Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[dextrous]

...rules, which it doesn't usually follow anyway...come to life

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.


Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, said the board would continue to pursue the matter: "We have grave concerns about how this process was implemented and I will be addressing the issue at the highest levels within ICC during this match.

"The technology wasn't applied as it was meant to be in the pre-series discussions. We were told the volume would be turned up for reviews. Consequently we lost a referral and our other play is impacted by having one less. I think it's thoroughly unsatisfactory and I'm not happy."

England were the only country to vote against the UDRS and Clarke remains especially angry that the same levels of technology, specifically Hotspot, aren't applied globally. "My concern is that this system has to be applied correctly and with the right technology for there to be a worthwhile exercise in attacking the oldest principle of the game that the umpires' decision is final," he said.

"Until the technology is applied correctly we are better off with our oldest method. If the umpire is as deaf as a post and as blind as a bat at least it's the same for both sides. "

Hugh Morris, the managing director of England cricket, wrote to Roshan Mahanama, the ICC match referee in charge of this series, after the second day's play and expressed England's concerns over the review system.

"The ECB has sought further clarification from ICC that there is nothing in the regulations to prevent the ICC chief executive and/or match referee from re-instating the referral to correct the gross error in process," the statement said. "The ECB would like to make clear that the England team management had registered concerns regarding the absence of hotspot for use in the DRS system at a pre-series meeting attended by ICC officials and the match referee.

"The England team management were advised that the protocol for this series would be that the sound on the stump microphone would be turned up on decision review to check for disputed catches.

"In ECB and the England team management's view, the agreed protocol was not implemented and the sound was not turned up on review. As a result a TV replay which indicated that bat had made contact with ball was heard by millions of television viewers but not by the match control team."

The ICC said they would launch a "full and comprehensive investigation" into the incident with Haroon Lorgat adding that the review system was still in a development stagfe. "There is a large amount of controversy, speculation and potentially unfair criticism circulating at present so it is important to establish the exact facts before reaching any final conclusions," he said.

"This is early days for the DRS and so far we are pleased with its effectiveness and the value it can add to the game in support of umpires. However, we have always acknowledged there is room for further improvement in the available technology and this investigation will be conducted in that light so the system becomes even more reliable."

Earlier in the day the ICC came out in defence of Harper saying all the correct protocols had been followed in coming to the decision, and also questioned Andy Flower's version of events after the England coach said he'd been told Harper had forgotten to turn up the volume.

The third day included further controversy for Harper when he overturned a decision against AB de Villiers after Tony Hill had given him out caught at leg slip sweeping at Graeme Swann. The ICC playing conditions state that the third umpire must have "a high degree of confidence" to change an on-field call, but replays didn't appear to confirm one way or the other so, by the ICC's own wording, Hill's decision should have stood.

To make England even more agitated they then used up their final review with an appeal against Mark Boucher. He had been not out lbw and the Hawkeye replays confirmed it should remain an on-field call with the graphics showing the point of impact being marginal. Then, however, moments before lunch, de Villiers got an inside edge off Ryan Sidebottom that was given not out, but England had no reviews left to challenge the call.

[kban1]

Englishmen behaving badly

January 16, 2010

Posted by Andrew Hughes
 
It is hard to like the England cricket team, and not a man given to hard work, I have decided to take the easier alternative. I do have something of a headstart. Towards Swanny, Belly, Trotty, Cooky and the rest of them, their Twittering, their self-congratulation, their screaming like excited chimpanzees when one of their number catches a ball or ties his shoelace, I was already entirely indifferent. And recent events have provided plenty of fertiliser for the healthy antipathy I am cultivating towards the gentlemen who wear embroidered lions over their left nipple.
Take the upcoming tour of Bangladesh. A good opportunity to get some experience of Asian conditions? A chance to support the newest Test nation and give their supporters something to cheer about? Nope. It wasn’t so long ago, Mr Strauss that you were out in the wilderness of the shires, contemplating the futility of existence as you toiled away in front of two men and a dog. A handful of Test wins later and you’re suddenly too showbiz to go to Bangladesh. You need a rest. From what, exactly?

