Did Alex Carey and Australian team USE this as a TACTIC to SAVE their
DRS reviews?

It appears SO, because Alex Carey apparently appealed for stumping
SEVERAL TIMES.

In the series against India early last year, there were several
instances when Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey would appeal for a
stumping, and during the referral the TV umpire would also check for an
edge without a DRS review being used.

==================================================================

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/umpires-to-no-longer-check-for-caught-behind-while-reviewing-stumping-appeals-1415487

Umpires to no longer check for caught behind while reviewing stumping
appeals

The ICC also made a change in the concussion substitution rule

The ICC has made a change in the playing conditions, according to which
the TV umpire will not check for a caught behind when a stumping appeal
is referred by the on-field umpires.

The modification came into effect on December 12, 2023, and now if a
team wants to review the caught behind when the keeper has also removed
the bails, it will have to do so separately via the DRS.

In the series against India early last year, there were several
instances when Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey would appeal for a
stumping, and during the referral the TV umpire would also check for an
edge without a DRS review being used. Now, stumping referrals will only
display images from the side-on camera and umpires will not check for a
nick.

"The change confines a stumping review to only check for stumped,
therefore preventing the fielding team a free review for other modes of
dismissal (i.e, caught behind) without choosing a player review," read
ICC's new amendment.

The ICC has also brought more clarity to the concussion substitution
rule. Now, the substitute player will not be permitted to bowl if the
replaced player was suspended from bowling at the time of the
concussion. The ICC also has limited to four minutes the time set for on
field injury assessment and treatment.

On 04/01/2024 13:09, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>
> Did Alex Carey and Australian team USE this as a TACTIC to SAVE their
> DRS reviews?
>
>
> It appears SO, because Alex Carey apparently appealed for stumping
> SEVERAL TIMES.
>
>
> In the series against India early last year, there were several
> instances when Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey would appeal for a
> stumping, and during the referral the TV umpire would also check for an
> edge without a DRS review being used.
>
> ==================================================================
>
>
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/umpires-to-no-longer-check-for-caught-behind-while-reviewing-stumping-appeals-1415487
If he appeals when the batsman clearly hasn't left his ground, then I
suggest that the umpire should give a 'not out' decision without
referring. The referral isn't mandatory.

The rule change is fair enough though.

--
David North

On 05/01/2024 06:47, David North wrote:
> If he appeals when the batsman clearly hasn't left his ground, then I
> suggest that the umpire should give a 'not out' decision without
> referring. The referral isn't mandatory.

Slight "Whoa!". There is not normally any such thing as a
"stumping" appeal, even if the WK has removed the bails. So it's
not "not out" simply because the batsman never left his ground. It
could still be caught or LBW or hit wicket or .... So the umpires
should give an appropriate verdict, which might or might not be
"not out", and which is then subject to the usual reviews.

> The rule change is fair enough though.

Agreed. But it's an example of the way in which technology
makes the game more and more baroque. Luckily, it seems that cricket
has managed largely to avoid the problems being thrown up in football
by the VAR system.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bizet

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> > The rule change is fair enough though.
> Agreed.

DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were making mistakes.

The first time we see an umpire initiated review for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing.

If the technology we have is showing us umpiring mistakes, then we should correct those mistakes.

On 1/6/2024 3:18 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> The rule change is fair enough though.
>> Agreed.
>
> DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were making mistakes.
>
> The first time we see an umpire initiated review for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing.
>
> If the technology we have is showing us umpiring mistakes, then we should correct those mistakes.

If the fielding team thinks batter is out caught behind, then they
should USE their DRS REVIEW.

They SHOULD NOT ask for Stumping review and then APPEAL for a caught behind.

Alex Carey and Australian team was taking advantage of the loop hole and
hence ICC CHANGED the rule for the better.

On 06/01/2024 14:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> If the fielding team thinks batter is out caught behind, then they
> should USE their DRS REVIEW.

Yes, on the assumption that the umpires gave it "not out", but ...

> They SHOULD NOT ask for Stumping review and then APPEAL for a caught
> behind.

... there is not [normally] an "appeal for a caught behind". Law
31.4: "An appeal “How’s That?” covers all ways of being out." IOW, the
umpires should [normally] check not only for a stumping but also for a
catch, LBW, hit wicket, hit the ball twice, ....

