Dave Warner bats both ways. He doesn't see why he should have to stick to one or the other during the course of the match, and there certainly isn't anything explicit in the laws to say he should. If he switches after the ball is in play, that is once the bowler's run-up has begun, it's all confirmed as fine - he is officially batting one way, and takes on the risk of changing in a restricted time-frame for the benefits of catching the bowler and fielders ready for a different approach. (Of course, it might rule out the leg-side wide and open up LBWs as well, but I wouldn't want to guess what the MCC are doing with this in this year's planned update of the Laws.)
If he changes just before the run-up starts, then he is officially batting the other way. Either the bowler is caught bowling to different rules and fielders are potentially illegally placed (not to mention tactically undone), or they notice, and will stop and take the time to change the field. Clearly against the spirit of the game, as the umpire told him.
I guess it's clear what these umpires would have done in February 1981. However, I'm not sure he should have been stopped from doing it in general. Yes, batsmen switching over adds one more time delay factor to the game, but is it any less justified than changing the field after each single for many partnerships? In general terms, if switch-hitting is ok, surely batting one way or the other with notice is in the spirit of the game! There would be no objection to batting left handed in one innings and right handed in the next, so where do we draw the line?
Mind you, why change anything when you are making 50s in 18 or 19 balls? I don't know whether the hype about this innings was going to last any longer than a T20 game in the first place, but it has certainly gone missing in the light of a more recent innings. Tendulkar's 200 was enough to excite even this fan of lower scoring matches!
Friday, 26 February 2010
Friday, 12 February 2010
Fun in the sun
Despite crazy scores in the warm-up in Canberra, the first two matches of this series have made Gayle east his words, or at least his 4-1 prediction. He seems to have switched tactics, looking to lull Doug the rug in to a false sense of security. Then again, maybe he's just being speaking straight, after all, he seems to know what cricket is all about - "If we can get to 2-1, we can get things happening for us. We need to make it more interesting so you can get some more ticket sales."!
In any case, the Australians now head out into the surprising heat in Sydney, to see what happens in the next match. The four changes to the lineup might be construed as levelling things up to some extent, but the real issue is how the Caribbean batsmen face the pace trio.
In any case, the Australians now head out into the surprising heat in Sydney, to see what happens in the next match. The four changes to the lineup might be construed as levelling things up to some extent, but the real issue is how the Caribbean batsmen face the pace trio.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Mercurial
We all know the evidence behind the hype about Pakistanis and T20, but isn't it intriguing to think about what could possibly lead to a fielding performance several orders of magnitude better than what they put up in the Tests?
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Responding to referrals
The UDRS is an ongoing topic of discussion, even during commentary of ODI series where it does not apply. As far as the Australian summer goes, the system could be considered to have served its purpose, at least in the Sydney Test, in making sure that post-match discussion didn't revolve around what would have happened if Australia were not gifted a wicket on the last day. However, it has also, here and elsewhere, provided talking points that could be seen as failures and negative side effects.
There is plenty to be said about the design of the system, its misuse and alleged abuse, but that's not my intent right now. The question of how the game itself may be changed by the current umpiring technology and/or the review system might be a less important topic of discussion, but I find it just as interesting.
In general, the system is intended to overturn out/not out decisions where the technology in use provides evidence that the original decision was incorrect. Even apart from which standard of evidence is used and the much-discussed misuse/abuse of the system, this means different things in different contexts. While a front-foot no ball should always result in an reversal, the gadgets are not set up to capture everything. It is more likely that compelling evidence of an edge will show up than similarly compelling evidence of a non-edge, while the use of cameras to judge the cleanness of catches can be a black art. It would be interesting to check thte figures to see whether UDRS has produced more reversals of out or not out decisions.
Let's turn to specifics. So far, the most extreme departure from human umpiring is the use of Hawkeye, which aims to provide the actual path of the ball and tell us where it would have travelled if the batsman had not been there, enough to completely answer the question of whether a legal delivery deserves an LBW verdict.
