Suspend the Umpires!!!!!!

[old man emu]

Terribly bad show in the Australia -v- England ODI match on Saturday. Taylor loses the chance for a maiden ODI century because the FOUR umpires officiating in the match didn't know the rules.

 

If you didn't see the incident, England were 9 fa and Taylor was on strike on 98. Hazlewood bowled and appealed for an LBW while Taylor and his partner were running for a leg bye. The umpire gave Taylor "Out, LBW", and in the commotion, Taylor's partner tried to complete the run for the bye, but an Australian fielder ran him out.

 

Taylor appealed the LBW decision and on review the decision was overturned and he was NOT OUT. At that stage, a "Dead Ball" should have been called under Law 23:

 

LAW 23 (DEAD BALL)

 

1. Ball is dead

 

(a) The ball becomes dead when

 

(i) it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

 

(ii) a boundary is scored. See Law 19.3 (Scoring a boundary).

 

(iii) a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.

 

However, the Square Leg umpire accepted the appeal for Run Out and that brought the match to a close. The umpires, especially the Match Umpire, who has overall charge of the match, should be fined and suspended one match for incompetence.

 

Should Bailey, he Australian Captain, have called the Englishmen back to the wicket? There was no way that England could have won the match as they were 111 runs behind with 48 balls to play. It is likely that Taylor would have got his Century, but getting it might have been a hollow victory for him. He played well enough to deserve a Century. The most likely scenario would be that Taylor scored his Century, then his partner would have been dismissed and Taylor would have left the ground 100+ (Not Out), which would have been great for his Batting Average.

 

Would Bailey have been criticised if he sought to over-rule the Umpire's Run Out decision? The International Cricket Council suspended him in 2014 because of a Captain's error. He wouldn't want to risk an offence so early in 2015.

 

For the cricket lover, the best one can say is "Well played, that man."

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[Birdseye]

Not only is it covered by Law 23, but also reinforced in the WCC playing conditions. I was always told that it is OK to make an error in judgement, but never in regard to the laws or playing conditions.

 

 

[dazza 38]

England still got flogged so it wouldn't have changed the our come of the game.

 

 

[Neil_S]

England still got flogged so it wouldn't have changed the our come of the game.

Exactly the point - it would not have changed the result, but would have shown the Aussies to be very fair and good sports (remember that is what cricket used to be about?). Also would be good for the umpires to get a kick up the *rse and review the rules before further embarrassing themselves in later matches.

 

It concerns me that with all the technology available these days the umpires seem to think they can just defer the decisions to the technology and avoid actually umpiring themselves. This proves they still have to actually do the job of umpire and need to know the rules.....

 

 

[dazza 38]

Exactly the point - it would not have changed the result, but would have shown the Aussies to be very fair and good sports (remember that is what cricket used to be about?). Also would be good for the umpires to get a kick up the *rse and review the rules before further embarrassing themselves in later matches.It concerns me that with all the technology available these days the umpires seem to think they can just defer the decisions to the technology and avoid actually umpiring themselves. This proves they still have to actually do the job of umpire and need to know the rules.....

Sure, I also remember when Batsman walked went they knew they were out. Theses days with so much money around in international cricket. The gentlemen game has changed some what.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Exactly the point - it would not have changed the result, but would have shown the Aussies to be very fair and good sports (remember that is what cricket used to be about?). Also would be good for the umpires to get a kick up the *rse and review the rules before further embarrassing themselves in later matches.It concerns me that with all the technology available these days the umpires seem to think they can just defer the decisions to the technology and avoid actually umpiring themselves. This proves they still have to actually do the job of umpire and need to know the rules.....

Probably a bit unfair to suggest that Bailey could have called them back, even if he had been sure of the laws and playing conditions. Note that not one of the officials was an Australian, we are still denied the best:

 

Umpires: Aleem Dar (PAK), Dharmasena, HDPK (SLA)

 

Third Umpire: Bowden, BF (NZL)

 

Referee: Crowe, JJ (NZL)

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Don't know much about the laws of cricket so forgive me and hopefully someone more knowledgeable can explain.

 

I presume OME that you say it was a dead ball under:

 

23. (iii) a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.

