Is that the silliest review ever?

On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
> Is that the silliest review ever?

It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
notice either.

Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.

--
David North

I think that was harsh. I believe Stokes *was* "in full control of the catch".

RtH

Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 16:54:33 UTC+2 schreef David North:
> On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > Is that the silliest review ever?
> It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
> it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
> notice either.
>
> Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.
>
> --
> David North

On 31/07/2023 20:36, Robbert ter Hart wrote:
> I think that was harsh. I believe Stokes *was* "in full control of the catch".

Really? At what point did he have complete control over both the ball
and his own movement, as Law 33.3 requires? He was standing on one leg
with the other one still waving about in the air when the ball hit it.

Judging by his face as soon as he realised that he had dropped the ball,
he didn't seem to think it was a fair catch.

> Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 16:54:33 UTC+2 schreef David North:
>> On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> Is that the silliest review ever?
>> It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
>> it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
>> notice either.
>>
>> Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.
>>
>> --
>> David North

--
David North

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:33 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > Is that the silliest review ever?
> It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
> it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
> notice either.
> Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.

Seems flippantly harsh.

I saw worse reviews this very series.

For better or worse, umpires are very "chatty" w.r.t reasons for appeal decisions.

Worst case the ump said "not out, you dropped it". Even then I believe Stokes is entitled to have it reviewed to see if the 3rd ump thought the catch was completed before the hit that caused the ball to be dropped. Although it really should've been an Umpire Review which checks for catch fairness.

But the umpire might have said "not out, didn't hit it", in which case the LBW comes into play. This also might have increased Stokes' doubt around the completion part of the catch.

As for not losing a review.. the DRS regulations are stupid.
The on field umpires can give a reason for a decision that is clearly wrong.. If it turns out they were wrong but the decision was still right (for other reasons) you lose a review.

Whilst umps give on field reasons prior to the player's DRS call, this issue will arise now and then.

As for the fairness of the catch, I still think that should be an Umpire Review which means no Player Review is wasted. Perhaps that's why Stokes was upset.

nb: I don't know what was actually said on the field

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:58:18 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> Judging by his face as soon as he realised that he had dropped the ball

It could have been FEAR that he'd officially dropped it, rather than actually knowing for certain what the final ruling would be.

>Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't notice either.

incredulous to think the 3rd ump wouldn't notice. I don't think Stokes was hoping this.

In message <d759c72e-dba9-436f-a9fc-91e69bf61f25n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:330 >> On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > Is that the silliest review ever?
>> It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
>> it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
>> notice either.
>> Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.
>
>Seems flippantly harsh.
>
>I saw worse reviews this very series.
>
>For better or worse, umpires are very "chatty" w.r.t reasons for appeal
>decisions.
>
>Worst case the ump said "not out, you dropped it". Even then I believe
>Stokes is entitled to have it reviewed to see if the 3rd ump thought
>the catch was completed before the hit that caused the ball to be
>dropped. Although it really should've been an Umpire Review which
>checks for catch fairness.
<snip>

I think Stokes was hoping that it should have been a TV umpire review,
and that was the reason why he suggested to the umpires that England
shouldn't lose a review. But since there really wasn't any doubt about
what had happened - which is when the umpires are supposed to send a
claimed catch for the TV umpire's decision - I think it was right that
England lost a review.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:29:14 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> I think it was right that
> England lost a review.

Same. But I'm not going to criticise the referral.

Expecting elite players to also be elite umpires has always been stupid.

In message <517dcce1-560a-47b1-85d0-e6121ea1daa5n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:29:140 >> I think it was right that
>> England lost a review.
>
>Same. But I'm not going to criticise the referral.
>
>Expecting elite players to also be elite umpires has always been stupid.

I can't remember many Test umpires who have also been elite players. The
only one who comes immediately to mind is Venkat, who was a very good
umpire. I don't think any of the three umpires in this series - who I
think have actually been pretty good - fall into the category of former
elite players.

My understanding is that outside England not many umpires at the top
domestic level - from whom Test umpires are chosen - have even played
f-c cricket themselves. England is the exception, where the majority of
top-level domestic umpires have played county cricket - which may
actually be a slight advantage, as it should make them more likely to
detect anything underhand that might be going on and to know how to
defuse any potential aggro between the two sides.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:59:14 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> >Expecting elite players to also be elite umpires has always been stupid.
> I can't remember many Test umpires who have also been elite players. The
> only one who comes immediately to mind is Venkat, who was a very good
> umpire. I don't think any of the three umpires in this series - who I
> think have actually been pretty good - fall into the category of former
> elite players.

I'm talking about the current DRS system of player reviews. We expect them to "be umpires" - to make decisions about the Outness of events.
But it's very difficult. So difficult that elite umpires get it wrong.
Check Starc's reaction to his catch that was ruled Not Out due to touching ground before completion.
He was shocked that could be the ruling.

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 09:37:56 UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:33 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > Is that the silliest review ever?
> > It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
> > it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
> > notice either.
> > Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.
> Seems flippantly harsh.
>
> I saw worse reviews this very series.
>
> For better or worse, umpires are very "chatty" w.r.t reasons for appeal decisions.
>
> Worst case the ump said "not out, you dropped it".

Worst case is that he said "not out, he didn't hit it, and you dropped it".

> Even then I believe Stokes is entitled to have it reviewed to see if the 3rd ump thought the catch was completed before the hit that caused the ball to be dropped. Although it really should've been an Umpire Review which checks for catch fairness.

It's only an Umpire Review if the umpire refers it (I would have thought that was obvious). That will only happen if (a) the umpire is not certain (either way) about the catch, and (b) they haven't given it Not Out for another reason.

Some people seem to have got it into their heads that, because most of the 3rd-umpire decisions they have seen where the fairness of the catch has been in question have been Umpire Reviews, that means that all such decisions are Umpire Reviews. It doesn't.
> But the umpire might have said "not out, didn't hit it", in which case the LBW comes into play. This also might have increased Stokes' doubt around the completion part of the catch.
>
> As for not losing a review.. the DRS regulations are stupid.
> The on field umpires can give a reason for a decision that is clearly wrong. If it turns out they were wrong but the decision was still right (for other reasons) you lose a review.

Possibly depends on the situation, e.g. if the batter is given out lbw, but knows that they hit it and that it was caught, it would hardly be reasonable for them not to lose a review if they refer it.

> Whilst umps give on field reasons prior to the player's DRS call, this issue will arise now and then.
>
> As for the fairness of the catch, I still think that should be an Umpire Review which means no Player Review is wasted. Perhaps that's why Stokes was upset.

He might have been upset about the umpire not referring it, but he has been around long enough that he ought to know that if the umpire doesn't refer it and he does, he stands to lose a review.

In message <324973c2-2c0f-4727-a69b-b1fc7f45e5a5n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:59:140 >> >Expecting elite players to also be elite umpires has always been stupid.
>> I can't remember many Test umpires who have also been elite players. The
>> only one who comes immediately to mind is Venkat, who was a very good
>> umpire. I don't think any of the three umpires in this series - who I
>> think have actually been pretty good - fall into the category of former
>> elite players.
>
>I'm talking about the current DRS system of player reviews. We expect
>them to "be umpires" - to make decisions about the Outness of events.
>But it's very difficult. So difficult that elite umpires get it wrong.
>Check Starc's reaction to his catch that was ruled Not Out due to
>touching ground before completion.
>He was shocked that could be the ruling.
>

Ah, I see what you were getting at. But you'd think that top players
would make an effort to be familiar with the laws and regulations that
they will be playing under. That seems only professional. But I suspect
that you're right that many of them are remarkably ignorant of the finer
points.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:37:56 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:33 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > Is that the silliest review ever?
> > It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
> > it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
> > notice either.
> > Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.
> Seems flippantly harsh.
>
> I saw worse reviews this very series.

You really think Stokes should have thought he'd caught that ball?

>
> For better or worse, umpires are very "chatty" w.r.t reasons for appeal decisions.

Not in international cricket they aren't, because they don't want to influence the decision to call for a review or not

>
> Worst case the ump said "not out, you dropped it". Even then I believe Stokes is entitled to have it reviewed to see if the 3rd ump thought the catch was completed before the hit that caused the ball to be dropped. Although it really should've been an Umpire Review which checks for catch fairness.

There's absolutely no question that he dropped it
There's really no doubt that Stokes should have known he dropped it
Any umpire who's not willing to call that as not a catch shouldn't be umpiring grade cricket

>
> But the umpire might have said "not out, didn't hit it", in which case the LBW comes into play. This also might have increased Stokes' doubt around the completion part of the catch.
>
Would have been a pretty crappy lbw review as well

> As for not losing a review.. the DRS regulations are stupid.
> The on field umpires can give a reason for a decision that is clearly wrong. If it turns out they were wrong but the decision was still right (for other reasons) you lose a review.
>
> Whilst umps give on field reasons prior to the player's DRS call, this issue will arise now and then.

I'd like some evidence that happens in international cricket now.
>
> As for the fairness of the catch, I still think that should be an Umpire Review which means no Player Review is wasted. Perhaps that's why Stokes was upset.

He called for the review, he's got to be aware that he's losing the review if the decision is not out.
>
> nb: I don't know what was actually said on the field

On 01/08/2023 09:40, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:58:18 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> Judging by his face as soon as he realised that he had dropped the ball
>
> It could have been FEAR that he'd officially dropped it, rather than actually knowing for certain what the final ruling would be.
>
>> Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't notice either.
>
> incredulous to think the 3rd ump wouldn't notice. I don't think Stokes was hoping this.

What I was thinking was that the 3rd umpire could have missed it by not
asking for the footage to be played through far enough to get to the drop.

--
David North

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:07:32 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> It's only an Umpire Review if the umpire refers it (I would have thought that was obvious).

It is, and I think that should've happened.
They check for run out when the player is 1m safely in. Checking the fairness of this catch was prudent.

TV replays might have show Stokes *threw* the ball into his leg.

Which raises an issue I've not seen before... has a fielder ever had a catch denied when disposing of the ball between ball-landing-in-hand/s and getting full control of their body (ie officially completing the catch)?

It doesn't seem too farfetched, but it also seems like it would be given out.

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 3:29:23 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> >He was shocked that could be the ruling.
> >
> Ah, I see what you were getting at. But you'd think that top players
> would make an effort to be familiar with the laws and regulations that
> they will be playing under. That seems only professional. But I suspect
> that you're right that many of them are remarkably ignorant of the finer
> points.

Half right.

I also believe players should know both the Laws and the ICC playing conditions. That's part of their jobs.

But I'm also talking about the need for players to also judge Outness, just as an umpire does.

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 10:13:27 AM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:37:56 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:33 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > > On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > Is that the silliest review ever?
> > > It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
> > > it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
> > > notice either.
> > > Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.
> > Seems flippantly harsh.
> >
> > I saw worse reviews this very series.
> You really think Stokes should have thought he'd caught that ball?

Appeals and DRS reviews cover others ways for it to be out eg LBW.

> > For better or worse, umpires are very "chatty" w.r.t reasons for appeal decisions.
> Not in international cricket they aren't, because they don't want to influence the decision to call for a review or not

They absolutely are. If you don't know this then you mustn't be watching TV..
You'll even see this interaction in 15min highlights packages.

> > Worst case the ump said "not out, you dropped it". Even then I believe Stokes is entitled to have it reviewed to see if the 3rd ump thought the catch was completed before the hit that caused the ball to be dropped. Although it really should've been an Umpire Review which checks for catch fairness.
> There's absolutely no question that he dropped it

After watching TV replays, sure.
But what about without those replays?

> There's really no doubt that Stokes should have known he dropped it
> Any umpire who's not willing to call that as not a catch shouldn't be umpiring grade cricket

I think the same about many decisions eg the runs outs when they're clearing in or out.
DRS is about making sure.

> > But the umpire might have said "not out, didn't hit it", in which case the LBW comes into play. This also might have increased Stokes' doubt around the completion part of the catch.
> Would have been a pretty crappy lbw review as well

Yep. But as I said, I've seen worse referrals this series.

> > As for not losing a review.. the DRS regulations are stupid.
> > The on field umpires can give a reason for a decision that is clearly wrong. If it turns out they were wrong but the decision was still right (for other reasons) you lose a review.
> >
> > Whilst umps give on field reasons prior to the player's DRS call, this issue will arise now and then.
> I'd like some evidence that happens in international cricket now.

Watch TV.

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 4:39:25 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 10:13:27 AM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:37:56 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:33 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > > > On 31/07/2023 14:32, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > > Is that the silliest review ever?
> > > > It's up there. It seems like only he and Brook noticed that he dropped
> > > > it at the time. Presumably he was hoping that the 3rd umpire wouldn't
> > > > notice either.
> > > > Also silly was the idea that they might not lose a review.
> > > Seems flippantly harsh.
> > >
> > > I saw worse reviews this very series.
> > You really think Stokes should have thought he'd caught that ball?
> Appeals and DRS reviews cover others ways for it to be out eg LBW.

and do you think they were considering it as an lbw chance, considering it hit gloves above the pad, pretty close to bail level with a fair way still to travel?

> > > For better or worse, umpires are very "chatty" w.r.t reasons for appeal decisions.
> > Not in international cricket they aren't, because they don't want to influence the decision to call for a review or not
> They absolutely are. If you don't know this then you mustn't be watching TV.
> You'll even see this interaction in 15min highlights packages.

Go on, show a link to an umpire saying why they're giving a batsman not out in the last couple of years.

> > > Worst case the ump said "not out, you dropped it". Even then I believe Stokes is entitled to have it reviewed to see if the 3rd ump thought the catch was completed before the hit that caused the ball to be dropped. Although it really should've been an Umpire Review which checks for catch fairness.
> > There's absolutely no question that he dropped it
> After watching TV replays, sure.
> But what about without those replays?

The ball left his hand before both feet had landed, there's no way he controlled the ball and his movement.
and any umpire deserving a spot in first class cricket would be aware of that.

> > There's really no doubt that Stokes should have known he dropped it
> > Any umpire who's not willing to call that as not a catch shouldn't be umpiring grade cricket
> I think the same about many decisions eg the runs outs when they're clearing in or out.
> DRS is about making sure.

what, you think there's an international cricketer who hasn't seen the Gibbs drop of Waugh?
There'd be no excuse for an umpire who wasn't certain that ball wasn't caught

Hell, look at Stokes' reaction when he grasses it.

> > > But the umpire might have said "not out, didn't hit it", in which case the LBW comes into play. This also might have increased Stokes' doubt around the completion part of the catch.
> > Would have been a pretty crappy lbw review as well
> Yep. But as I said, I've seen worse referrals this series.

Such as?

> > > As for not losing a review.. the DRS regulations are stupid.
> > > The on field umpires can give a reason for a decision that is clearly wrong. If it turns out they were wrong but the decision was still right (for other reasons) you lose a review.
> > >
> > > Whilst umps give on field reasons prior to the player's DRS call, this issue will arise now and then.
> > I'd like some evidence that happens in international cricket now.
> Watch TV.

You made the claim, you provide evidence

On 02/08/2023 07:32, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:07:32 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> It's only an Umpire Review if the umpire refers it (I would have thought that was obvious).
>
> It is, and I think that should've happened.
> They check for run out when the player is 1m safely in.

Probably more difficult to judge, as the umpire has to watch two things
happening at the same time.

> Checking the fairness of this catch was prudent.

Maybe, but not if the umpire thought Smith didn't hit it.

--
David North

On 02/08/2023 07:32, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:07:32 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> It's only an Umpire Review if the umpire refers it (I would have thought that was obvious).
>
> It is, and I think that should've happened.
> They check for run out when the player is 1m safely in. Checking the fairness of this catch was prudent.
>
> TV replays might have show Stokes *threw* the ball into his leg.
>
> Which raises an issue I've not seen before... has a fielder ever had a catch denied when disposing of the ball between ball-landing-in-hand/s and getting full control of their body (ie officially completing the catch)?

Yes. The most common reason why a fielder would do that is if their
momentum was going to carry them over the boundary. Obviously if the
catch is not subsequently completed legally, it should be given not out.

> It doesn't seem too farfetched, but it also seems like it would be given out.

If so, it would be an error.

--
David North