England must banish conspiracy theories
Another tough and left Sri Lanka in the stronger position, and England rueing their genuinely bad luck as they analyse how their promising innings subsided from 133-0 to 237-5.
Michael Vaughan clearly prefers opening the batting and, with Alastair Cook, posted England’s first century opening stand for 15 Tests.
The captain batted beautifully for 87 before falling in just about the most unlucky manner possible, clipping Muttiah Muralitharan hard into the leg side only for the ball to strike the short-leg fieldsman in the groin before becoming trapped between his legs!
No wonder Vaughan could barely drag himself from the wicket.
But controversy was to follow after Ian Bell’s rather subdued 15 from 62 balls when Kevin Pietersen was adjudged to have been caught by first slip for one after the ball rebounded out of second slip’s hands.
Television pictures – never perfect in these circumstances – suggested the ball might have touched the ground.
Had the catch been referred to the third umpire – as – it would almost certainly have been given not out.
However, virtually every catch that is referred is turned down because of TV’s two dimensional shallow depth of field.
There has been a move to stop umpires from turning to the third umpire unless their view of the catch has been genuinely impaired.
All I will say is that Messrs Dar and Harper had a lengthy discussion, and both seemed satisfied with their conclusion. They did, after all, have an infinitely better view of it than any spectator, commentator or television viewer.
The look on the faces of England’s players in the dressing room said it all when, after five-and-three-quarter hours at the crease, Cook was given lbw by Umpire Harper – the ball would comfortably have missed the leg stump.
Next ball, Lasith Malinga demolished Ravi Bopara’s wicket with a searing yorker.
So England have their backs firmly to the wall, but they have to regroup and quickly dismiss any notion that events are conspiring unkindly against them.
That attitude in Test cricket invariably means curtains. As was the case in the opening Test at Kandy, they have to muster what they can from the last five wickets, with 350 being the initial target.
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment
If the umpires have been instructed to use less referals when judging if a catch has carried, surley they should do the same for run outs? I have seen many an international umpire refer run outs which are 6-10 inches out, but yet when something 10 times harder to judge, i.e if a catch carried, comes along, then they are advised not to refer if possible? I really dont understand the logic, and I think Vaughan made a useful comment that common sense should pervail in such situations. In test cricket, 2 minutes to refer such a situation is not a long time, and there is no excuse in the 21st century for such bad umpire decisions when the technology is avaliable.
Complain about this comment
Great review Jonathon. The Petierson incident clearly strengthens the case for using the available technology. England are still a batsman light and it is almost unforgivable that an experience campaigner like Strauss is pontificating on TV as oppose to taking the fight to Sri Lanka on the pitch.
Complain about this comment
I hope we are not going be a bunch of "wingeing poms" and start all complaining that the only reason why we are at 258-5 on a great batting pitch is because of dodgy umpiring decisions.
Sure, one of the decisions - that against Cook - definately looked bad. But the decision against Pietersen was, as Aggers rightly points out, was a completely marginal call that could have gone either way. That's cricket!
The main reason why we are at 258-5 is because nobody has gone on to post a really decent score (i.e. a century) and because Bell and Bopara both failed miserably.
In short, once gain, the batsmen have failed to do their job, fair and simple.
I also have to say that while Bopara may be a cricketer with great potential, I feel he has so far failed to justify his place in the series, despite his second inning in the last match.
He is an all-rounder in a team that already has a much better all-rounder in the form of Collingwood.
I am not a great fan of Shah, but given his role as a batsman -and apparently a great player of spin (although spin has not yet become a factor this match)- I would have thought he would have been a far more natural choice.
Anyaway, let's just hope that Prior can repeat his 2nd innings performance at the last match, that Broad can prove he really is a 'batting' bowler and that our bowlers can run through Sri Lanka's top-order batsmen! I suspect the key will be to get Sankarra out before he goes on his usual rampage!!
Complain about this comment
If the umpires have been instructed to use less referals when judging if a catch has carried, surley they should do the same for run outs? I have seen many an international umpire refer run outs which are 6-10 inches out, but yet when something 10 times harder to judge, i.e if a catch carried, comes along, then they are advised not to refer if possible? I really dont understand the logic, and I think Vaughan made a useful comment that common sense should pervail in such situations. In test cricket, 2 minutes to refer such a situation is not a long time, and there is no excuse in the 21st century for such bad umpire decisions when the technology is avaliable.
Complain about this comment
So if the English Batsman fail, its always the Umpire's fault. Yes there have been some contoversial decisions.
"Television pictures – never perfect in these circumstances – suggested the ball might have touched the ground"
How can you expect an umpire to get it right?
We don't seem to talk about decisions going against the other teams. We seem to accept those decisions.
Complain about this comment
So if the English Batsman fail, its always the Umpire's fault. Yes there have been some contoversial decisions.
"Television pictures – never perfect in these circumstances – suggested the ball might have touched the ground"
How can you expect an umpire to get it right?
We don't seem to talk about decisions going against the other teams. We seem to accept those decisions.
Complain about this comment
2 more awful decisions going against England. In close matches, these things are likely to make the difference.
The KP "catch" wasn't a marginal thing. It was clearly grounded.
And KP is clearly the one English batsman who is most likely to take the SL attack apart. He's now had two very ropey decisions in two matches. In a 3 match series, that's massively unfortunate.
Agree with JOnathan Agnew that Eng can't afford to dwell on their misfortune.
Still don't know why Bopara has again been prefered to Owais Shah. there seems to be a media bandwagon behind Bopara which is based on very little of substance. One 50 in a tight ODI at the world cup shouldn't count for so much
Complain about this comment
So if the English Batsman fail, its always the Umpire's fault. Yes there have been some contoversial decisions.
"Television pictures – never perfect in these circumstances – suggested the ball might have touched the ground"
How can you expect an umpire to get it right?
We don't seem to talk about decisions going against the other teams. We seem to accept those decisions.
Complain about this comment
Aggers has redeemed himself with his comments on umpiring today.His comments todays makes up for his comments on the last day play of first test match. It has always been the case the catches whenever referred to third umpires is always inconclusive and most captains didn't want technology to be involved.
