICC T20 World Cup 2024
2
Replies
89
Views
1K
Rana
Rana
B
What should be the ideal Pakistan squad for the Test series against England?
Replies
57
Views
1K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
MenInG
The Ashes: England v Australia | 1st Test | Edgbaston | Jun 16-Jun 20 | Day 1
2
Replies
146
Views
5K
sam_ahm
sam_ahm
Back
Top