Kartikeya has already raised the issue of whether this spells the end of techniques intended to reap the traditional benefit of the umpire's doubt. Personally, I am amazed that this sort of technology is used in any context, cricketing or otherwise, without the presence of a serious treatment of its margins of error. Once present, there is a decision to be made as to whether this margin of error should be incorporated in the application of the technology. I believe it is consistent with the traditions of the LBW law and the motivations of umpiring technology, that a sensible margin of error be include. Without too much certainty, I expect that this would mean the age-old technique of coming down the pitch would still provide greater immunity from LBW, although not as much as we have previously seen.
The heat-sensitive cameras provide images that in theory should be fairly easy to interpret - they show a pattern of waves received at frequencies which our eyes do not detect, showing a difference between, say, a bat in normal conditions, and a part of the bat that has just hit a cricket ball. This can establish that there was an edge, although care still needs to be taken if the question is whether the edge came before some other impact in an LBW decision.
Apart from that, the evidence is not always there. The more angles, the better the chance of finding something, and it has been suggested that with only two (or one?) camera in play, players could game the system by turning bats one way or the other. More controllably, some stickers on the back of bats do reflect electro-magnetic waves in a way that appears similar to impact-induced heat on the HotSpot screen. Persistence with this technology should possibly lead to more conditions being placed on bats.
Finally, something that I haven't heard even mentioned by anyone else. It has long been wise for fielders to remain on the ball at least until an appeal has been given a positive answer. On at least one occasion now, a batsman has been given out LBW, the fielders celebrated, only for a reversal and an outcome of four leg-byes. At the time, it didn't mean much, but you never know when four runs could matter in a Test match, let alone the shorter forms if they also adopt a review system. With (dismissal) reviews in place, it is sensible for both teams to keep playing until the ball is dead for some reason other than a wicket. Having said that, I don't want to imagine the controversy that may arise from a situation where one team continues and the other doesn't, with a reversal of a wicket resulting in a run-out decision.
There is plenty to be said about the design of the system, its misuse and alleged abuse, but that's not my intent right now. The question of how the game itself may be changed by the current umpiring technology and/or the review system might be a less important topic of discussion, but I find it just as interesting.
In general, the system is intended to overturn out/not out decisions where the technology in use provides evidence that the original decision was incorrect. Even apart from which standard of evidence is used and the much-discussed misuse/abuse of the system, this means different things in different contexts. While a front-foot no ball should always result in an reversal, the gadgets are not set up to capture everything. It is more likely that compelling evidence of an edge will show up than similarly compelling evidence of a non-edge, while the use of cameras to judge the cleanness of catches can be a black art. It would be interesting to check thte figures to see whether UDRS has produced more reversals of out or not out decisions.
Let's turn to specifics. So far, the most extreme departure from human umpiring is the use of Hawkeye, which aims to provide the actual path of the ball and tell us where it would have travelled if the batsman had not been there, enough to completely answer the question of whether a legal delivery deserves an LBW verdict.
Kartikeya has already raised the issue of whether this spells the end of techniques intended to reap the traditional benefit of the umpire's doubt. Personally, I am amazed that this sort of technology is used in any context, cricketing or otherwise, without the presence of a serious treatment of its margins of error. Once present, there is a decision to be made as to whether this margin of error should be incorporated in the application of the technology. I believe it is consistent with the traditions of the LBW law and the motivations of umpiring technology, that a sensible margin of error be include. Without too much certainty, I expect that this would mean the age-old technique of coming down the pitch would still provide greater immunity from LBW, although not as much as we have previously seen.
The heat-sensitive cameras provide images that in theory should be fairly easy to interpret - they show a pattern of waves received at frequencies which our eyes do not detect, showing a difference between, say, a bat in normal conditions, and a part of the bat that has just hit a cricket ball. This can establish that there was an edge, although care still needs to be taken if the question is whether the edge came before some other impact in an LBW decision.