> Alex Carey and Australian team was taking advantage of the loop hole
> and hence ICC CHANGED the rule for the better.

You have not explained what the "loophole" is. As David said,
it's up to the umpires to review, if they think it appropriate, for a
stumping. There is already [31.4] an appeal for a catch "on the table",
so the fielding side can't "ask for a stumping review and then appeal".
If the umpires felt that Carey was using sharp practice by appealing
when he didn't reasonably believe it could be "out", they already have
powers under Law 42 to deal with that.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Morel

On 05/01/2024 10:06, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 05/01/2024 06:47, David North wrote:
>> If he appeals when the batsman clearly hasn't left his ground, then I
>> suggest that the umpire should give a 'not out' decision without
>> referring. The referral isn't mandatory.
>
>     Slight "Whoa!".  There is not normally any such thing as a
> "stumping" appeal, even if the WK has removed the bails.  So it's
> not "not out" simply because the batsman never left his ground.  It
> could still be caught or LBW or hit wicket or ....  So the umpires
> should give an appropriate verdict, which might or might not be
> "not out", and which is then subject to the usual reviews.

True, but the striker's end umpire would not be answering in respect of
caught or lbw. They would in respect of hit wicket, but if the keeper is
appealing in the direction of the striker's end umpire, I think it would
be pretty obvious whether they are appealing for a stumping or hit
wicket - it seems very unlikely that both would be realistic
possibilities at the same time!

>> The rule change is fair enough though.
>
>     Agreed.  But it's an example of the way in which technology
> makes the game more and more baroque.  Luckily, it seems that cricket
> has managed largely to avoid the problems being thrown up in football
> by the VAR system.

I don't watch much football, but ISTM that that is because a much higher
proportion of the decisions in football are highly subjective,
especially fouls.

--
David North

On 06/01/2024 11:18, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> The rule change is fair enough though.
>> Agreed.
>
> DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were making mistakes.
>
> The first time we see an umpire initiated review for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing.

As such a review will, from now on, only display images from the side-on
camera, it's unlikely that it will show a missed edge, but if it does,
the fielding side can presumably still call for a player review.

--
David North

On 06/01/2024 16:37, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 14:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> If the fielding team thinks batter is out caught behind, then they
>> should USE their DRS REVIEW.
>
>     Yes, on the assumption that the umpires gave it "not out", but ...
>
>> They SHOULD NOT ask for Stumping review and then APPEAL for a caught
>> behind.
>
>     ... there is not [normally] an "appeal for a caught behind".  Law
> 31.4:  "An appeal “How’s That?” covers all ways of being out."  IOW, the
> umpires should [normally] check not only for a stumping but also for a
> catch, LBW, hit wicket, hit the ball twice, ....
>
>> Alex Carey and Australian team was taking advantage of the loop hole
>> and hence ICC CHANGED the rule for the better.
>
>     You have not explained what the "loophole" is.  As David said,
> it's up to the umpires to review, if they think it appropriate, for a
> stumping.  There is already [31.4] an appeal for a catch "on the table",
> so the fielding side can't "ask for a stumping review and then appeal".
> If the umpires felt that Carey was using sharp practice by appealing
> when he didn't reasonably believe it could be "out", they already have
> powers under Law 42 to deal with that.

The 'loophole' is that, by trying to bring the question of a stumping
into the equation, Carey was allegedly hoping to get a DRS review that
checked for caught behind without risking one of Australia's reviews,
which would not normally be possible.

--
David North

On 1/7/2024 4:15 AM, David North wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 16:37, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 06/01/2024 14:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> If the fielding team thinks batter is out caught behind, then they
>>> should USE their DRS REVIEW.
>>
>>      Yes, on the assumption that the umpires gave it "not out", but ...
>>
>>> They SHOULD NOT ask for Stumping review and then APPEAL for a caught
>>> behind.
>>
>>      ... there is not [normally] an "appeal for a caught behind".  Law
>> 31.4:  "An appeal “How’s That?” covers all ways of being out."  IOW, the
>> umpires should [normally] check not only for a stumping but also for a
>> catch, LBW, hit wicket, hit the ball twice, ....
>>
>>> Alex Carey and Australian team was taking advantage of the loop hole
>>> and hence ICC CHANGED the rule for the better.
>>
>>      You have not explained what the "loophole" is.  As David said,
>> it's up to the umpires to review, if they think it appropriate, for a
>> stumping.  There is already [31.4] an appeal for a catch "on the table",
>> so the fielding side can't "ask for a stumping review and then appeal".
>> If the umpires felt that Carey was using sharp practice by appealing
>> when he didn't reasonably believe it could be "out", they already have
>> powers under Law 42 to deal with that.
>
> The 'loophole' is that, by trying to bring the question of a stumping
> into the equation, Carey was allegedly hoping to get a DRS review that
> checked for caught behind without risking one of Australia's reviews,
> which would not normally be possible.
>

Exactly.

