Latest news:


Eating away over the winter

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4
Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 25 August, 2019 16:28
That could well go down as the greatest Ashes innings of all time.

And well done Leach for being Wise to Stokes' Morecambe.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
Jonathan Winsky 25 August, 2019 20:39
I went out shortly after Chris Woakes was dismissed, which meant that England had slipped from 245-4 to 261-7, so I wasn’t sure whether Ben Stokes and England’s last three could get them over the line, as it meant that they still needed 101. I imagine that before those wickets, a few people had their sights on England getting within 100 of their target while still four down, making it a blow that three further wickets fell before that happened. So, for England to win was a great achievement.

Australia could now be celebrating the retention of the Ashes and be in a position whereby only two defeats in the final two matches of the series would deny Australia series victory, but instead the situation going into the final two matches is that the series is level at 1-1, with England having momentum from running Australia close at Lord’s and dramatically winning at Headingley.

This result features highly in various lists of Test records what with England’s win coming in spite of them posting just 67 in their first innings, requiring more than their previous highest successful run chase of 332, and needing 73 when their ninth wicket fell. Prior to 2019, the most runs scored for the 10th wicket of the fourth innings to win a Test stood at 57, and the two most recent incidents of a team winning a Test despite being all out for less than 92 in any of their innings were in 1950 and 1907, but 2019 has seen both feats achieved twice. The other instance this year of a team winning a Test despite requiring more than 57 runs with one wicket left was Sri Lanka's win v South Africa in Durban (78 required), while the other instance this year of a team winning a Test despite having earlier being all out for less than 92 was another match when Jack Leach contributed with his crease occupation, as that was England v Ireland at Lord's (England had earlier been all out for 85).

Stokes is certainly having a great 2019.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
BeefyRoberts 25 August, 2019 23:43
I was at edgbaston in 2005,the Saturday and Sunday....that was special,never thought I would witness anything like that again..proven wrong.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 26 August, 2019 06:46
If the english press are rightfully full of Stokes, the aussie press seem to be concentrating more on umpire Wilson.


Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
Seaxe_man1 26 August, 2019 08:54
Jack Leach hanging around while 76 were added while contributing one run. Not to be forgotten.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27/08/2019 09:33 by Seaxe_man1.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
hantssabre 26 August, 2019 10:38
Jack not Joe!

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
adelaide 26 August, 2019 10:44
... and Leach's run was the one that tied the match.

My admittedly biased reaction to the lbw appeal was that if you judged it on whether it would have hit the stumps after hitting the back pad, it would have been out. But it had brushed the front pad on the way, changing the trajectory in a way that made it look like the ball had spun. The question ought to be whether it would have hit the stumps if it had not hit the front pad. I'm not sure that it would have done. If it had been given out and reviewed that would have been crawled over in minute detail so even if Wilson had missed it the contact with the front pad would have become the only one that counted. It might even have been umpire's call. The "DRS verdict" put on screen did not have the same pressure on it and it actually made a better media story for it not to be analysed in such minute detail.

So Wilson might just have got it right for the wrong reasons!



Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 26 August, 2019 13:06

I don't think that makes any difference?

I mean, the whole point of 'LBW' is would it have hit the stumps if the batsman wasn't in the way, or am I missing something in your assessment?

Wilson's best bet (even if he didn't think so) is to say he thought Stokes got an inside edge. We never saw ultra edge, because there was no time. I don't think Stokes got his bat on it, but if I was Wilson's barrister, that would be my defence.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 26 August, 2019 13:52
Specsavers give Jack Leach free glasses for life-


But surely Joel Wilson needs them more?!

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
adelaide 26 August, 2019 15:17

That's my point. It seemed to me that if it had not hit the batsman at all there was a fair chance that it would have missed leg stump. The law is couched in terms of the batsman being struck by the ball. It doesn't actually say that it refers to the first point of impact but I've always take it to do so.

If it could also refer to a second impact, you could have a situation where a player misses an inswinger that would pass a yard away from the stumps, diverts it toward the stumps with his front pad and is given out when it hits his rear pad. Unlikely but it could happen. That just seems the wrong outcome.

But does anyone actually know?


Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 26 August, 2019 15:33
I still don't follow.

DRS removes the batsman, so whether it hit one pad first and the ball changed direction doesn't enter in to it. It just assumes the ball continues to do what it is doing (so if he wasn't standing there the ball would have hit three quarters way up the middle stump).

If you were on to something, I'm sure commentators (at least one, somewhere) would have said so.

In the example you give it would be 'not out', because if the ball was missing DRS would say so. If we imagine the batsman isn't there then it follows if his front leg isn't there the ball couldn't divert on to back leg, which also isn't there.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
Fozzie 26 August, 2019 17:03
For what it's worth, Mike Selvey has been making the same point as Adelaide at length on Twitter over the past 24 hours. And it seems that a number in the Australian media agree with him, turning their attention instead on Lyons' missed run-out.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
adelaide 26 August, 2019 21:52

In which case you are surely agreeing with me that it is the first impact that counts.

