BELLYLINE

Fat Ian Botham has accused Our Phil Hughes of cheating, saying Hughes claimed a catch he knew had bounced when Cook was on 99. "Terrible. Cheating. He knows he hasn’t caught it." Yet Hughes immediately looked as though he thought he had not caught it, then said he was not sure (which Cook backed up). At no point did he claim the catch. The umpires referred it to the third umpire and Cook was then rightly given not out.

Did Botham accuse Strauss of cheating when he claimed Hughes in slips last year when the ball had clearly bounced? No. Did he accuse Bell of cheating when Bell obviously pulled a fast one? No. Did Botham say "He knows he hit it"? No:

Test batsmen stumble onto Hot Spot scam

VIDEO killed the confidence of umpire Aleem Dar and gave English batsman Ian Bell an undeserved century after baseless accusations of cheating against Phillip Hughes on a dramatic third day of the fifth Ashes Test.

Bell was on 67 when he nicked a Shane Watson delivery to wicketkeeper Brad Haddin. It was the loudest noise by a Bell since Big Ben struck midnight on New Years Eve. He belted it. Slogged it. Dar gave Bell out. The Englishman decided to ask for video adjudication.

Bell tried to con all concerned and to the detriment of the game, he succeeded.

Bell had conned Australia, conned Dar, conned the system.

Quite so. Botham's criticisms, as usual, are fatheaded partisan nonsense and should be ignored, just like his commentary.

A couple of English perspectives, one in the Sun and one in the Telegraph:

Ian Bell shrugs off boos to notch ton

IAN BELL sparked a furious cheat storm in the process.

Bell knows his terrific 115 will forever be tainted after the snickometer, which is not used in reviews because it takes too long to process the results, showed he clearly nicked behind when on 67.

Bell was rightly given out off the bowling of Shane Watson but made out as if he had not touched anything and ordered the decision to be reviewed.

Hotspot and TV pictures were totally inconclusive, forcing umpire Aleem Darr to weakly go back on his original call.

But there were gasps of horror soon after as the snicko showed Darr was totally and utterly correct as Bell clearly hit the ball.

It made a mockery of the whole review system, the use of technology and put into focus the affect it has on umpire and player integrity.

Ian Bell is no cheat

Ian Bell’s strokeplay could not save him from a round of boos as he finally departed for 115.

The boos were an emotional response from the Australian fans. Their complaint was that he had cheated by appealing to the TV umpire when he was given out caught behind for 67. Some critics went so far as to suggest that he had abused the system.

Yet it hardly seems fair to blame Bell for making the call. Surely it is up to the system to be abuse-proof?

When companies escape taxes through complex offshore accounting, do we blame them or the governments that allow them to get away with it? Business, like sport, is a competitive arena. You have to fight your corner, even if it means being ruthless, because you know the next bloke will push the system to the limit. England were convinced that Michael Clarke had got a thin edge in Brisbane, but nothing came up on Hotspot. So this one just evens things out.

The old Bell would probably have accepted his fate and walked straight off. Having said all of that, I don’t believe that the appeal should have been overturned by the DRS.

Comments

[Tony]

By the way.

Do we blame businesses? Well, yes. Do we blame governments? Well, yes.

What a stupid analogy.

[Tony]

And Michael Clarke was not given out in Adelaide. The umpire did not overturn his own decision.

[colin]

These umpires are paid professionals. The review system is there for the players and should not be available to the umpires to 2nd guess their own decisions. Pretty soon they wont make a decision, they will call for the 3rd umpire like we do with runouts. I'm not saying that runout referrals are wrong, because they are hard to judge when everything is happening so quickly. Umpires need to make a decision and stick by it. If a player challenges it, fair enough, but don't challenge your own decision!!

[Tony]

Colin, here is what happened in Perth in 2009 against the West Indies:

Bollinger to Roach, OUT, high drama! Australia have appealed for a caught behind and Roach has been given, he wants a review, it's so marginal, can't really tell if he nicked it or not, replays aren't conclusive and in such cases I think the on-field decision should stay, Roach fended at the ball off the back foot as it angled across him ... the Australians were extremely confident ... Hot Spot shows nothing much ... the wait is long and tense ... and he's been given ... fair call too since there was no evidence either way

Aleem Dar squibbed it.