That's what I was pointing out.

On 1/6/2024 8:37 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 14:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> If the fielding team thinks batter is out caught behind, then they
>> should USE their DRS REVIEW.
>
>     Yes, on the assumption that the umpires gave it "not out", but ...
>
>> They SHOULD NOT ask for Stumping review and then APPEAL for a caught
>> behind.
>
>     ... there is not [normally] an "appeal for a caught behind".  Law
> 31.4:  "An appeal “How’s That?” covers all ways of being out."  IOW, the
> umpires should [normally] check not only for a stumping but also for a
> catch, LBW, hit wicket, hit the ball twice, ....
>
>> Alex Carey and Australian team was taking advantage of the loop hole
>> and hence ICC CHANGED the rule for the better.
>
>     You have not explained what the "loophole" is.  As David said,
> it's up to the umpires to review, if they think it appropriate, for a
> stumping.  There is already [31.4] an appeal for a catch "on the table",
> so the fielding side can't "ask for a stumping review and then appeal".
> If the umpires felt that Carey was using sharp practice by appealing
> when he didn't reasonably believe it could be "out", they already have
> powers under Law 42 to deal with that.
>

May be loophole is a wrong word I used but you know the point I am
making about why ICC changed the rule.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:49:06 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were making mistakes.
> > The first time we see an umpire initiated review for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing.
> As such a review will, from now on, only display images from the side-on
> camera, it's unlikely that it will show a missed edge, but if it does,
> the fielding side can presumably still call for a player review.

I'm not really talking about the review itself (ie the side on replay).
I'm talking about post-review replays showing that, ooops, actually, there was a missed edge.

This why I mentioned pre-DRS tv replays "exposing" umpiring errors. Same will eventually happen here.

Not sure what's a worse crime;
1) getting an additional, free, review or 2. What Carey has been allegedly doing. (none resulting in a wicket, mind you.. just some "wasted" time).
2) missing an edge that is obviously enough to see on a few TV replays. If/when this eventually happens.

I'd rather ping Carey for time wasting or frivolous appealing.

On 07/01/2024 12:15, David North wrote:
>>      You have not explained what the "loophole" is. [...]
>> If the umpires felt that Carey was using sharp practice by appealing
>> when he didn't reasonably believe it could be "out", they already have
>> powers under Law 42 to deal with that.
> The 'loophole' is that, by trying to bring the question of a stumping
> into the equation, Carey was allegedly hoping to get a DRS review
> that checked for caught behind without risking one of Australia's
> reviews, which would not normally be possible.

Yes, that's what I understood. IOW, the allegation was that
Carey was removing the bails, not in hope of a stumping, but in hope of
a catch. That seems to me to be ungentlemanly conduct and against the
"spirit of cricket". There is no need for a change to any Laws or
regulations for that to be something that the umpires can take action
about [tho' a clarification might be in order], esp as they are "sole
judges" of fair/unfair play.

A WK might get away with such conduct once, eg by claiming that
he was unsighted or that it was a reflex action, but I would say that a
second instance [from an experienced WK] should at least lead to a
quiet "cut it out" from the umpires, and a third instance to formal
action. I don't even see that the second instance has to be in the same
match or with the same umpires.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bendel

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 16:06:07 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:49:06 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > > DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were making mistakes.
> > > The first time we see an umpire initiated review for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing.
> > As such a review will, from now on, only display images from the side-on
> > camera, it's unlikely that it will show a missed edge, but if it does,
> > the fielding side can presumably still call for a player review.
> I'm not really talking about the review itself (ie the side on replay).
> I'm talking about post-review replays showing that, ooops, actually, there was a missed edge.
>
> This why I mentioned pre-DRS tv replays "exposing" umpiring errors. Same will eventually happen here.
>
> Not sure what's a worse crime;
> 1) getting an additional, free, review or 2. What Carey has been allegedly doing. (none resulting in a wicket, mind you.. just some "wasted" time).
> 2) missing an edge that is obviously enough to see on a few TV replays. If/when this eventually happens.

If the rule is that the umpire can't review a caught-behind decision (except if there is doubt whether it was a bump ball or whether it was a fair catch), then I think the ICC are right not to allow it via a stumping review. Whether we agree with the rule or not is another matter.

> I'd rather ping Carey for time wasting or frivolous appealing.

Presumably he was only doing it when he thought there might have been an edge, in which case it was not unreasonable to appeal (but to the bowler's end umpire). If there wasn't actually a reasonable chance of a stumping, then I would think he would soon stop it if the striker's end umpires rejected the stumping appeal on-field.

David North wrote:

> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 16:06:07 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:49:06 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> > > DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were making mistakes.
>> > > The first time we see an umpire initiated review for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing.
>> > As such a review will, from now on, only display images from the side-on
>> > camera, it's unlikely that it will show a missed edge, but if it does,
>> > the fielding side can presumably still call for a player review.
>> I'm not really talking about the review itself (ie the side on replay).
>> I'm talking about post-review replays showing that, ooops, actually, there was a missed edge.
>>
>> This why I mentioned pre-DRS tv replays "exposing" umpiring errors. Same will eventually happen here.
>>
>> Not sure what's a worse crime;
>> 1) getting an additional, free, review or 2. What Carey has been allegedly doing. (none resulting in a wicket, mind you.. just some "wasted" time).
>> 2) missing an edge that is obviously enough to see on a few TV replays. If/when this eventually happens.

> If the rule is that the umpire can't review a caught-behind decision (except if there is doubt whether it was a bump ball or whether it was a fair catch), then I think the ICC are right not to allow it via a stumping review. Whether we agree with the rule or not is another matter.

>> I'd rather ping Carey for time wasting or frivolous appealing.

> Presumably he was only doing it when he thought there might have been an edge, in which case it was not unreasonable to appeal (but to the bowler's end umpire). If there wasn't actually a reasonable chance of a stumping, then I would think he would soon stop it if the striker's end umpires rejected the stumping appeal on-field.

I dont see that carey did anything wrong either against the laws or 'the spirit of the game', plus
i thought theres a law that says an appeal shall cover all forms of dismissal. So if theres an appeal
which than leads to a review and the umpires say well it wasnt a stumping, although replays show
everyone that he was caught behind, but as you didnt appeal for that, hes not out, i would
find pretty strange.

mike

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 3:40:26 AM UTC+10, miked wrote:
> I dont see that carey did anything wrong either against the laws

It has nothing to do with the Laws. DRS regulations are part of the ICC playing conditions. They sit outside the Laws of Cricket.
(ignoring the old, and stupid, position that DRS itself is technical dissent against an umpire as you're challenging their decision).

or 'the spirit of the game', plus
> i thought theres a law that says an appeal shall cover all forms of dismissal.

It does. But DRS is outside the Laws. The on-field Not Out decision was for all possible wickets. Not Out. That's the Law.
What happens after that is DRS.
DRS says only SOME types of dismissals can be checked.

As for the Spirit.. this is typical Aussie bullshit designed to give them a 0.5% advantage whilst bending the Spirit as much as possible. They've done it every year, with every iteration of the team. Shit like underarm bowling, rubber ball in Gilly's glove, sandpaper, you name it.

They're such a good team. They don't need these shenanigans.

On 10/01/2024 17:39, miked wrote:
> David North wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 16:06:07 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:49:06 PM UTC+10, David North wrote: >
>>> > DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were
>>> making mistakes. > > The first time we see an umpire initiated review
>>> for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out
>>> caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing. > As such a
>>> review will, from now on, only display images from the side-on >
>>> camera, it's unlikely that it will show a missed edge, but if it
>>> does, > the fielding side can presumably still call for a player review.
>>> I'm not really talking about the review itself (ie the side on
>>> replay). I'm talking about post-review replays showing that, ooops,
>>> actually, there was a missed edge.
>>> This why I mentioned pre-DRS tv replays "exposing" umpiring errors.
>>> Same will eventually happen here.
>>> Not sure what's a worse crime; 1) getting an additional, free, review
>>> or 2. What Carey has been allegedly doing. (none resulting in a
>>> wicket, mind you.. just some "wasted" time). 2) missing an edge that
>>> is obviously enough to see on a few TV replays. If/when this
>>> eventually happens.
>
>> If the rule is that the umpire can't review a caught-behind decision
>> (except if there is doubt whether it was a bump ball or whether it was
>> a fair catch), then I think the ICC are right not to allow it via a
>> stumping review. Whether we agree with the rule or not is another matter.
>
>>> I'd rather ping Carey for time wasting or frivolous appealing.
>
>> Presumably he was only doing it when he thought there might have been
>> an edge, in which case it was not unreasonable to appeal (but to the
>> bowler's end umpire). If there wasn't actually a reasonable chance of
>> a stumping, then I would think he would soon stop it if the striker's
>> end umpires rejected the stumping appeal on-field.
>
> I dont see that carey did anything wrong either against the laws or 'the
> spirit of the game', plus
> i thought theres a law that says an appeal shall cover all forms of
> dismissal. So if theres an appeal
> which than leads to a review and the umpires say well it wasnt a
> stumping, although replays show
> everyone that he was caught behind, but as you didnt appeal for that,
> hes not out, i would find pretty strange.

As I said before, they will no longer be showing the replays that are
likely to show an edge as part of stumping reviews, and if the side-on
replay shows an edge, the fielding side can still ask for a player
review, provided that they have not used them up, so it seems very
unlikely that a stumping review will show that the batter was caught
behind, but won't result in them being out.

--
David North

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 4:39:47 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> As I said before, they will no longer be showing the replays that are
> likely to show an edge as part of stumping reviews, and if the side-on
> replay shows an edge, the fielding side can still ask for a player
> review, provided that they have not used them up, so it seems very
> unlikely that a stumping review will show that the batter was caught
> behind, but won't result in them being out.

"3.2.4 No replays, either at normal speed or slow motion, shall be shown on a big screen to spectators until the 15
second time limit allowed for requesting a Player Review has elapsed"

ISTM that they shouldn't be showing any part of the Ump review on the at-ground screens, as the Player review 15 seconds starts after the Umpire review decision is handed down.

On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 12:11:31 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 4:39:47 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > As I said before, they will no longer be showing the replays that are
> > likely to show an edge as part of stumping reviews, and if the side-on
> > replay shows an edge, the fielding side can still ask for a player
> > review, provided that they have not used them up, so it seems very
> > unlikely that a stumping review will show that the batter was caught
> > behind, but won't result in them being out.
> "3.2.4 No replays, either at normal speed or slow motion, shall be shown on a big screen to spectators until the 15
> second time limit allowed for requesting a Player Review has elapsed"
>
> ISTM that they shouldn't be showing any part of the Ump review on the at-ground screens, as the Player review 15 seconds starts after the Umpire review decision is handed down.

Actually, 3.2.5 says that "The request for a Player Review may be made after the Umpire Review, provided the request is still within the 15 second time limit described in paragraph 3.2.2 above", but 3.2.2 says that the 15 seconds starts when the ball becomes dead, which doesn't add up unless the Umpire Review is completed within the 15 seconds!

Obviously when 3.2.4 was written, they didn't have replays for an Umpire Review in mind.

Btw, if we took 3.2.4 literally, a player could signal for a review after 1 second, and they would have to wait another 14 seconds before showing any replays.

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:03:45 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > ISTM that they shouldn't be showing any part of the Ump review on the at-ground screens, as the Player review 15 seconds starts after the Umpire review decision is handed down.
> Actually, 3.2.5 says that "The request for a Player Review may be made after the Umpire Review, provided the request is still within the 15 second time limit described in paragraph 3.2.2 above", but 3.2.2 says that the 15 seconds starts when the ball becomes dead, which doesn't add up unless the Umpire Review is completed within the 15 seconds!
>
> Obviously when 3.2.4 was written, they didn't have replays for an Umpire Review in mind.
>
> Btw, if we took 3.2.4 literally, a player could signal for a review after 1 second, and they would have to wait another 14 seconds before showing any replays.

As someone who thinks the DRS regs need serious tweaking/improvement, I'm not too critical of little illogical conflicts like that. The umps do a good job of sorting it all out.

I think the number #1 change they can make today is changing the benefit of doubt from "stick with the on-field result" to closer to the Law's implied benefit of the doubt, which is;
a) for line decisions (stumping, run out), if there's doubt the batsman is in, it should be Out. The batsman has a "burden of proof" to be INSIDE the crease. Thank you to Bob Dubery (spelling? been a while since I read his name) for educating me on this.
b) for other decision (eg caught, lbw), if there's doubt, it should be Not Out. The umpire has a "burden" to be sure the conditions for Out have been met, eg going to hit the stumps.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 1:25:35 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 3:18 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> >>> The rule change is fair enough though.
> >> Agreed.
> >
> > DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were making mistakes.
> >
> > The first time we see an umpire initiated review for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing.
> >
> > If the technology we have is showing us umpiring mistakes, then we should correct those mistakes.
> If the fielding team thinks batter is out caught behind, then they
> should USE their DRS REVIEW.
>
> They SHOULD NOT ask for Stumping review and then APPEAL for a caught behind.

an appeal covers all types of dismissal
and it's the umpire who asks for the stumping review.
>
> Alex Carey and Australian team was taking advantage of the loop hole and
> hence ICC CHANGED the rule for the better.

So changing the rule for the better is "not check if the batsman is actually out"

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 5:01:38 AM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 3:40:26 AM UTC+10, miked wrote:
> > I dont see that carey did anything wrong either against the laws
> It has nothing to do with the Laws. DRS regulations are part of the ICC playing conditions. They sit outside the Laws of Cricket.
> (ignoring the old, and stupid, position that DRS itself is technical dissent against an umpire as you're challenging their decision).
> or 'the spirit of the game', plus
> > i thought theres a law that says an appeal shall cover all forms of dismissal.
> It does. But DRS is outside the Laws. The on-field Not Out decision was for all possible wickets. Not Out. That's the Law.
> What happens after that is DRS.
> DRS says only SOME types of dismissals can be checked.
>
> As for the Spirit.. this is typical Aussie bullshit designed to give them a 0.5% advantage whilst bending the Spirit as much as possible.

As opposed to bodyline, putting all the fieldsmen back on the rope, including the keeper etc.

>They've done it every year, with every iteration of the team. Shit like underarm bowling, rubber ball in Gilly's glove,

What's the problem with Gilchrist having something in his gloves?

>sandpaper, you name it.
>
And applying sandpaper to the ball is clearly cheating, as is keeping dirt in your pocket, vaseline, deliberately rubbing it on your zipper etc...

> They're such a good team. They don't need these shenanigans.

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 8:00:12 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> As opposed to bodyline, putting all the fieldsmen back on the rope, including the keeper etc.

I think everyone agrees that tactic, from almost 100 years ago, was against the Spirit.

> And applying sandpaper to the ball is clearly cheating, as is keeping dirt in your pocket,

At the time, it wasn't. Or at the very least, Ather's defence was way more credible than.. well.. there was no defence for sandpaper.

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 8:00:12 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> putting all the fieldsmen back on the rope, including the keeper etc.

Um.. we have vastly different understandings of the Spirit if you think either of those is a problem.

On 14/01/2024 09:54, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 1:25:35 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 3:18 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>> The rule change is fair enough though.
>>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> DRS came about because simple replays showed us that umpires were making mistakes.
>>>
>>> The first time we see an umpire initiated review for stumping that shows the OFU missed an edge (ie should've been Out caught behind) then they'll re-think this entire thing.
>>>
>>> If the technology we have is showing us umpiring mistakes, then we should correct those mistakes.
>> If the fielding team thinks batter is out caught behind, then they
>> should USE their DRS REVIEW.
>>
>> They SHOULD NOT ask for Stumping review and then APPEAL for a caught behind.
>
> an appeal covers all types of dismissal
> and it's the umpire who asks for the stumping review.
>>
>> Alex Carey and Australian team was taking advantage of the loop hole and
>> hence ICC CHANGED the rule for the better.
>
> So changing the rule for the better is "not check if the batsman is actually out"

In this case, I think so. There are plenty of other scenarios where they
don't check if the batter is out, or don't check every method of
dismissal, unless a player asks for a review, e.g. AFAIAA, they don't
check for other methods of dismissal during an umpire review for a
run-out. Just because, in this case, the change is from checking to not
checking, does that make it wrong?

--
David North