3rd ODI: West Indies v South Africa

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Pete

Swings and roundabouts I guess. The opposite happened in the first ODI. Pollock chased the ball and threw it back, obvious to everyone that his foot didn't touch the rope, but the third umpire gave the West Indies 4 runs instead of 3.

Big difference Pete.

In the case of the 4 runs given and not 3, the decision was made by the 3rd umpire after he reviewed it on tape.

He made an incorrect decision then confirmed by the onfield umpire.

Yesterday, the 3rd umpire made his decision (it was 4 not 2) and tried to contact the onfield umpire by radio who IGNORED or DID NOT HEAR him. I do believe the radios vibrate too. The commentators even mentioned this.

In every other case where a ball is fielded near the boundary, the 3rd umpire's judgement (right or wrong) is accepted except that one.

So in the case of the 3 given as 4, the game was officiated correctly with a bad judgement.

Yesterday, a good judgement was made that did not enter the record of the game i.e. poor officiating.

So there is a difference.

For example, I am not upset with Hair for not giving kallis out. Though he's made many a poor decision against WI (the likes of which everyone dumps on Bucknor for) I believe he was maybe not sure so gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm upset he did not walk as a true great would.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Yesterday, the 3rd umpire made his decision (it was 4 not 2) and tried to contact the onfield umpire by radio who IGNORED or DID NOT HEAR him. I do believe the radios vibrate too. The commentators even mentioned this.

In every other case where a ball is fielded near the boundary, the 3rd umpire's judgement (right or wrong) is accepted except that one.

I thought the third umpire had to be consulted by the field umpires before he could have a say? (That is, he can assist in a decision if asked, but can't make one unless the field umpires ask him to.) Has something changed in the regulations in this regard? (Don't spend time if you don't know: I can have a look for myself this afternoon.)

[Teatime FatCat]

Ninj,

I'm inclined to be really annoyed with the last 3 Windies batters (and I'm not even West Indian!), it was just so crap and so unprofessional - I was actually shouting at the telly.

Just a thought though, what did you think of Lara's and Chanderpaul's dismissals. Lara's I think was a result of trying to get the run rate down but he had just hit 8 off the over. But Shiv's I think was not cool. The Windies had just had some big overs and although the pressure was on, Gayle was batting real well. It was a manufactured shot, and not necessary at that point.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I thought the third umpire had to be consulted by the field umpires before he could have a say? (That is, he can assist in a decision if asked, but can't make one unless the field umpires ask him to.) Has something changed in the regulations in this regard? (Don't spend time if you don't know: I can have a look for myself this afternoon.)

Either way, that proves my point. In nearly every other decision near the ropes like that, the 3rd ump is brought in. On this, he wasn't.

Poor officiating.

And since, as Mike Haysman said, the 3rd umpire was trying to contact the onfield umpire, the least he could do was take the call.

[Occasional Fan]

I just looked up the relevant regulation and indeed in the case of boundary decisions the third umpire is entitled to initiate contact with the field umpires by two-way radio. It is not clear that he is entitled to tell them that they have got it wrong, but it would be a brave or foolish field umpire who would ignore his third umpire, especially given that the third umpire can see exactly what millions of TV viewers can see. I guess, therefore, that Hair and Nicholls just didn't hear the third umpire yesterday. It's tough luck on the West Indies, that's for sure. I suppose their captain can refer to the matter in his report to the match referee, but the decision stands - the regulations are clear enough on that.

[Zainub]

Some food for thought, ICC has just announced their panel of elite (sp?) umpires, no changes. Malcolm Speed has said these guys have consistently got 94% of their decisions correctly.

Having not seen this game, I'd put forward the question to those who have, with respect to this match in isolation, do you think Hair and Nicholas got 94% of their decisions correctly? If no, how many per cent did they get right, in your opinion that is?