Complain about this comment
I agree with what you have written but it must be hard for the players to dismiss the 'hard-done-by' feeling when it's all the commentators and journos talk about all the livelong day! Maybe it's time the ICC banned TV companies from showing endless replays of dismissals? They do nothing to increase the popularity of the game -in fact making it more parochial. Regarding Pietersen's dismissal if the umpires had to have a discussion about it, it implies doubt hence the batsman should be given not out, surely? RE Cook if you miss the ball with the bat (and after 5 hrs in the heat its understandable)there's always a chance of being given lbw (especially by an equally tired umpire). Don't you think though that Shah -a better proven batsman- should be in the side rather than Bopara?
Complain about this comment
2 more awful decisions going against England. In close matches, these things are likely to make the difference.
The KP "catch" wasn't a marginal thing. It was clearly grounded.
And KP is clearly the one English batsman who is most likely to take the SL attack apart. He's now had two very ropey decisions in two matches. In a 3 match series, that's massively unfortunate.
Agree with JOnathan Agnew that Eng can't afford to dwell on their misfortune.
Still don't know why Bopara has again been prefered to Owais Shah. there seems to be a media bandwagon behind Bopara which is based on very little of substance. One 50 in a tight ODI at the world cup shouldn't count for so much
Complain about this comment
Listening to TMS earlier it certainly seemed as if Vaughan was back to his majestic best, it's such a shame that he should be out so unluckily. Still, at least we know he is in form and it's great to see Alistair cook grind his way to 80-odd - he seems to be one of those batsman who can be out-of-form but muster all his talent to get a decent score.
It's not inconceivable that we can reach 400 - many times in the past few years we have been 250-5 and Giles and whichever batsman was not out were able to take us to that score, and with Broad at 8 and Prior appearing to be in form now we could do well tomorrow. Plus Colly seemed assured and with a higher strike rate today than Vaughan, maybe it's time he's due another century?
Complain about this comment
Listening to TMS earlier it certainly seemed as if Vaughan was back to his majestic best, it's such a shame that he should be out so unluckily. Still, at least we know he is in form and it's great to see Alistair cook grind his way to 80-odd - he seems to be one of those batsman who can be out-of-form but muster all his talent to get a decent score.
It's not inconceivable that we can reach 400 - many times in the past few years we have been 250-5 and Giles and whichever batsman was not out were able to take us to that score, and with Broad at 8 and Prior appearing to be in form now we could do well tomorrow. Plus Colly seemed assured and with a higher strike rate today than Vaughan, maybe it's time he's due another century?
Complain about this comment
2 more awful decisions going against England. In close matches, these things are likely to make the difference.
The KP "catch" wasn't a marginal thing. It was clearly grounded.
And KP is clearly the one English batsman who is most likely to take the SL attack apart. He's now had two very ropey decisions in two matches. In a 3 match series, that's massively unfortunate.
Agree with JOnathan Agnew that Eng can't afford to dwell on their misfortune.
Still don't know why Bopara has again been prefered to Owais Shah. there seems to be a media bandwagon behind Bopara which is based on very little of substance. One 50 in a tight ODI at the world cup shouldn't count for so much
Complain about this comment
It was not an easy day for England with a lot events goin against us and to finish on 250-5 is disappointing considering the great opening stand we had. But at the moment we are not in a bad position for i am sure that if Vaughan was offered our current position at the start of the day he would have taken it.
On the big talking point:-
The catch: As many observers on the radio and TV have pointed out tv technology is not 100% reliable when judging these catches but i still think it should be used on controversial catches. As an extra view on the catch can only help in making a right decision. I cant see how judging catches is any different to checking boundaries or run outs. Perhaps utra slow-motion cameras could be used?
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately only 1 side is represented in the comments, the Lankan's are equally convinced that the catch was made.
The is about human ability and judgement, that ois what brings the highs and low.
Pietersen made an error. Why is his judgement and ability not questioned?
Malinga bowled a good ball, where are his praises?
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately only 1 side is represented in the comments, the Lankan's are equally convinced that the catch was made.
The is about human ability and judgement, that ois what brings the highs and low.
Pietersen made an error. Why is his judgement and ability not questioned?
Malinga bowled a good ball, where are his praises?
Complain about this comment
Umpiring hasn't suddenly got worse. Throughout the history of the game matches have been won and lost as a result of the incorrect decisions of umpires. The only difference in recent years is, of course, that everybody knows, thanks to technology, when dodgy decisions are made. It is ruining the game because every match has more than one such decision and the resulting victories can lose their glory, just as the defeats create extra ill-feeling. Unless technology is used for difficult decisions umpires will become less and less respected. But where technology cannot satisfactorily clarify an incident, the benefit of the doubt should always go with the batsman.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately only 1 side is represented in the comments, the Lankan's are equally convinced that the catch was made.
The is about human ability and judgement, that ois what brings the highs and low.
Pietersen made an error. Why is his judgement and ability not questioned?
Malinga bowled a good ball, where are his praises?
Complain about this comment
The KP decision was ridiculous - and showed that the umpires continue to get crucial decisions wrong.
The persistent poor umpiring is certainly damaging the game and driving some people away.
Complain about this comment
How can Vaughn's dismissal be termed unlucky. A nothing delivery that a set batsman could do anything with but chooses to steer it into the lap of the closes fielder. Give me a break.
Television can not properly judge whether catches are taken cleanly as in the Pietersen case. This has been proven over & over so the on field umps have to make the decision. Maybe Pietersen's anger should be more directed at himself for the poor shot.
There is a prime oppurtunity for a tissue manufacturer to get great coverage of their product by sponsering Sir Ian's supply of tear wipes while on air. It's really quite sad.
Some captains really need to make up their mind if they really want technology or not. They can't expect to have it only when it may suit their team.
Complain about this comment
The KP decision was ridiculous - and showed that the umpires continue to get crucial decisions wrong.
The persistent poor umpiring is certainly damaging the game and driving some people away.
Complain about this comment
Why talk about the catch in the first place? Why not discuss shot selection?
