Print

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

[keep-it-cool]

A twist to the MSD-Lara stand off:

Simon Taufel was on air just now shedding some light on the matter. Apparently, as per the playing conditions, the decision was REFERRED to the third umpire (Billy Doctrove) .. IT WAS NOT A CONSULTATION. As such, THE JURISDICTION TO TAKE A DECISION RESTED SOLELY WITH THE THIRD UMPIRE. Which is the reason why when Doctrove was unable to take a call, there was very little the on field umpires could do other than try to work out a compromise between the two players.

SIMON TAUFEL WAS CATEGORICAL IN STATING THAT BILLY DOCTROVE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CALL ... AND LIKE IN MOST CASES OF DOUBT, THE DECISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN FAVOUR OF THE BATSMAN!!

[keep-it-cool]

Ump Simon Taufel talks to Dean Jones on Ten Sports

Explaining the Dhoni decision.............
It was round about 5.00 pm things were all going smoothly up until then. We then had a boundary catch from Dhoni there was an element of doubt that the bowlers and the Umpires had as to whether the fielder concerned had actually touched the boundary rope in completing the catch and you know under the playing conditions we are able to refer boundary decisions to the third Umpire and have TV provide him with pictures to be able to get him to make a decision on if he did or did not touch the rope taking the catch. I think the batsman also had some doubts before he was happy to move off. The process is that once the referral was made to the third Umpire, the Third Ump has to use the TV provided pictures to be able to make a decision.
It’s not a consultation process. It’s a referral.
It’s the same as a run out, a hit wicket or a stumping or any thing like that. The 3rd Ump has to use the resources available to him that TV provides to be able to make that decision. Some times TV provides some great pictures to do that some times TV is inconclusive in respect to those types of things. It’s exactly the same process. But once that referral goes to the third Umpire it’s his jurisdiction to make that decision. Unfortunately in this case the third Umpire was under a lot of pressure because he didn’t have I am told enough evidence to say something one way or the other. So he sort of had a moral and a technical dilemma. I really sympathize with him because I have been in that position where you are trying to make a judgment on a dismissal or a boundary catch as to if the batsman stays or goes and if technology doesn’t provide the evidence conclusively then in all the cases I mentioned above the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman in which case the status quo remains and we get on and play the game.
But I think in this case the 3rd Ump just couldn’t make a decision and felt it wasn’t right to make a decision. Under such a situation there is no way that the on field umpire can make a decision.  So we then tried to work with what we had talked to the fielder concerned and asked if he was happy enough that he didn’t touch the ropes and if the 2 players could sort it out and we could allow the game to flow. Initially that proved unsuccessful but eventually the two players were able to reach an agreement and the batsman was and the batsman was dismissed and the game moved on.
So it’s important that as officials we follow the laws and playing conditions as written, so that there is a degree of consistency in their application and people understand that those rules will be followed no matter what. And that’s the difficult part of what we do sometimes when we rely on technology to provide some of the assistance it just doesn’t happen. So that’s what we were left with.
On if the laws can be rewritten to make things easier…….
Under the 1980 code before the 2000 code came out we just had boundary lines and boundary fences, now we got boundary lines all the way round and we are talking about the inside edge. When you got a boundary that’s 60-80 yards away and a decision like that to be made its very difficult for the on field umpire to ascertain whether or not the boundary has been scored. So that’s why the administrators made sure such types of decisions can be reviewed.
The law is that the fielder has to have complete control over his movement and the ball before the act of the catch is complete. Once the act of the catch is complete doesn’t matter what happens after that so in this particular case the issue was yes he had complete control over the ball but did he have complete control over his movement in other words did he touch the rope? It becomes a subjective issue like and lbw did the ball hit the stumps, its just one of the quirks of the sport and it’s in the umpires opinion and judgment. People will continue to debate those judgments long after you and I go
On if it will be a quite day today…….
Well I’m not expecting a quite day today at all, I think it will be another tough day of Test cricket and it is good for the sport but I’m looking forward for the challenge and yea, hopefully we don’t have any more boundary decisions.

Above was posted by VMenon on a separate thread ... this is the transcript of the actual interview given by the man (Taufel) himself ..

Adding it here since it relates to the above post.