Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


There is no distinction between appeals. An appeal can be for anything, and the umpires decide. Under the referral system, my understanding is that the decision is effectively reconsidered, with "too close to tell" leading to the original decision staying. There isn't any point in re-referring it.

But, note too, the referral system doesn't necessarily have snicko, or hawk-eye, so it isn't clear whether a) under the referral system the original system would be over-turned or b) under the referral system, having rejected the caught, the fourth umpire would accede to an lbw.


Yeah, I was being facetious about Ponting's decision in particular, not the referral system in general.


.... and you'd have to wonder if Ponting's knowledge of the laws would be that sophisticated, particularly whilst in the thick of things. I'd be very surprised if the thought "I'll be ok, the third umpire should overturn this one on the basis that it's clear that I didn't hit it" went through his head. Ponting was probably just pissed off that he got dudded, as anyone else would be.

Re: the lbw side of things, I'm curious about how that applies to this sort of decision. I'd challenge ANYONE with the naked eye, even with a replay, to be confident that the ball would have hit leg stump, but let's say that it was closer than it looked - if Rudi calls up and says "he edged it onto his pad, can you check it was a clean catch, please", and it is revealed that he didn't hit it, can the third ref then give it out lbw? As Russ says, an appeal is for anything - you don't have to specify whether you're appealing for a catch or lbw, or a stumping or a run-out for that matter, so if the ball was straight enough to hit the stumps then the lbw should have stood. I have a feeling that isn't how things work with the third umpire though - is Dave Barry about, he knows this sort of stuff.

Finally saw some footage of it last night - and took particular note of Ponting's reaction in light of the Jon Agnew remarks you posted, Tony. He said "What?" put his head down, and left. How anyone could challenge him on the basis of bad sportsmanship and/or not acknowledging the spirit of cricket is beyond me. The consistent and sustained hypocrisy about Ponting and his supposed bad attitude to the game really gives me the shits. It started with the Indian tour in 2007/08 and the English have taken the ball and run with it - people like Agnew and Roebuck have got a lot to answer for.

David Barry

I was expecting the umpire's finger to go up for the LBW at the time of the dismissal.

Carrot, the relevant part of the trial playing conditions is 3.6:

"The TV umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpireā€Ÿs questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, the TV umpire may notify the on-field umpire of conclusive evidence of other modes of dismissal, beyond that initially reviewed."

In the Ponting case, the third umpire would need a "high degree of confidence that the ball would have hit the stumps below the level of the bails in order to report that the ball would have hit the stumps".

I have no idea how high a "high degree" of confidence needs to be. There was some shocking inconsistency on it from different umpires during some of the trials. But it is at least possible for the third umpire to tell the on-field umpire that it's LBW and not caught-behind.

sid smith

Interesting, I think, that Jimmy Anderson appealed immediately for LBW - and had his back to Ponting and Strauss even b4 the catch was taken.

The comments to this entry are closed.