Apart from that, the evidence is not always there. The more angles, the better the chance of finding something, and it has been suggested that with only two (or one?) camera in play, players could game the system by turning bats one way or the other. More controllably, some stickers on the back of bats do reflect electro-magnetic waves in a way that appears similar to impact-induced heat on the HotSpot screen. Persistence with this technology should possibly lead to more conditions being placed on bats.
Finally, something that I haven't heard even mentioned by anyone else. It has long been wise for fielders to remain on the ball at least until an appeal has been given a positive answer. On at least one occasion now, a batsman has been given out LBW, the fielders celebrated, only for a reversal and an outcome of four leg-byes. At the time, it didn't mean much, but you never know when four runs could matter in a Test match, let alone the shorter forms if they also adopt a review system. With (dismissal) reviews in place, it is sensible for both teams to keep playing until the ball is dead for some reason other than a wicket. Having said that, I don't want to imagine the controversy that may arise from a situation where one team continues and the other doesn't, with a reversal of a wicket resulting in a run-out decision.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Clarity on horrific crimes
The recurring stories from Melbourne which have prompted worldwide headlines are very disturbing. I have not been able to find anything that could be said that would actually be helpful. I'm not sure that this article from Sushi Das will help either, but it is the one comment I have seen that has come from a helpful perspective. It is a pity that even it has been misread by many commenters more interested in arguments of superiority.
The Indian Minister of State has particularly sensible comments. Is he usually like this? It's hard to imagine such common sense appearing in Australian politics!
The Indian Minister of State has particularly sensible comments. Is he usually like this? It's hard to imagine such common sense appearing in Australian politics!
Friday, 15 January 2010
Bellerive records
When you start your Test career with a 151 in fairly dramatic circumstances, you're probably not thinking that it will be five years before you improve on that mark. In contrast, it has only taken the Australians until the 15th day of this year to put together a partnership bigger than any they could manage in the previous decade, a fact less surprising than that one of the partners on that occasion was Jason Gillespie.
After the dearth of Aussie centuries as the summer began, who would have thought the last Test would feature a Ponting double-ton on his home turf? He has certainly capitalised on a couple of chances, and it seems his biggest worry at the moment would be deciding when to declare.
After the dearth of Aussie centuries as the summer began, who would have thought the last Test would feature a Ponting double-ton on his home turf? He has certainly capitalised on a couple of chances, and it seems his biggest worry at the moment would be deciding when to declare.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Bent wings
The Blues' Bird is headed to the AIS again.
Quite within the official procedures, he'll still be playing against the Queensland tomorrow night, probably sending down deliveries sa questionable as the ones that saw him reported. At some point he'll get tested in a lab, where he will either keep within the 15 degree limit, as he has done twice, or sometimes transgressing, as happened after the last report. Either way, he will porbably be back again sooner or later, bowling who knows what.
I'd love him to knock over the banana-benders at ANZ, and I don't blame NSW for taking the procedures as they are written, but I'd rather not rely on a player who might be about to be banned for things that are already happening. I'd love him to be able to "prove" his action is (that is, has become) clean and keep playing (although his place in the state team isn't as obvious as it might seem), but this whole story is the farce that could have been predicted when these procedures were adopted. Why care about bent arms if the umpires aren't going to call them? Is this any better than the controversy?
Quite within the official procedures, he'll still be playing against the Queensland tomorrow night, probably sending down deliveries sa questionable as the ones that saw him reported. At some point he'll get tested in a lab, where he will either keep within the 15 degree limit, as he has done twice, or sometimes transgressing, as happened after the last report. Either way, he will porbably be back again sooner or later, bowling who knows what.
I'd love him to knock over the banana-benders at ANZ, and I don't blame NSW for taking the procedures as they are written, but I'd rather not rely on a player who might be about to be banned for things that are already happening. I'd love him to be able to "prove" his action is (that is, has become) clean and keep playing (although his place in the state team isn't as obvious as it might seem), but this whole story is the farce that could have been predicted when these procedures were adopted. Why care about bent arms if the umpires aren't going to call them? Is this any better than the controversy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)