[Lou]

"the use of technology ".

Bell won't be the last to review something like this. If the players think there is a chance of getting off, they will try it if they have reviews up their sleeves.

Shame that Aleem Dar squibbed it though. I would have thought he'd have enough faith in himself as he is a good umpire.

[Tony]

Martin Johnson appears reasonably even-handed, if, in my opinion, a little hard on Hughes/Clarke/Haddin, but the Sunday Times sub-editor has no doubt who is the villain:

Desperate times call for desperate Australian measures

Our columinist reminds Michael Clarke and friends that one-hand-one bounce belongs only in the playground as the Aussies spin out of control

Michael Clarke has been as short on ideas in this Test match as Ricky Ponting in Adelaide and Melbourne, but at least he hasn’t come up – not yet anyway – with one as hairbrained as Ponting’s over the thorny issue of low catches. “Take the fielder’s word for it” is Ricky’s idea of how to go, in which case he must live in a high rise apartment totally enveloped in cloud, with a colony of cuckoos for next door neighbours.

[The Don has Risen]

Actually tony the decision last season in Perth was the wrong one and the decision with Bell was the right one.

Once you bring technology as the adjudicator you have to stand by it.

It showed in both cases the bat had not touched the ball. the snickomoter only showed a noise not a snick!

[TKYC]

Our Donnie...
Do you give any value to the umpire on the deck that is closest to the action to back his judgement?

The current situation (Hotspot, but no Snicko) is an interesting one surely raises this dilemma...
* one umpire is positioned 200m from the bat, uses a technology (hottie) and doesn't detect an edge,
* another umpire is positioned 20m from the bat uses another technology (his ear) and hears the edge clearly enough to call the wicket.

Which one takes precedence?
In this case, with the absence of Snicko, the TV umpire did and it is argued to the detriment of the game.
There needs to be either consultation between umpires, or power given back to the central umpire, or to the speeding up of Snicko to match-day use.
What happened yesterday was a small blot on the game (I'm not sure about the Perth/Roach one) and it needs addressing.
The greater blot on the game is the whole lack of leadership re: technology and its use by the ICC.

[The Don has Risen]

No If I was the Umpire I wouldn't ask for the third umpire but when you do then you are making technology the final arbiter and if there is no hotspot then it must be not out.

in this instance there was no evidence to back the umpire.

Remember however Cook has has allowed to bat on more than one occasion we found out it was not out.

If one uses technology then ONLY let the Umpires use it.

I'm old fashioned I wouldn't use any technology. Part of cricket's great heritage is accepting the Umpire's decision even when he is wrong!

[TKYC]

Don...
I too am old school, so no argument on control back to the wicket and away from the stands.
Given the instance just past though, I think if there is no hotspot mark, then the TV umpire should ask the standing umpire "Are you sure you heard it?" If affirmative, then out. If unsure, then the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman.
I cant say if that happened or not, but if it did, and Dar replied he was unsure, then not out is correct.
But given that Dar did give the wicket, then you can assume he heard it. If that is the case, then we can also assume no consultation took place... which is a flaw in the system.

A lot of 'if's and 'assume's in there - something for CA or the match ref to follow-up on (and perhaps rouse the ICC from their slumber).

[Tony]

It really gets up my goat the way the Herald Sun changes its stories. Someone there completely altered the "Test batsmen stumble onto Hot Spot scam" article above. Fortunately, internet footprints are hard to erase.

The heading remains:

[Tony]

The URL is still there.

[Tony]

And through the magic of syndication, the article is still at the Adelaide Advertiser, largely unchanged:

[Tony]

Imagine the reaction in the English press if Hughes really did claim the catch.

The Poms are going "Hughes is a cheat" crazy, while at the same time doing their very best to play down Bell's naughtiness.

Matters of gamesmanship, etc always bring out the nationalistic worst of fans.

The Poms have been paying far too much attention to that imbecile Botham.