This was a wide ball, very wide, the field had been set as an offside trap, and what does hero KP do? He slashes!
Surely, there is something old fashioned called playing yourself in? Or is KP walking on water!
That was a horrible, horrible shot
Complain about this comment
Umpiring hasn't suddenly got worse. Throughout the history of the game matches have been won and lost as a result of the incorrect decisions of umpires. The only difference in recent years is, of course, that everybody knows, thanks to technology, when dodgy decisions are made. It is ruining the game because every match has more than one such decision and the resulting victories can lose their glory, just as the defeats create extra ill-feeling. Unless technology is used for difficult decisions umpires will become less and less respected. But where technology cannot satisfactorily clarify an incident, the benefit of the doubt should always go with the batsman.
Complain about this comment
Why talk about the catch in the first place? Why not discuss shot selection?
This was a wide ball, very wide, the field had been set as an offside trap, and what does hero KP do? He slashes!
Surely, there is something old fashioned called playing yourself in? Or is KP walking on water!
That was a horrible, horrible shot
Complain about this comment
Daryll Harper is an appalling umpire who continually stuffs teams - England in particular - with his rotten decisions. His competence has always been in question and the time has surely come to remove him from the elite panel and find someone else of Simon Taufell's quality to replace him. Harper's howlers could take up an entire DVD.
One other comment about the approach of Ian Bell today, who singlehandly gave the initaitive back to Sri Lanka with a terrible innings. What on earth was he thinking of? There was no urgency, no effort to take the attack to a defensive SL, no attempt to get singles and rotate the strike, which would have helped Cook. This is where 20-20 makes innings like Bell played look utterly feeble. 20-20 has proved that, if both players set off straight away, it's virtually impossible for the fielding side to prevent a single even if the ball goes straight to a fielder. Bell fancies himself as a good player, but this infuriating and self-absorbed effort today (even more so considering his performance in the previous test) could cost England dearly in the match.
Complain about this comment
Daryll Harper is an appalling umpire who continually stuffs teams - England in particular - with his rotten decisions. His competence has always been in question and the time has surely come to remove him from the elite panel and find someone else of Simon Taufell's quality to replace him. Harper's howlers could take up an entire DVD.
One other comment about the approach of Ian Bell today, who singlehandly gave the initaitive back to Sri Lanka with a terrible innings. What on earth was he thinking of? There was no urgency, no effort to take the attack to a defensive SL, no attempt to get singles and rotate the strike, which would have helped Cook. This is where 20-20 makes innings like Bell played look utterly feeble. 20-20 has proved that, if both players set off straight away, it's virtually impossible for the fielding side to prevent a single even if the ball goes straight to a fielder. Bell fancies himself as a good player, but this infuriating and self-absorbed effort today (even more so considering his performance in the previous test) could cost England dearly in the match.
Complain about this comment
Unless you're saying the umpires are biased, which I know you're not, bad decisions average out. Series are not decided by bad decisions, individual matches are. It is the performance of the two teams over the series that decides the result. For some time, England have batted poorly as a side. The tail-enders contribute little, and too many batsmen lack the tenacity to get centuries. Address these two issues and we can afford injuries to key bowlers and still win series.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Aggers and various comments that we must not get into blaming the umpires for our situation. However, we do seem to have be getting some very questionable decisions at crucial times. Vaughan in the first innings at Kandy; Pietersen's lbw at Kandy; Pietersen today and Cook today. Have umpires stopped giving the batsman benefit of the doubt in marginal decisions? In close matches the result can certainly be affected in a major way.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Aggers and various comments that we must not get into blaming the umpires for our situation. However, we do seem to have be getting some very questionable decisions at crucial times. Vaughan in the first innings at Kandy; Pietersen's lbw at Kandy; Pietersen today and Cook today. Have umpires stopped giving the batsman benefit of the doubt in marginal decisions? In close matches the result can certainly be affected in a major way.
Complain about this comment
I am a bit worried that Aggers is using an 'umpire knows best' and quoting some idea that TV pictures are two-dimensional to justify what was a dreadful decision by the umpires today. Anyone seeing that 'catch' would have 'doubt' and that should have been enough to keep KP at the crease. There is an argument that 'these things even out' but, with the ludicrous decision re Cook, the match has been disfigured. It is profoundly depressing considering that cricket is a game you can pause and the technology is available.
Complain about this comment
England are in trouble! I predict England will likely make at most around 350 from here. SL will then make 500-odd. England will then scrape around 280 ish second innings, leaving SL 130 odd to knock off in their 2nd innings.
In other words, England must try to make 400 ish and then bowl very well. Time to show some fight, lads! A draw would be a good result from here...
Complain about this comment
Well i think that's a rather harsh post, James (19). Yes England lost momentum after Vaughan went, but it is ridiculous to try and pin a load of blame on Bell, the batsmen new to the crease, in isolation, whilst completely absolving Cook from all blame (indeed arguing that it was Bell's responsibility to 'help' Cook, but not vice versa!)
Complain about this comment
sometimes, television doesn't help with catches.
in this case, it was bleeding obvious that the the ball had been grassed.
I think the technology should be used.
If television makes the decision easy, well make that decision.
if television doesn't clarify, stick with the on-field decision.
Complain about this comment
It's a shame that these days a fielder's word is no longer taken as sufficient. But rarely these days do players respect each other to be honest. The catcher in this case would have known, if not by feel then by sight (he was looking at the ball as it hit the ground) that it was not a catch but claimed it anyway.
And what happened to the benefit of the doubt being given to the batsman?
Having said all that, the shot itself by Pietersen was a shocker. He needs to stop believing his own hype and knuckle down again. We really need him to come good on this tour.
Complain about this comment
What I don't understand is the inconsistency of it all. KP was involved in a similar incident at Lords versus India when he appeared to be caught by Dhoni. Halfway back to the pavilion, the replay showed he was clearly not out. So, he then turns around to look at the umpire, who then calls him back realising his error. If the umpire believes he has incorrectly dismissed a batsman, he may recall him to the crease if he has not already left the field of play I'm led to believe. So, why did Harper send KP on his way a 2nd time?!
