The All New World Cup 2023 Thread.

[GarlicJam]

6 catches, Durham, you dropped one there.

[alfie]

I haven't seen live pictures of the Stoinis dismissal ; but it seems he might have been on the end of a rough call. Not that it can have made much difference to the result in this case !

Don't much care for this apparent intention of Australia to "seek clarity" over the decision . Either the decision was correct or it wasn't : umpires , even aided by technology , can make mistakes. It happens . Get over it. