TUCK'S SAKE!

Rod Tucker must have not seen or heard about or read about or known about Billy Bowden wrongly giving Mike Kasprowicz out caught behind at Edgbaston in 2005 despite Kaspers having his hand off the bat. Or, maybe he did and he was just thick when he gave Fat Jaques and AP out via hands-free strangling:

the most inexplicable umpiring decision of the summer; Steven Finn's dismissal of Jacques Kallis.

Kallis had made 3 when Finn's appeal for a catch down the leg side was turned down by umpire Kumar Dharmasena. England referred and their suspicions that the ball had flicked the glove were upheld. But Rod Tucker, the third umpire, overlooked the fact that Kallis' bottom hand had been withdrawn from the bat when the ball made contact with his glove.

The fault was not with DRS, which seemed to give Tucker all the evidence he needed to uphold Dharmasena's not-out decision, but with what seemed to be a defective conclusion based on the clear evidence available. There was no cause to override Dharmasena's decision. To interpret this as proof of technology's inadequacies is a wilful misinterpretation.

South Africa's frustrations over Kallis' dismissal were deepened by the fact that Alviro Petersen had fallen in similar fashion in Finn's previous over. Again the ball strayed down the leg side, again Finn had the good fortune to brush the glove, but again the bottom hand had been withdrawn from the bat by the time contact was made. The only difference on this occasion was that Petersen did not have the presence of mind to review the decision - an oversight he recognised as he saw the big-screen replay as he left the field.

Comments

[m0nty]

Filthy Finn is a bit of a serial legside strangler.

[Tony]

As the Rolling Stones were wont to sing: "Did you hear about the Legside Strangler? The one that shut the kitchen door."

[Tony]

By the way. "Kasprowicz, caught Hack Jones, bowled Grievous Bodily Harmison" is only one of the most famous (non)dismissals of the 21st century. But only only.

[The Don has Risen]

Gentlemen I bought the DVD's of that series, for my boys to enjoy which they do very much, and Kasper is out.

[Tony]

Donster, what's your read on the hand-off-the-bat ruling?

[Tony]

I don't know if this is 100% conclusive, or whether there is another rule which over-rides it, but:

Law 6/8. Contact with the ball

In these Laws,
(a) reference to the bat shall imply that the bat is held in the batsman’s hand or a glove worn on his hand, unless stated otherwise.
(b) contact between the ball and
either (i) the bat itself
or (ii) the batsman’s hand holding the bat
or (iii) any part of a glove worn on the batsman’s hand holding the bat
or (iv) any additional materials permitted under 3, 5 or 6 above
shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being struck by the bat.

[Tony]

I cannot find anywhere in the laws which specifically says something like "you did not hit it if your hand is off the bat."

[The Don has Risen]

If the hand is off the bat then it is not out.

I do not believe anyone watching that can say it was off the bat.

I am not convinced it is and believe me I have watched it oodles of times.

Put yourself in the Umpires shoes and without a replay. No-one thought to dispute it and on the night after the decsion was made no-one did as I watched the match live on SBS.

[Tony]

Me the next day:

The Dismissal

Still, I would have given Kaspro out, too - that's even after seeing the replay. And to be fair to Billy Bowden, he would have found it virtually impossible to give it not out. No, this is not intended as a whinge. Kaspro could have been given out El-Bee several overs earlier and these things tend to even out.

[Lou]

But Don, it was an English referral. So thethird ump couldn't have had enough evidence to overturn it. The third ump is not there to make a decision about the event, but to review the onfield umps decision. Isn't he?

[The Don has Risen]

Lou , can't comment on the present test as I haven't seen it.

I would ban all referrrals.

[Carrot]

It was pretty much a howler, and made worse by the fact that it was an over-rule. For the 3rd umpire to over-rule the not out decision there has to be COMPREHENSIVE evidence that it should be given out, and if anything it looked like there was pretty comprehensive evidence that it should have been given not out. Awful.

I'm still with Dave Barry though - he said on here awhile ago that he liked DRS because for the most part it took away all the bitching about umpiring. This sort of situation is very much the exception.

[Lou]

I see, Don, I thought you were referring to the Kallis one but you meant the Kasper. I agree about that. Looked out and still does.

[Soups]

Slightly OT: But England are playing a day/night test match. The four shadows are clearly visible from each player. It's as dark in London as it's in Perth! And now they're coming off for rain...not light! And it's still 30 degrees. What a strange day.

[lou]

It came over very fast and then bang! The Saffers did very well after the rain to get to the score they did as the pitch got a scattering of moisture and the air was heavy.

[Jack]

Not got a massive amount of faith in Tucker and never have..

Someone made the point about 3rd officials over turning decisions, there seems to be a lot of decisions made where the 3rd umpire just makes the decision himself, rather than advising the on field umpire to over turn a howler.

Still needs some tweaking, don't see why a side needs two referrals either. One is enough.