[The Don has Risen]

please note if it was the biggest noise since Big Ben it would have been on hot spot.

No hot spot and TV replay not showing any edge then the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman.

Snicko only gives evidence of a noise not a snick.

If a batsman challenges there must be evidence of the dismissal.

There wasn't.

Skull on the radio made sense of Botham.
He regards the appealing for a catch when it hits the ground the lowest of the low. He almost came to fisticuffs with a paki keeper about it.

[Tony]

Bell End... sorry, edge:

[Big Ramifications]

Why didn't an edge [loud enough for ground mics to pick up] show up on hotspot? How is that physically possible?

I rechecked the article to see if the hotspot was obscured somehow. Nope. It simply didn't show up.

[Big Ramifications]

Oh, and where was the scam? As far as I can tell Bell "took on" hotspot in a referral. That's not a scam, for fuck's sake.

I was expecting to read about a player who figured out how to fool hotspot. THAT'S a scam.

[theoldbatsman]

Rub a little Vaseline on the edges of the bat - that's the story anyway... hotspot don't like it...

[Tony]

I like it. True or not, I'm going to spread it. The rumour, that is, not the Vaseline.

Speaking of Vaseline, and spreading it. Years ago I played cricket with a bloke who was not too sharp. One day he was complaining that his windscreen wipers were not wiping smoothly across his windscreen. I told him he ought to rub Vaseline on the wiper blade so it wiped smoother. He thought that sounded like a good idea and said he'd give it a lash. Couple of days later he told me the blade wiped smoother, but the Vass left a smear on the glass. He then gave me a long explanation of all the ideas he had for making Vass work better on the wiper blade without ever realising that no Vass on the wiper blade would work best, or that I was having a lend of him.

Who knows. Maybe he was a genius and has since made a fortune out of wiper blade lubricant, but I doubt it.

[theoldbatsman]

Did he ever get done by a speedcam? Arf.

[Professor Rosseforp]

There is a popular female fiction writer in Russia called Vaselina Orlova.

[Big Ramifications]

I once told a Japanese guy to rub Deep Heat on his auld fella.

[Professor Rosseforp]

So THAT's how the Tokyo Shock Boys started out!

[Big Ramifications]

Rub a little Vaseline on the edges of the bat - that's the story anyway... hotspot don't like it...

Thanks for the heads-up, cheers. Wouldn't it be nice for the actual article barking "SCAM!" to explain what that scam was?

Nothing shits me more. The good old HEADLINE TURNS OUT TO BE THE FALSE VERSION or HEADLINE NOT ELABORATED ON ANY FURTHER. They're everywhere.

[Big Ramifications]

Nah I made that up just then. Like how I made him Japanese? That just takes it to the next level.

[Tony]

Most headlines are written by subbies, not the bloke who wrote the article. And many subbies have no knowledge about the sublect matter of the department they are subbing in. For instance, someone who knows about art will be subbing in the sports department. And that when the subbie is even employed by the paper, not just on short term contract.

[Russ]

Don, your earlier premise is wrong. The umpiring is being done by technology only insofar as it clearly demonstrates that the umpire's original call was mistaken. Lack of a hot-spot - a thoroughly unreliable technology - cannot prove a ball wasn't hit, only a clear gap between the bat and ball would suffice for that. There is not, and never has been, a "benefit of the doubt" for a batsman, as you well know. According to the stated ICC aim for use of the UDRS, Dar should have stuck with the original call.

[Big Ramifications]

a thoroughly unreliable technology

Come again? You suggesting it sometimes doesn't work?! Or are you saying it's "unreliable" in the extremely rare instances where hot spot might be obscured from camera?

[Tony]

Ixnay on the pickaynitting, Sizzle.

Unreliable in that it doesn't always show what happened; whether that be through obscuring the ball, the spot not being hot enough, anything that fails to show conclusively whether or not the ball hit the bat.

[Big Ramifications]

the spot not being hot enough

Dogs' balls. This is 3rd gen military technology. I'd be gobsmacked if snicko showed up something that hot spot didn't couldn't. Vaseline and all the hot spot-beating rumours aside.

This is only my opinion, of course. I've studied university level physics, HEAT was one of my better sub subjects [M * specific heat constant * "delta" T - does that make you horny or what?].

Happy to be proven wrong. Maybe Professor Bruce Elliot has the rub?!

[Tony]

Hey, man, don't go all science on my ass. All I am saying is that Hotty doesn't always clearly show a snick.

[Big Ramifications]

Why is it impossible to get in an argument with you? Except for "Murali doesn't chuck."

You're a good man, Tones.

[Big Rammer's mum]

Get a room, you two!

[David Barry]

I'd be gobsmacked if snicko showed up something that hot spot didn't couldn't.
This really isn't a theoretical question, and study of physics has nothing to do with it. Empirically, we know that there have been edges heard by the players and admitted by the batsman, which Hotspot failed to show. This started to happen very soon after Hotspot and the referral system were introduced.

[Big Ramifications]

Citations needed. Then I want to know if the technology FAILED, or if the hotspot was obscured. Smacking of my gob to follow.

Take a number.

[David Barry]

The earliest case I know of was Ponting's dismissal, described here:

Interestingly, the Hot Spot didn't show anything on that Ponting dismissal.

The referral system was in use for that Test, but Ponting didn't refer the decision, so he clearly thought he edged it.

This has happened often since then, so I haven't bothered to make a note of every case.

[Big Ramifications]

Hmmm, curiouser and curiouser.

Dave, just a minor point and not wanting to stir sh*t, how could this not be physics? It's 100% physics. Unless this is a misunderstanding due to semantics.

The study of physics is mechanics, light, mirrors, magnetism, electrostatics, heat, that other type of electricity where it's moving and not static but I've forgotten what the study is called, E=MC2, quantum mechanics, the full box and dice..

I guess a lot of people would assume physics = mechanics?

[David Barry]

I said that the study of physics has nothing to do with this. We know what the central fact is - sometimes Hotspot doesn't pick up fine edges that the players and umpire can hear. We know this because we observe it, and it doesn't matter how much any of us has studied physics.

Thermodynamics doesn't need to come into this discussion at all. Obviously physics underlies everything, but it's really quite irrelevant here. If someone goes away and develops a great computer model showing that sometimes Hotspot doesn't pick up fine edges, that's great, but we already know that. And if they theorise that the spot should always show, then they are wrong.

[Big Ramifications]

Good, so you agree that we're arguing about semantics and physics has everything to do with it.

Moving along. How do we "already know that" hotspot doesn't pick up edges? There's this thread, and a link you provided where something is DESCRIBED. Sorry, sizzlechest, but that doesn't cut it. I've seen Murali described as a non chucker.

Doubting Thomas. I want to put my fingers thru Jesus' wounds before I believe.

[Really trying to tip-toe thru this and not start a flame war, Dave... I'm not for a moment suggesting "SUPPLY ME WITH EVIDENCE!" Jesus, I hate when people do that. I'm saying my opinion stands because no one has given me enough to change my mind.]

[Professor Rosseforp]

Just thinking about sports subbies assigned to artsie articles.
Any suggestions for possible headlines?
I'll start with 2 weak ones that a GOOD subbie could work with: "It's the Blues. Period." -- Picasso.
or, "Light appeal upheld" --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malevich.black-square.jpg

[Tony]

Weeping 'man:

Hughes 'shocked' by Botham cheat claims

Phillip Hughes, Australia's opening batsman, said he was "hit pretty hard" by Ian Botham's claim that he was cheating for appealing for a catch during the SCG Ashes Test. Hughes was fielding at short-leg when he took the ball off Alastair Cook and quickly expressed his uncertainty over whether the ball had carried - replays showed it hadn't.

But by then Botham, commentating on Sky Sports, had said: "Terrible. Cheating. How much do you want it to bounce into your hands? He knows he hasn't caught it."

"If you saw the replay you could see I wasn't sure, and I even said to Alastair Cook I wasn't sure. People will look back on the incident and know I wasn't sure. I was a bit shocked by the comments. It doesn't matter when people say your technique isn't great, but when you're called a cheat, it hits you pretty hard."