AGB Cricket

ACRONYMRODS

ICC, PCT, DRS, AHE, "an honest error":

ICC admit error in Kallis dismissal

The ICC has admitted its Playing Control Team (PCT) made "an honest error" while applying the DRS to the Jacques Kallis review on the second day of the Newlands Test and that the batsman was erroneously given out.

The ICC needs a table which lists its umpires' DRS controversies.

THE IGNOBLE ART OF SELF INTEREST

Paul Keating and Ian Chappell are right: "Always bet on self-interest because you know it's a goer." That is why top order batsmen will continue to burn reviews; a point Dino Scungio appears to have overlooked with his convoluted review scheme:

What they should do is give each team a set number of reviews at the start of a Test series, say a total of six reviews each over three Tests. If a team uses one in the first innings of the first Test and two in the second innings – and they are unsuccessful – they would have three reviews left for the final two Tests

Mind you, it did seem as if it was a bit of a pisstake, and if it was not a pisstake, then The Sunday Age must be desperate for copy.

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 But Rod Tucker, the third umpire, overlooked the fact that Kallis' bottom hand had been withdrawn from the bat when the ball made contact with his glove.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.

ADJUDICATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE

The DRS in Bangladesh is not for the faint-hearted (he says, while manfully resisting the urge to use "The Umpire Strikes Back") and would necessitate colourful graphics on the big screen:

Umpire kills Bangladeshi cricket fan with bat

A CRICKET umpire killed a teenage spectator in Bangladesh by hitting him on the head with a bat in a dispute over a contested decision.

"The two argued over a not-out decision by the umpire. He accused the umpire of bias. At one stage, the umpire became angry, took a bat and hit the young boy on the head," Hossain said.

The umpire was being sought for questioning but had gone into hiding, he said.

Thanks, Biggy Baby.

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.

UMPIRE DRINKING REVIEW SYSTEM

ICC reject Australian umpire Steve Davis drink claim

WORLD cricket bosses have denied a report that Australian umpire Steve Davis was seen drunk in Durban.

"It's all nonsense."

UNIFORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION

Theoretically, if the UDRS functions properly everyone should use it, right?

Smith calls for uniformity in UDRS

Graeme Smith, the South Africa captain, has once again called for the ICC to establish uniformity in the use of the UDRS. "The ICC needs to take responsibility for that," he said after South Africa's loss in the second Test against India in Durban. "They can't leave it up to boards to negotiate. They must lead the way."

India refuse to use the UDRS because they think it is flawed. Skeptics suggest India does not use the UDRS because they ballsed up its application in Sri Lanka and spat the dummy. The question is: how long will India refuse to use it?

Next summer India (and TLM) comes to Australia where the players, umpires and fans have become accustomed to the third umpire's decision making process. Can you imagine the rumpus if the UDRS is not used and there is a series of howlers which would have been cleared by televisual intervention? Will Channel Nine (who basically runs Australian cricket) blithely accept they won't be able to augment their telecast with the UDRS process? The fans in the stadiums are used to decisions arriving via the big screen; you think they will accept a return to Wild Dog Sydney? Cricket Australia will not bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of the BCCI... ok, just kidding. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the UDRS is used in Australia next summer.

KNOW BALL!

Somewhere, buried deep within the bowels of the AGB's Test match posts, there are comments about intentional no balls and wides - collectively "know balls" because you know you're bowling one - and wickets taken with the seventh ball of overs. Good luck finding them.

Anyone bowling the last over of a match who wants to spook the last batsman with the prospect of an extra ball should bowl a huge wide instead of a no ball to avoid the chance the batsman might "get out" off the no ball. Few things deflate the fielding side more than a no ball "wicket" and getting one, or not getting one, when they are desperately trying to dislodge the last pair in a tight Test match would be particularly aggravating. Nor would the viewing public forget about it any time soon. Not that a huge no ball delivered from a couple of metres over the line wouldn't scare the hell out of a batsman. Maybe I'd bowl one last ball, kind of like when NFL coaches call time-outs to "ice" the kicker just as he is about to attempt a game winner. And then there's the aborted run-up.

Anyway, Mike Selvey:

Simple tweaks to stop bad judgment shocking the decision review system

One other thing struck me early on in the series, although this would require a change in the laws of the game. During the tense final part of the first Test at Centurion, Graham Onions was charged with facing the penultimate over of the game, from Morne Morkel. Cricinfo's description of the first ball is thus: "94.1: Morkel to Onions, 1 no ball, no ball again. Onions rises with good length ball and defends."

So far, so good. But this meant that despite him transgressing, and Onions playing a perfectly respectable shot, Morkel had six more goes at getting a wicket rather than five, which seems unfair. The extra run was irrelevant. Had Onions or Paul Collingwood, who faced the final deliveries of the over, been dismissed from the seventh ball, it would have been a travesty.

So I propose that following the umpires' call of no ball, and any ensuing play, the batsman should have the chance to decide whether he accepts the no ball, with its extra run, (and perhaps avoids losing his wicket as a result) or turns it down, forfeiting the run but also precluding the extra ball. A bit like playing advantage in rugby.

Andy Flower, for one, thought the idea had merit, as did Mike Procter, the great South African all-rounder with whom I had dinner last week. Procter looked at me benevolently. "Selve," he said, "I often used to go through the crease to tailenders and bounce them a couple of times to soften them up, knowing I still had six to get them out."

REVIEW TO A KILL

The Poms aren't happy.

Although, when I read on the ball-by-ball that England wanted their review back, I thought the Crooky boys were taking the piss:

ECB ask for reinstatement of lost review

The ECB has asked the ICC to reinstate the review that was used up for the controversial appeal against Graeme Smith on the second day at the Wanderers. Daryl Harper, the TV umpire, upheld the on-field decision of 'not out' made by Tony Hill, but England were furious when it emerged he hadn't had the volume turned up to hear the nick.

Is it possible to spit the dummy and suck sour grapes at the same time?

BENSON & SLEDGES

Have the ICC ever cited Daryl Hair's health as an excuse... sorry, reason for the way they dealt with any of Hair's controversies? They certainly used it as a get-out when Ross Emerson called Murali in Adelaide. Now it appears Mark Benson has a convenient heart problem:

Umpire Mark Benson walks out on Australia v West Indies in Adelaide

Mark Benson, one of England's best known umpires, is expected to confirm that he has resigned from international cricket after walking out on the second Test between Australia and the West Indies in Adelaide.

Benson, 51, is suffering from ill health, according to the International Cricket Council. But it is understood he was upset after a number of his decisions were challenged under the controversial new referral system on the first day of the Test. His place was taken by the Pakistani official Asad Rauf.

"How's your heart, Mark? Really, that bad. That's a relief."

Is nineteen months long enough to constitute an "Indian fans have long memories" call?

The Ghosts of Sydney 2008 are finally laid to rest

the BB-queing India suffered at Sydney between Jan 02 to Jan 08 of 2008

Anil Kumble, one of the fiercest gentleman warriors the world of cricket has seen, said to Harsha "Dignity was not enough, Harsha", after India was skewered

that spitting image of churlish Ricky Punter almost browbeating the umpires to raise their fingers or hold them as per his whim.

where the Australian team looked less like cricketers and more like an escaped chain gang who had taken over the nearest town and were forcing manipulations against those who were standing up to them.

Bucknor retired, without a shred of remorse. He had the opportunity to make amends and cricket would have been richer in integrity there and then if he had at least felt sorry for his misdeeds. Instead he chose to make some politico statements which nobody but a few West Indians bit into. But never mind...

The other white coated angel of cricket's death, Mark Benson, is meeting his comeuppance in the same nation where his darkest deeds have been recorded by cameras for ever.

that's how it happens to mediocre men who make blatant mistakes. I did not see him "rant" upon himself for his misdeeds at Sydney! Did you? Not an effing word about it from him till now! he expects sympathy?

Escaped chain gang? Au contraire. The correct term is "wild dogs". And don't forget "Only one side is playing cricket out there."

REFER MADNESS

REFER MADNESS

Here's the tip: during the first session of the first Ashes Test from Englan... Wales, someone will cop a howler and the commentators will burst into mass blurt: "They should have stuck with the referral system."

Umpires OK with referral system

The referral system — where players appeal by making a T-sign with their arms — is on trial in [the Windies] and its function will determine whether the review system is adopted permanently.

The England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Giles Clarke has already indicated, however, that he does not want it used for the Ashes.

Clarke has argued that the review system undermines the authority of the on-field officials, a claim supported by former Australian coach John Buchanan but rejected by umpires Daryl Harper of Australia and South Africa's Rudi Koertzen, who are officiating in the West Indies.

That said, the referral system, as it stands, is pants. Players appealing for decisions to be reviewed is ridiculous. Get them out of the frame and have the umpires refer any close call straight to the TV umpire.