Answers on a postcard please...
(Hint: He's not a very good umpire).
Complain about this comment
Re James Emerson post no.26. I dont understand why everytime bell doesnt make 50 everyone suddenly thinks he's rubbish and should be dropped. Do you not remember the first test if it wasnt for his 2 innings england would have been well and truly stuffed!! Im pretty sure he is englands top scorere so far in the series so wise up.
Complain about this comment
Re James Emerson post no.26. I dont understand why everytime bell doesnt make 50 everyone suddenly thinks he's rubbish and should be dropped. Do you not remember the first test if it wasnt for his 2 innings england would have been well and truly stuffed!! Im pretty sure he is englands top scorere so far in the series so wise up.
Complain about this comment
Well first of all, even without using technology, the KP catch must have had some doubt and so should have been given not out. You can tell from the hand position and the way the ball ricochets up that it has hit the ground and not been pushed up by the hand.
That being said, personally I am against all video technology in sport. For one major reason, its just a game at the end of the day. Umpires, referees etc make decisions in the best of faith. KP was out, not because the catch was taken cleanly, but because the umpire gave him out.
Complain about this comment
The game is about human reaction. To removeany part of that from the game results in less of a game.
The Lankan's have the opposite view.
Where is the criticism of Pertersen's poor decision ans execution?
Where is the praise of Malinga's decison and execution?
The human frailty of the a human making split second decisions keeps the game a game.
Complain about this comment
Vaughan - out unluckily
Pietersen - clearly not out
Cook - wrongly given out lbw
Bowlers are injured
O these whining Pommies...
All teams go through these ordeals but they carry on and win tests. Time to change your attitude.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Bob Willis that Darryl Harper should not be Umpiring at Test Level.
Darryl Harper once gave Sachin Tendulkar out LBW when the ball hit his shoulder and was rising well over the stumps.
Complain about this comment
Surely this why "benefit of the doubt" exists?? If the umpire is not sure then Pietersen should not be out - if the tv evidence is inconclusive then there is also doubt, and again KP should not be given. When did we stop using this rule?
Complain about this comment
Bopara is not ready. I fail to understand why the selectors are running the risk of shattering his confidence by exposing him to difficult conditions against a hostile attack. If England win this tour the confidence will be sky high but neither Shah nor Bopara are presently equipped to deliver. This is why Mark Ramprakash ought to have been given the berth. I know building for the future is important but winning test matches is mreo important and introducing new players (like Bopara) is easier when morale is high
Complain about this comment
Bob Willis said that Darryl Harper should not be Umpiring at Test Level.
Darryl Harper once gave Sachin Tendulkar out LBW when the ball hit his shoulder and was rising well over the stumps.
Complain about this comment
Exactly, in the 1st Test there were a few dodgy decisions (Sangakarra was the benefitor of the most high profile one) against England. Is this a home advantage theme teams? I mean, they've already changed the rules of cricket to allow Muralitharan to keep playing.
Pietersen was not out. Lords showed that you can be called back if the catch was not taken. The same should have applied here.
Cook's lbw was an atrocious decision in that it pitched outside leg, and wasn't even going on to hit the stumps anyway!!!
Complain about this comment
Vaughan - out unluckily
Pietersen - clearly not out
Cook - wrongly given out lbw
Bowlers are injured
O these whining Pommies...
All teams go through these ordeals but they carry on and win tests. Time to change your attitude.
Complain about this comment
Of course it was not an ideal slip on day one, but I think we can also do well to remember that Colly is 49no in there, and provided he can get set early doors, he can push on for a ton. There is no reason why 400 is not a gettable score with support from Prior, Broad and Sidebottom.
And one day I'll be proven right. Monty will get 50 :)
Complain about this comment
Of course it was not an ideal slip on day one, but I think we can also do well to remember that Colly is 49no in there, and provided he can get set early doors, he can push on for a ton. There is no reason why 400 is not a gettable score with support from Prior, Broad and Sidebottom.
And one day I'll be proven right. Monty will get 50 :)
Complain about this comment
It's a real shame that these games can't be decided fairly, by players being honest and fair with the appealing as well as walking when they're clearly out...
The umpires i'm afraid during this test series so far have been pretty woeful and will be a shame if this series is purely remembered for this rather than the cricket which is the most important thing.
One has to be clear about the use of technology, and finally for Trevor Bayliss to back the catch well that says it all.
Complain about this comment
My Thoughts on today's play were,England were unlucky to be 5 down at end of Play.Vaughan played quite superb for his score,only to be caught by a freak catch,But they all count..KP desicion Astonised me,If there are two Umpires talking to one another before the desicion is made,It cant have been 100% clear cut..You go to the 3rd Umpire...Simple,I think also the Fielding player has to know 100% if he caught it.Which as it was a big wicket (ie KP)he's not gonna say it didnt carry!! Cooks lbw Desicion also was quite Unbelievable,Missing by another stump...Gladly Ian Bell walked before the finger even went up..A rare but nice touch.The ball Bopara got was a corker.But then Malingas Bowling sling is so low anyway its ridiculous.I Just get a bit tired of these Umpires making shocking calls...It also does not help when every slow delivery sent down has the cries of OHHHH Catch Arghhh!!! even when the ball is 2 foot wide of the crease.well they say some calls even out.I doubt if those calls could ever even out
Complain about this comment
My Thoughts on today's play were,England were unlucky to be 5 down at end of Play.Vaughan played quite superb for his score,only to be caught by a freak catch,But they all count..KP desicion Astonised me,If there are two Umpires talking to one another before the desicion is made,It cant have been 100% clear cut..You go to the 3rd Umpire...Simple,I think also the Fielding player has to know 100% if he caught it.Which as it was a big wicket (ie KP)he's not gonna say it didnt carry!! Cooks lbw Desicion also was quite Unbelievable,Missing by another stump...Gladly Ian Bell walked before the finger even went up..A rare but nice touch.The ball Bopara got was a corker.But then Malingas Bowling sling is so low anyway its ridiculous.I Just get a bit tired of these Umpires making shocking calls...It also does not help when every slow delivery sent down has the cries of OHHHH Catch Arghhh!!! even when the ball is 2 foot wide of the crease.well they say some calls even out.I doubt if those calls could ever even out
Complain about this comment
I agree Pieterson would have been still playing if the decision was referred to third umpire. OK he was unlucky this time, equally when Kumble caught & bowled him TV replays did show he was clearly out.Why should he be very angry now? He was benefitting before, losing now!. Either agree whole heartedly that technology should play a part or accept sometimes humans do err.
Complain about this comment
Lankans agree KP was out? I thought Sri Lankans were fair ( seemed to be when I went there also Ranjit Fernando & Sanath Jayasuriya _ Sri Lankans? said it should have gone to 3rd umpire & they thought it was not out) but equally it was a bad shot. Criticism of Bopara unfair it was an unplayable delivery from Malinga so give the bowler his due! re Vaughan great catch as was Bell's. Aggers is being a bit mealy mouthed about umpires, there were dodgy decisions & Harper had a go at Murali for a perfectly reasonable shout! Perhaps mr Harper needs a break?
Complain about this comment
The Sri Lankan players do not help the umpires at all, They appeal for absolutely everything whether they believe it is out or not, and there has to be a time when the authorities have the nerves to say "enough is enough". It is completely against the spirit of the game and is not nice to see.
Maybe it is the players that can help the umpires a bit more?
Complain about this comment
I've lost respect for Bayliss
He should have just said unequivocally that it was a mistake - as it clearly was. It was not a "marginal call".
Complain about this comment
If TV replays allowed all the time many batsmen may find themselves not out and many find themselves out. The current sufferer was hughley lucky when he was caught & bowled by Kumble few years ago, Pieterson has no reason to complain. Away from individuals I think if technology is going to improve decisions then accept wholeheartedly rather than bleating about we are taking out umpires from the game.
Complain about this comment
Please can the moderators remove the many, many multiple posts. They cause great aggravation
Complain about this comment
Pieterson should be the last person to copmplain about umpiring decision which should be referred to TV umpire. Few years ago ENG-IND series he was clearly was caught & bowled, he never walked & the TV replay showed umpires were wrong. This saying that humans do err is as old as world itself. Pieterson should not be angry and England commentators or followers should not complain. What goes up must come down! Either agree wholeheartedly for technology or accept we are as humans fallible.
Complain about this comment
I've lost respect for Bayliss
He should have just said unequivocally that it was a mistake - as it clearly was. It was not a "marginal call".
The idea that decisions "even themsleves out" is a utopian fantasy
Complain about this comment
The standard rule in club cricket has always been that you only give a batsman out if you are sure he is out. He has one chance, the bowlers have many more. On this basis Pieterson should have been given not out without any referral.
The LBW though is a different matter. Regardless of where the ball bounced or was headed the club player walking out saying 'it was never out' are always told to 'look in the scorebook'. If it says you are out then you are.
Complain about this comment
England are in trouble! I predict England will likely make at most around 350 from here. SL will then make 500-odd. England will then scrape around 280 ish second innings, leaving SL 130 odd to knock off in their 2nd innings.
In other words, England must try to make 400 ish and then bowl very well. Time to show some fight, lads! A draw would be a good result from here...
Complain about this comment
Surely poor umpiring decisions are not new, they have been happening for years, sides through the ages have had poor decisions against them such is the nature and dare I say it part of the glorious game of cricket. The debate should be about the intrusion of TV and the technology it brings. We spend far too much time debating dubious decisions, forgetting the speed of the game and the split second decision making that has been a bastion of the game since its conception. How many of us struggle with decisions at our local level, test match umpires should be able to to their job and leave technology out of the game. I feel the gamesmanship of all teams is bringing the game into disrepute batsmen are always going to get bad decisions in their career and often it is levelled out at a later date.
One final point regarding poor decisions, England fans should remember the wicket of Kasprowitz at Edgebaston clearly not out but given out, changing the course of the series in 2005. So before bemoaning poor umpires please recall the bad decisions that have went the way of your team.
Complain about this comment
O these whining Pommies...
Any Australian subscribing to this view - may I take you back to the World Cup rugby quarter final.
Oz set the standard for arrogance, disrespect then whinging and whining.
World class pot and kettle.
Suggest you back off and get your house in order first before anyone talk about whinging pommies.
x
Complain about this comment
Jonathan, Pray tell,why are England fans so unhappy about umpiring. I did not hear a murmur when India was at the receiving end time and again ad infinitum in the recent test series. That time we heard philosophy.
Now the best thing Pietersen could do is to eat some jelly beans.From all accounts Prior, Collingwood and Pietersen love to roll in them, spit them out amid some sickening comments and wonder about opponents' orientations of a private kind.
Complain about this comment
To summarise all the thoughtful comments on this blog:
Vaughn: Unlucky (because the shot he played directly at the catcher got stuck)
Cook: Unlucky (because given out unjustly, nothing to do with missing the ball)
Bell: Unlucky (because the catcher pulled off an unbelievable catch)
Pietersen: Unlucky (because given out unjustly, nothing to do with playing an awful shot)
Bopara: Unlucky (because he got an unplayable delivery by that devilish slinger Malinga)
It’s decided then: England are UNLUCKY and the whole wide cricketing (or otherwise) world is conspiring against them. Let’s all feel sorry for them. Boooo hooooo
Complain about this comment
I am fed up to the back teeth with my non-cricket-watching friends taking the **** out of the game I love. And do you what? I've reached the stage where I can do no more than agree with them. Almost every match now is marred by umpiring controversies. Everyone in the game needs to take a step back and just look at what the game has become - a mockery. Until common sense prevails and technology is used as in rugby, cricket will increasingly be seen as a joke.
Complain about this comment
Umpires are clearly not doing very well at the moment as the ICC is looking at ways to improve their performance (not before time). Harper should have had the decency to admit his mistake and then he would have had total respect. Vaughan's right - the technology should be used more by umpires at the appropriate moment; they can thus keep control of the game, which is essential. I would expect them to be sufficiently well trained to know when a decision is so dodgy that the technology needs to be applied. It doesn't mean they have to use it all the time.
The same principle applies whether it's the England team or any other. In my view the batsman should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Michael (#59) you're right that decisions don't really even themselves out - it's a nice thought but not borne out by reality.
Complain about this comment
there were other decisions in the edgbaston match that didn't go england's way. that's a bit of a non-point brian.
I'm fully in favour of increased use of technology for catches.
and would like an appeal system for LBWs - as mooted by Duncan Fletcher
Complain about this comment
Umpires are clearly not doing very well at the moment as the ICC is looking at ways to improve their performance (not before time). Harper should have had the decency to admit his mistake and then he would have had total respect. Vaughan's right - the technology should be used more by umpires at the appropriate moment; they can thus keep control of the game, which is essential. I would expect them to be sufficiently well trained to know when a decision is so dodgy that the technology needs to be applied. It doesn't mean they have to use it all the time.
The same principle applies whether it's the England team or any other. In my view the batsman should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Michael (#59) you're right that decisions don't really even themselves out - it's a nice thought but not borne out by reality.
Complain about this comment
To summarise all the thoughtful comments on this blog:
Vaughn: Unlucky (because the shot he played directly at the catcher got stuck)
Cook: Unlucky (because given out unjustly, nothing to do with missing the ball)
Bell: Unlucky (because the catcher pulled off an unbelievable catch)
Pietersen: Unlucky (because given out unjustly, nothing to do with playing an awful shot)
Bopara: Unlucky (because he got an unplayable delivery by that devilish slinger Malinga)
It’s decided then: England are UNLUCKY and the whole wide cricketing (or otherwise) world is conspiring against them. Let’s all feel sorry for them. Boooo hooooo
Complain about this comment
I am very surprised at Jonathan Agnews comments about these umpiring decisions, he really should know better. The batsman is always meant to be given the benefit of doubt and it is very obvious to anyone that both the Petersen and Cook decisions should have been the subject of considerable doubt. The standard of umpiring in both tests has been quite poor and England have suffered at crucial times.
On another issue having played cricket myself for many years I have no doubt that the fielder always knows when the ball has not been caught cleanly.
Complain about this comment
I think a rule change should be brought in where the batsmen can ask the umpire once during his innings to refer their dismissal to the video if they think they were not out.One chance policy I would call it.
Complain about this comment
For all those true cricket enthusiasts if you ever played the game you realise that a big part of your education was to accept the umpires decision as final...there were times when you snicked it and got given 'not out' and there were times when all you hit were the pitch or your pad... but that is 'cricket'.There were even times when i swore black and blue (on the inside)that i hadn't edged it only for all 11 opposition, both umpires and my batting partner at the other end to say i had almost cover driven it into the keeper's gloves. Ponting has given up making the offer to opposition captains to accept the fielders word and that is shame and an inditement on today's game. It's not a perfect world nor a perfect game, but technology is not fool proof either and it would be unwise to put all the eggs in that basket. Dissecting and discussing dubious decisions is as much a part of the game as a batsmans questionable shot making decisions (KP) or his supposed bad luck (MV & MC)..let it remain so...)
Complain about this comment
Engalnd's captain Vaughn is 100% correct,Umpires should have used the available technology.This decision can change the outcome of game.
Umpire Dar should be taken out by ICC from thier panel.In the past also he had given so many bad decisions.In the recent series between India adn Engalnd, because of his few bad decisions The great batsman Sachin was denied two centuries. Why to keep this Umpire on their panel,when there are so many questions about his ability ?
Complain about this comment
The umpires did everything correct.
Checked with each other, they both thought it carried, they had very different views of the catch.
ALL third umpire decisions in these cases are given not out. To refer to the third umpire is a waste of time. If you are going to do that, just give it not out and get on with the game.
Ponting suggested a few years ago to just take the word of the fielder. If he says he caught it, so be it.
A little bit of sportsmanship and fair play would be great for cricket.
Unfortunately all the other international captains said no.
Vaughan has doug his own hole. Now he is the one complaining........
Complain about this comment
This is another great review from Jonathan, but it is slightly dissapointing that what has already become a compelling series will be tarnished slightly by people's discussions over questionable umpiring decisions. It happens in cricket. That's partly the reason the game is so great and diverse as it is. Just because the TV option is available doesn't mean we should use it as a reason to complain. The game of cricket is built on honesty and trust and if it was the same situation in a club game you'd take the fielder's word that he held it. Otherwise this is shaping up to be another humdinger. The partneship between Collingwood and Prior will be crucial. England could still target 400, and if there are anymore umpiring decisions that are questionale, get on with it! Take the rough with the smooth, that's the way of the game!
Complain about this comment
to much winging about "poor" decisions against England.....Even if KP was not given out he would have got out sooner rather than later anyway...I am surprised Aggers has not praised the Lankan Effort at all. Lankans have looked and played as a better team.
Complain about this comment
This isn't a matter of the little Englander this is a mattr of not making a laughing stock of the game. These decisions are not marginal but the are lightening fast. Use the replay, it only costs a minute. We are not playing a club match or an impromptu against a chalk wicket. This is Test cricket and when you have the technology use it.
Complain about this comment
I think they should bring in a rule where the batsmen can have a one chance policy during their innings to question a catch if given out.I'm sure Pietersen would have called his one chance with his wicket if he was allowed.
Complain about this comment
How about HD TV? Does that not give some sense of depth? Would that solve the problem?
Complain about this comment
The english during their golden run in 03-05 got the lions share of umpiring go their way but we only seem to hear about when they get the bad luck.
Complain about this comment
Well, Petersen should not blame others but himself. He clearly edged the ball to the slip. It could have anyway being caught. There is no point in making a big noise about it as such marginal decisions are always there in Cricket.
Complain about this comment
Hello J. Agnew,
Once again I am back like a faithful follower. My serious concern is about the umpires. You could recall how I was disappointed about certain decisions against England which could have changed the out come of the match of the matches in Australia, if not the outcome of the series in 2006-2007.WHy is the ICB is lame and silent about this vital and important matter and allowing the fallibililty of the umpires simmer again and again to the recent and outrage of the players and their fans? It looks very ridiculous in the eyes of the viewers to allow the matter go on tainting the image of lovely and gentleman game of cricket. It is high time the responsible officials wake up to the call of the international public.
I think if England openers had used the very approach they employed at the Test in Colombo they could have not only played and laid a good foundation for the opening stand, and allowing the rest to follow suit. That would have changed the outcome of the first Test in Kandy. S.Harmison [hope i am correct in spelling his name, if not i am sorry],has to make his line and length consistent to pose threat to the batsman. If he has the tendency of wide or no ball, he should adjust his speed slightly, and when he is in the right rithym, then he could maintain the speed accordingly. He has to do well to be in constant contention as the competition for the place is numerous. England has to do one or two good parternerships either in the beginning or in the early middle or in the middle to have any chance to pose a challenge to win or sometimes for a draw.
a.joe
Complain about this comment
Ohh come on JA ... what will it take for you and your tribe to realize that the game of cricket will be better off using technology ?
Not one single Test Match goes by without any controversial decision and yet you kow-tow the politically correct nonsense.
Nothing is of more paramount importance than getting a fair and correct decision. The players and fans deserve atleast that much of courtesy. Its one thing to support the existing system if there was no technolgy but absolute stupidity to do it while there is a far superior technolgy at our disposal.
You as a responsible Journalist should stop feeding the Egos which doggedly deny the superiority and accuracy of technology.
Do it for the game. Do it for the greater good and all that. No fan goes to watch the game to see how the umpires perform and they should never get in the way of how a cricket match progresses through their mistakes.
Complain about this comment
To me it's not a matter of whinging poms or blaming umpires, It comes back to available technology that is not being utilised for a game that is very stop start by nature anyway.Lets take some responsibility away from human error and put it in the definitive hands of technolog. Is it going to take this sort of occurance to happen on the last ball of a world cup with 1 run needed to win for people to wake up. Get with it ICC
Complain about this comment
Good old english supporters, moan, moan, moan. The umpire, referee, linesmen or other teams, are always making england lose. How about bad play on the english team's part?
Complain about this comment
When I played cricket - as I did for 25 years - the rule was that where there was genuine doubt about a decision, the batsman had to be given the benefit. The Pietersen decision was doubtful, and the umpires realised it. No technology is needed; he must be given not out. The umpires have only themselves to blame for any controversy.
Also, when I played cricket, it was customary for the fielder to acknowledge a bumped ball, rather than to indulge in antics to claim the catch. The fielder here must have known the ball had hit the ground. He should have admitted it. Again, no technology needed.
All we need is to return to an earlier ethos of sportsmanship.
Complain about this comment
I very much like the idea of allowing each batsman one appeal to technology (to overturn a dismissal) per innings
Complain about this comment
Everyone's missing the point. The question to ask about KP is why has he shrunk (see the photo above)?
Or does that just demonstrate what a large role the umpires are taking in the game?
Complain about this comment
Bad Umpiring in Sri Lanka. Much worse umpiring by
Taufel and Koertzen in India.
Is Simon Taufel over rated as an Umpire ? Monday 10th December - several mistakes by Taufel
favouring Pakistan.
Rudi Koertzen has also made mistakes favouring Pakistan, but Rudi is error prone.
Complain about this comment
In all the furore following KP's dismissal yesterday, one thing annoyed me more than any other.
Not the correctness of the decision itself.
Not the fact that a very promising match-position was starting to look precarious.
No......... it was the words of the TMS commentator (not sure who), who mentioned the floods of angry emails being received..... and then said that there was nothing in the Laws that gave the batsman the benefit of the doubt. It was only an unwritten understanding, he said.
Well I beg to differ.
If the gentleman had ever read The Laws, he would have found in Law 27 (Appeals).......
6. Consultation by umpires
Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give his decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining the decision shall be Not out.
That looks "written" enough for me!!
As a qualified umpire, I often get asked questions about the Laws of the game. And having given an answer, sometimes receive the response "well that's not what so-and-so said on the radio yesterday"....... the obvious inference being that so-and-so on the radio must have a better knowledge than me, otherwise he wouldn't be on the radio.
So here's an appeal to all you radio chaps...... please don't speak with such authority about the Laws, unless you've actually read them.
Complain about this comment
Re the debate about allowing appeals by either side to get decisions overturned.
I think it's a great idea, but the idea of limiting the number of allowable appeals should be linked only to the number of FAILED appeals. A successful appeal should not reduce a teams options for further appeals.
The limiting factor should be that after 2 failed appeals, THE TEAM has no more right to appeal in that innings, regardless of how bad a particular decision looks.
That measure will dissuade either team from making time-wasting, over-optimistic appeals.
Complain about this comment
Agnew is being very generous to the umpires - what he really means is that there have been a number of decisions which have been wrong in this series. A more competent and confident umpire would have been more reluctant to give a decision that would please the home crowd.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see the Field Umpires using the TV replays from the 4th and 5th umpires, buts when doubts are of two or more parts(BAT,BODY,GROUND) then those must also be pointed over to the Legumpire or the Thired umpires. What must have happened in the case of KP's dismissal Aleem Dar only answered the second part of the Main Umpire's doubt.Game was better played whithout the thired and the forth umpires. Thank you. G.S
Complain about this comment
Can anyone explain to me what this "depth of field" thing is all about?
I thought I knew what it meant when I used to use an old SLR camera: how far in front and behind the subject the picture can be in focus at any time (the higher the f number the deeper the field of focus but the smaller the aperture, so more light is needed or a faster film).
So what has that got to do with seeing the ball hit the deck? If the ball is in focus - as it has been in the images I have seen - then you can see it hit the ground. Ball + ground under ball: doesn't matter what else is in focus?
Complain about this comment
Looking at the pressure placed upon umpires i still find it difficult to understand how they don't use the technology on a regular basis anyway, it would help to relieve some of the pressure placed upon them, and it would allow for the game to progress alongside technology.
The limitations are obviously there to the television replays, as it is such a 2D view on a 3D event, and it is impossible to often judge if a player did manage to get their fingers between ball and ground. But still the technology can still be
used to make a judgement, even if it means giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.
Callum oliver 16
Complain about this comment
When I read all comments above what I feel is cricket is a live game where we have to play and watch with commen sense. All umpires are humans so error can be happened. For example what has happend to Sangakkara in Australia in the last test. So take them all as part of the game rather than talking about technology etc...
Complain about this comment
I agree with herath. The umpires are part of the game, not something that stands outside it. If the arguments in favour of technology continue, the umpire will be reduced to the role of relaying instructions and decisions from the third umpire rather than being part of what is actually going on pitchside. One move in the right direction might be, instead of greater reliance on technology, to remove big screens from grounds to avoid the reactions from spectators to instant television replays that we have seen. If a batsman is given out he is out. End of story.
Complain about this comment
I am a little bemused by the comments who state England's position is due to their mistakes rather than poor umpiring.
Regarding Pietersen, It WAS poor umpiring not to check the video evidence. It WAS poor umpiring not to reverse the decision once it was shown to be a clearly - CLEARLY - incorrect decision. And this is not bleating from an English viewpoint. If any Sri Lankan was given out this way, it would be disappointing too. Remember how Sangakarra was given a shocker in Australia?
In general, cricket umpiring is of an incredibly high standard, so it seems daft that they do not use all the available tools to continue to maintain the high standards they set.
Complain about this comment
How can you say that the ball did not touch the ground? KP new it. The commentators new it. The catcher most proberbly new it. The only people that didnt now were the umpires. If there was just that decision it wouldnt have been so bad but the decision to give Cook out was disgraceful. Too many umpires are currently making too many mistakes that are costing all test teams matches. Its time for technology to be introduced!!
Complain about this comment
KP this KP that, the media love KP. That seems to be the only explanation as to why more has been made over his 'wrong' dismissal than Cooky's. KP, given out wrongly or rightly, was there all of a few balls. Cooky on the other hand, given out WRONGLY, battled hard all day and yet hardly anything has been said about how disappointed he must have been, only about Pietersen. Yes, of course it was a huge blow to England, but Alastair gets more of my sympathy. It's yet another lbw decision against his name, yet this time he doesn't deserve it.. so what is he to do? Plays badly gets out lbw, corrects some of his problems and battles hard and yet gets out lbw anyway.. pfft
Complain about this comment
What a bunch of whingers, some of you poms are!!! You won the ashes in England because of some dubious home decisions. The english team pushed the envelope by having specialist fielders during that series to replace some of the less athletic fielders. Then you guys go to australia and get you bottom well and truly spanked. Flintoff even had to resort to drinking to wipe away the pain. Everytime you get a bad decision, you complain and whinge about technology. You would have not won one of the ashes matches by 1 run if it went upstairs to the 3rd ump. At least with the lankans, they did not carry on like spoilt little brats when Sangakarra got out to a dubious decision in Aust. Remember the master walker Gilchrist, he was given out to a very dubious decision in the ashes series. He did not complain even though replays showed he did not nick the ball but all the english players carried on as if he did. If you play away, you get a lot more decisions against you but you accept it and move on as you know it will come around. It is cricket and it is human to err. If the english players are so worried about bad umpiring maybe they should stop appealing when they know the batsmen did not nick it or if the ball pitched outside leg for lbw etc. They should set a good example but I can't see Vaughn or his players ever doing that!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
I'm not complaining only about the dismissal of KP though that was an absolute shocker. it's the second dismissal of Ryan Sidebottom after the first time the umpire actually had to apologise!!! Then I hear another dismissal which is reversed.
What are these umpires on? Vaughan is 100 per cent right (and incidentally backed up by the match referee) that the technology should be used more often when a dismissal is dubious.
I'm not mentioning Cook's dismissal because an idiot who knows nothing about the game would know that a ball going so wide can't go anywhere near the wicket......
Complain about this comment
Once again a fair play is compromised by the Umpires, and makes a farce of the result. A game of chess played on the field has the opportunity not to make false moves. Decisions should be allowed to be challenged as in Chess. However long it takes.
Complain about this comment
Unless an umpire is plain incompetent or blatantly dishonest, it must be accepted that he can occasionally make a decision that is proved incorrect. But that is part of the game, just like the snick that narrowly misses the stump or the catch that is one centimeter too high. Let us relax and enjoy the game - it is just a game, after all, nobody was injured, nobody was killed.
Complain about this comment
Most of the posts say that the TV replays CLEARLY indicated that the ball hit the ground before being scooped up. Others say that the angle of the fielders hand showed he could not have got them under the ball.
However, most reports state that the reverse angle cameras indicate the ball was taken clearly. The fielder himself has stated his fingers were ammed aginst the ground. The incorrectness of the decision is, therefore not as clear as it has been made out to be.
It is also an accepted fact that any close catch referred to the TV is always inconclusive (because of the angles and 2D picture) and, therefore, batsmen can never be given out.
If close catches are referred to the TV, then unlike other decisions, any doubt about whether the catch was clean should go in favour of the fielder. In other words, unless the TV CLEARLY indicates the ball touched the ground, the batsman is OUT. If the TV umpire (not the crowd please) is CERTAIN the ball hit the ground, he rules the batsmen NOT OUT. If he has any doubt, Out goes the batsman.
And on the subject of home teams benefitting from bad umpiring decisions form sub standard umpires, please recall the dismissal of Inzi at Faisalabad a couple of years ago. He was given Run Out because he fted his back foot trying to avoid injury from a ball thrown by Harmison. A clear umpiring error by the "best" umpires in the world - Simon Taufel and Darrel Hair, both of whom should have known the Laws of the game.
Can someone explain why Vaughan and the English team (who presumably also know the Laws) appealed in the first place?
And now we have the amazing status of the Match Referee himself condoning dissent. Since when did the judge also become Counsel for the Defence? Jeff Crowe should be removed from thepanel of Match Referees and Vaughan should be hauled up before the beaks for bringing the game into disrepute.
Complain about this comment