What we saw on the replay seemed to be based on where the ball was going after the second impact. On the highlights I saw later the first impact was not even mentioned.

If it had gone to the third umpire, the various bits of kit available would have shown two impacts and the right question about the fate of the ball without that first impact would have been asked. Maybe the third umpire would have said that the ball would have hit the stumps but there was precious little opportunity to assess whether the ball turned between pitching and hitting the pad (what looked like turn being the deflection off the front pad). If the ball had not turned it would have missed leg stump, I am pretty sure.

At the very least, there was scope for doubt, in which case the batsman should get the benefit. Australia's lack of reviews is irrelevant as the umpire should be making the same honest judgement whether or not reviews are available.

It may be that proper analysis would show that it should indeed have been given out but I don't think we have seen that yet. Perhaps we never will, as it cannot change anything now.


Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 27 August, 2019 07:12
I'd need to see it again, but are you saying ball tracker changed direction, because it took in to account the ball hitting the front pad?

In my experience DRS just doesn't work like that, otherwise it would change direction every time the batsman got an inside edge (although admittedly, if ultra edge shows bat, they wouldn't normally waste time with ball tracker).

I've only seen the Stokes' LBW twice, both before you questioned it, but I'm sure if ball tracker changed direction slightly (something I've never seen it do) it would have been obvious.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
Seaxe_man1 27 August, 2019 09:31
Jack not Joe!
Dearie me. Sorry

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27/08/2019 09:57 by Seaxe_man1.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
adelaide 27 August, 2019 09:57

An article in the Guardian puts it well:-

"Stokes’s argument becomes more persuasive with each look at the replay. It seems, at least to this untrained eye, that the ball-tracking technology missed the deflection off Stokes’s front pad and thus followed an incorrect trajectory from when the ball hit his back pad. The correct trajectory may have been hitting the stumps anyway, although it looks more likely that it would at most have been umpire’s call or even missing leg stump, in which case Stokes would have survived."

The other aspect is that what was put on screen was not a proper review, because the third umpire was not asked to perform one. The very detailed analysis of a third umpire review would have used Hawkeye but also Ultraedge, which would have picked up the two impacts. The third umpire would then have had to sort it out, probably after a dozen replays of each technology. Sky is under no such obligation (did they show Ultraedge at all? Not on the C5 highlights).

To sum it up, Wilson may have got it wrong but trial by TV based on part of the evidence is not enough to conclude that. At the very least, there was room for a lot of reasonable doubt.


Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 27 August, 2019 13:36
At least you're quoting Selvey, but he has only done radio commentaries, so I assume he doesn't know how ball tracker works.

It assumes the batsman isn't there, which means it is immaterial if the ball hit the front pad first or not. Maybe the studio director froze the action when the ball hit the back pad, rather than the front pad, but I really don't see how it could change anything. The director (no matter where he freezes the action) can't determine what ball tracker thinks, otherwise unscrupulous directors in certain parts of the world could get ball tracker to give decisions in their favour.

Ball tracker (under various names) must have been around for over ten years now, and I've never ever heard of a tv umpire overturning three reds because he thinks ball tracker is wrong.

It can't be wrong, because as far as it's concerned (no matter what point a director might freeze the image) the batsman isn't there. It's not as if ball tracker mysteriously unexpectedly changed direction,. It didn't.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
Primrose Hillbilly 28 August, 2019 07:14
Chunky, just as a matter of interest, as you say you assume that Selvey, who's knocked around cricket journalism circles for a few decades, doesn't know how ball tracker works, what's your base for that assumption, please?

Also, on what technical knowledge do you base your subsequent explanation?

Edmonds claimed that the technology was there and available in his playing days, but I doubt if it was quite as slick or efficient as the current offering. I can see the "Umpire's Call" not out criteria being reduced to an even more marginal possible impact with the stumps in subsequent refinements.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 28 August, 2019 07:36
I thought I'd explained why he must be wrong.

It would be the first time ever that ball tracker misbehaved in the way he is alleging.

If that was possible ball tracker would be considered unreliable, and wouldn't be in use around the world.

You never hear the tv umpire tell the director to freeze the action at the first point of contact, because it isn't relevant.

Re: Ashes to Ashes 2019
chunkyinargyll 28 August, 2019 08:13
I've had a look on the internet.

It says Hawkeye (although it isn't called that anymore) relies on 6 cameras trained on the action, and they can determine to the frame when impact occurs, and what follows after that is a projection of what would have happened.

I think it would be odd if a tv director got to make the judgement of when that was, because, as I said earlier, that would open up the possibility of biased directors being able to influence LBW's.

I think the 6 cameras can 'work it out for themselves' (otherwise why have the system?)

Does anyone have a link to the delivery (both real time, and the subsequent ball tracker verdict)

It seemed absolutely fair enough to me at the time. I knew the ball either hit the front pad, or inside edge, because earlier in this thread I said Wilson should say he thought there was an inside edge, but it didn't seem to me ball tracker did anything untoward.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing