or incompetent umpiring?
| 17.1 | Louw to Hopes, (no ball) 1 run, caught by Gibbs at midwicket, that was a no-ball though as it was a high full toss outside off |
| 17.1 | Louw to Haddin, 1 run, length ball is driven down to long-on by Haddin |
| 17.2 | Louw to Hopes, 2 runs, another high full toss, but not high enough to be deemed a no-ball, Hopes gets on his knee and swats it to midwicket, Albie has to dive to cut that one off |
| 17.3 | Louw to Hopes, 2 runs, another high full toss, this was pretty close to a no-ball, a heave toward midwicket is mistimes, the edge swirls to safety, falling right in middle of three converging fielders |
| 44.2 | Patel to Mills, (no ball) 1 run, caught off a no ball, waist high full toss on middle, tries to pull it away over deep square, doesn't connect it well enough, goes really high and Yusuf takes a simple catch in the deep. However, the umpires have a consultation and call it a no-ball for height, fair decision |
| 44.2 | Patel to Southee, 1 run, in the blockhole on the off stump, dug out wide of the bowler towards long-off |
| 44.3 | Patel to Mills, (no ball) 1 run, caught off a no ball again, another one, a beamer, and he's taken off, the attack, caught by Dhoni off an attempted pull but he's bowled two waist high no balls in one over, his painful spell has come to an end |
PS:- Here is the video of the Loew over ( 8:55 onwards) 17.1 ( the no ball) and 17.3 ( the uncalled no ball) are back to back.
14 comments:
What on earth? There seems to be neither home advantage nor incompetent umpiring in the bits of commentary you have posted. Do you have reasons to think the umpires' calls were incorrect? What am I missing?
And if you want an example of home disadvantage and incompetent umpiring, check this out:
48.4 Vettori to Dravid, 1 no ball, Edged and caught by McCullum but it's a no-ball. And cruelly, the replays suggest it was not a no ball. Oh dear. What a big moment here. It was short of length delivery, spinning away .. Dravid thought this was the easy chance to get a boundary and shaped to cut but there was bit of extra bounce there and also it was wider than Dravid thought and he ended up edging to McCullum.
Ben,
You need to see the Louw over - after the no ball, the follow up balls were well above waist height, and both times they were not called.
In Munaf's case, the right call was made. In Louw's case, it wasnt.
And did I mention that since it was a T20, both umpires were of the homegrown variety.
And in defense of umpire Watkins, he did give Dravid caught at short leg
72.2 Vettori to Dravid, OUT, Caught at short leg! Vettori has broken through here. Dravid doesn't seem to be happy with the decision. And we can see why. The bat hit the pad and the ball bounded off the pad to short leg where How dives forward to take it. It drifted in from round the stumps on the leg and middle line, Dravid shaped to defend, the bat brushed the front pad. That must have been the double noise. A fine innings, though. India trail by 151 as SRT enters.
Cheers :),
Also, watch Daniel Vettori every time he goes round the wicket and bowls from wide of the crease. Almost every time, without fail, his back leg is cutting the return crease. Technically a no ball, never called.
Cheers,
Still failing to see either home advantage or incompetence. There must be a third option.
I also think it is harsh to compare umpires in completely different matches.
Ben,
Same rule, two different games, applied differently.
In the first case, the match is officiated by home umpires. Which begs the question - if a ball above the batsman's waist level is deemed a no ball, why was it not called when the bowler in question stood to forfeit his bowling stint?
And if it was not called then, was the Munaf Patel call in error?
After all, you cannot have two completely contrary precedents for the same situation, can you?
Cheers,
Homer, I haven't seen any of the balls in question, so I can't judge how high they were. But I would note that on Louw's ball 17.2, Hopes got down on one knee, suggesting that the ball wasn't that high.
I also haven't noticed Vettori's back foot from around the wicket. Cutting the return crease with the back foot from around the wicket is very weird. Where is he putting his front foot?
I'm not comfortable with applying the notion of "precedent" to umpiring decisions, but that's a sidetrack...
Homer, it is interesting that you say "why was it not called when the bowler in question stood to forfeit his bowling stint?" Louw wasn't yet that close to trouble, since the bowler actually receives two warnings before being taken off under the Laws. This isn't changed in the T20 conditions, but for some reason is reduced to a first and final warning in ODIs.
The intricacies of the ICC...
Sorry - I'm wrong. T20 rules only give one warning too. It's just at lower levels that bowlers get two chances.
David,
Apologies for the delay in response - I was trying to get screen shots of the incidents in question ( without much success :( ).
In Louw's case, 17.2 may have been marginal, 17.3 was not.
And in Vettori's case, his leading leg seems fine, its the back leg on which he pivots is where the problem is.
I will try to get the screenshots in over the weekend - a visual illustration will make it more apparent :)
Cheers,
Jonathan,
"precedent" because of the ad hoc nature in which the ICC operates. If they had been consistent in their decision making and their implementation of the rules, we would not be having this discussion.
Cheers,
And in Vettori's case, his leading leg seems fine, its the back leg on which he pivots is where the problem is.
Sure, his front foot can go wherever it likes behind the popping crease. I'm wondering more from a bowling mechanics perspective. Usually if the return crease is being cut from around the wicket, it's by the front foot - if you extrapolate the line from the back foot to the front foot, you'd end up way outside the return crease at the striker's end. So if the back foot is cutting the return crease, then either his front foot is way wide (not illegal, just odd), or he is angling in opposite to how he would normally bowl (also somewhat odd, I think).
Is it possible that he raises his back foot off the ground before releasing the ball? I await the screenshots. (I can't watch videos, unfortunately, I don't think work would approve, and my connection at home isn't good enough.)
David,
Left arm orthodox round the wicket bowling wide of the crease. Left leg is the anchor that is parallel to the popping crease. The Right leg is the leading foot that comes at an angle to or parallel to the return crease.
So -run up, leap, back foot anchor, pivot, ball release, front foot lands.
Also, from the body dynamics perspective, he will be balanced when that happens because his body will be going into the action. If he goes wide and the back leg does not go wider still, he wont get the angle he would otherwise get.
I am still working on the screenshots - taking way longer than I like :(
Cheers,
So -run up, leap, back foot anchor, pivot, ball release, front foot lands.
Ball release before the front foot lands? Surely not.
See the photo here. Vettori's bowling from around the wicket, the ball hasn't left his hand, his right foot is on the ground and his back foot is raised. If that is his standard practice, then there's no problem with back foot no-balls.
David,
In that case, I stand corrected..
Cheers,
Post a Comment