Ashes 2009

[bennymacca]

It is against the current laws, apparently, for the players to ask for it to be referred, which Ponting did - there's also a case for him to be fined/reprimanded for doing so.

yes, at the moment it is.

in october they will bring in the challenge system that has been used in the recent WI/england series (and a couple of others i think)

[Scotty]

But as I said - the umpires are compelled to refer any catches if they have any doubt about the carry.

They simply didn't believe Hughes' edge didn't carry. Hence the non-referral, unlike the Hauritz catch appeal, where neither umpire were 100% convinced the ball had carried.

The other point raised was the change in the interpretations of what the 3rd umpire can actually pass back to the field umpire - in the case of Ponting in the first innings, where the replay the 3rd umpire saw clearly showed the ball had missed the bat, he should have relayed back to the field that that it should be given not out. But he didn't - and Ponting was on his way.

[David]

Reasonably sure all they can refer at the moment is for the catch itself, not the edge (or lack thereof).

[Scotty]

They read the law out at some stage, and I'm pretty sure it was saying if, when a catch is referred to check its carry, that any clear evidence there was no bat on ball contact to begin with, should be relayed back to the field umpire.

[David]

Damn cricket laws.

Either way, we'll either win or it'll be over in 10 overs.

[Scotty]

It began during Australia's first innings when Ponting was given out caught at slip by Strauss, again, for two off his pad. Umpire Rudi Koertzen referred the decision to Llong, but only to see if the catch had been cleanly caught by Strauss, something Koertzen obviously should have done yesterday.

The catch was taken cleanly but it was also obvious from replays that Ponting had clearly not hit the ball. The noise Koertzen heard was Ponting hitting his boot with his bat as the ball hit the pad.

When Koertzen referred the catch, Llong should have told him that there had been no contact with the bat.

Playing conditions clearly state: "The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. However, when reviewing the television replay(s), if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball, he shall indicate that the batsman is not out."

Knew I was right

[Bacon]

Isn't that the original Law, and was changed recently?

[David]

I've heard different on the TV before, though who knows with the clowns commentating


I think I might not watch the first hours play. I'll turn it on after that to see if we're still 5 down. Too nervous.

[Scotty]

Isn't that the original Law, and was changed recently?

I was under the impression the reverse was true - it was recently changed from "only checking for carry", to "but if the dumb**** field umpire can't work out why there is daylight between bat and ball, please kindly let him know".

[Des]

Aussies win... ship it, fry it, bake it, post it, book it, jango it.