 

However as you said, "Taylor appealed the LBW decision and on review the decision was overturned and he was NOT OUT."

 

So, if Taylor was not out, it follows there was no dismissal, so law 23. (iii) does not apply, so the ball was not dead. Therefore the dismissal for a run out was still possible.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Don't know much about the laws of cricket so forgive me and hopefully someone more knowledgeable can explain.So, if Taylor was not out, it follows there was no dismissal, so law 23. (iii) does not apply, so the ball was not dead. Therefore the dismissal for a run out was still possible.

A decision can be reversed, but a dead ball cannot be un-deaded (unlike zombies). So regardless, the ball was dead from the moment of the ball contacting the player and the alleged LBW occurring. Another example is if a ball thrown brings down the wicket in a run-out attempt and the player is in his ground, then the ball is not dead and further runs can be scored (overthrows). However, if the run out is reviewed and the batsman is found to be out, then the ball was dead when the wicket was broken and thus no further runs are scored.

 

Now we get an inkling as to why cricket is only catching on in the US. Then again I can't make head nor tails of that rounders derivative that they play.

 

 

[Kununurra]

This is not the first and will not be the last time a batsmen is dismissed by a decision that we experts believe should have gone the other way.

 

Dammed if we do and dammed if we don't as the way I see it with out this new (review) Taylor was given out anyway so end result is they lost a wicket which ever way we look at it.

 

Great win Australia

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Sure, I also remember when Batsman walked went they knew they were out. Theses days with so much money around in international cricket. The gentlemen game has changed some what.

Some years ago, the last ball before lunch, the batsman was rapped on the pads with no appeal.

 

During the break the ump mentioned that if there had been an appeal he would have given him out.

 

On returning to the crease a player appealed and the ump put up his finger.

 

Could have been an old wives tale or the ump didn't know the dead ball rule.

 

Phil

 

 

[Birdseye]

SCould have been an old wives tale or the ump didn't know the dead ball rule.

 

Phil

Yes Phil an often touted 'old wives tale'. However you are not very far out out as the following will show. Note the importance of the 'Time' call.

 

Law 16.2 requires the umpires to call time at the end of a session or other interruption. As he would (should) have called time, then no subsequent appeal can be entertained. (Law 27.3). However, if a person appealed at the start of a subsequent over (Time not having been called) and before the bowler commenced his run up, then the appeal could be answered by the umpire (Law 27.3)

 

I commend anyone that is not an expert and who is interested in the finer points (especially TV commentators post Benaud and including Laurie) to obtain a copy of 'Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and Scoring'.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

My memory of my cricket "career" was that the umps removed the bails at the end of a session.

 

Probably indicating the dead ball rule.

 

Phil.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Correct. On calling 'Time' the bails are removed, but this only occurs when the umpire or an event determines that the ball is dead.

 

 

[old man emu]

Don't know much about the laws of cricket so forgive me and hopefully someone more knowledgeable can explain.

I presume OME that you say it was a dead ball under:

 

23. (iii) a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.

 

However as you said, "Taylor appealed the LBW decision and on review the decision was overturned and he was NOT OUT."

 

So, if Taylor was not out, it follows there was no dismissal, so law 23. (iii) does not apply, so the ball was not dead. Therefore the dismissal for a run out was still possible.

Yes. I agree with your interpretation of the incident. I'd like to see the video of the incident again to see how the run out occurred. I cannot remember if the the batsmen attempted to complete their run between wickets while the yell for the LBW was made, and at the same time the fielder stopped the ball in the field and immediately threw it at the stumps, catching the batsman out of his ground, or, if the batsman stopped on hearing the appeal, then in the confusion of the appeal, tried to make his ground.

 

I suppose that I was a bit upset by the incident, because I was hoping Taylor would get a deserved century, even though I'm an Aussie supporter.

 

OME

 

 

[Phil Perry]

England still got flogged so it wouldn't have changed the our come of the game.

Dazza,. . . . . .England ALWAYS get flogged. . . . . I despair at the current mob,.. I dunno who picks these clowns, but I wish just ONCE before I die, NOT to see England WIN against a decent opponent,. . . that'd be asking a bit much ( ! ) but just to play well, under a captain who has at least SOME IDEA of what he is bloody well DOING !