And there was something else I was going to talk about. Now what was it? It’s on the tip of my tongue ... Ah yes, I remember. Ball-tampering! I’m sorry, was that me? I don’t know what came over me. I sometimes have these explosive outbursts, usually involving highly inappropriate and profane language. Most unfortunate, particularly when it relates to something so seedy, so disreputable and so utterly un-British as the aforementioned interference with spherical objects. Ball- tampering! There I go again. Excuse me.


Still, I’m not the only one who’s said it. Some people were saying it on the television. Some ex-players, who really should know better, wrote it in newspapers. What was Michael Vaughan thinking? Children might have been reading! AB de Villiers said it at a press conference, but then he is South African and can be relied upon to completely misjudge the public mood. In fact, he used the phrase, “a little bit naughty”, which sounds delightfully camp when uttered in an Afrikaans accent (go on, try it).

Thank goodness then, for Wing Commander Strauss and the long hours he has put in with the Indignity Coach and the Chutzpah Co-ordinator. Just hours after his chaps had been caught live on television variously tenderising the ball with a boot or picking at it with a specially attached graphite fingernail, he managed not just to refute or deny it, he gave a sound tongue-lashing to those reprobates who had dared to offer the merest hint of a suggestion that an Englishman might have even contemplated contravening Law 42.3 or any of its sacred sub-paragraphs.

And backing him up in one of the tabloids was David Lloyd, employing a clever analogy to explain to us non-cricket folk why we hadn’t seen what we thought we’d seen. It went something like this:

Imagine Jimmy Anderson is a driver. Stay with it, it’s worth it, I promise. Now, imagine that Law 42.3 is a 30mph zone. Jimmy, in tearing at the ball with his fingernail, was merely doing the equivalent of 35mph in that zone. See what he’s saying? Jimmy was breaking the law, but only a little bit. Conclusive, I think you’ll agree. Although it does beg the question as to what 90mph might represent in this analogy? Presumably, destroying the ball with an acetylene torch and sprinkling the ashes onto Daryl Harper’s shoes?

You might think, then, that having scraped through that little difficulty, the England chaps might be keeping a lower profile. But not a bit of it. On Thursday they threw a team tantrum on the dressing-room balcony when Alastair Cook was dismissed. Then on Friday, another decision went against them and all of the England toys (officially merchandised rattles and dummies are currently available from all good retailers) flew out of the England pram. They made an official complaint. Against whom, for what reason and with what aim, it is not clear. But be in no doubt that it was a complaint and that it was good and official too, no doubt written in his bestest handwriting by the England coach. As you read this, Andy Flower is still sitting outside the match referee’s office, holding his breath in protest.

Fortunately, there are some former cricketers upholding the dignity of old Blighty. On Thursday afternoon, the day’s play had drawn to a soggy halt. In the Sky studio, David Gower, attempting to spark a little time-filling conversation, revealed that at dinner the previous evening he had been discussing with friends the prospects of any of the English players getting into a combined team. With undue optimism, he threw the subject open to his compadre from Lancashire.

“I haven’t given it any thought,” replied Athers, “It’s not the kind of thing I talk about at dinner.”

Ouch! This was the precisely the kind of deadpan comeback with which Atherton made such a fool of Allan Donald at Trent Bridge back in 1998. I remember it as if it were yesterday. Donald sweated and swore and ranted, but he just made himself look silly. I remember thinking at the time: get on with it, Mr Donald, show a stiff upper lip man. Don’t make such a scene. Yes, the ball bounced off the batsman’s glove and was caught. What do you want to do? Make an official complaint?

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/thelonghandle/2010/01/englishmen_behaving_badly.php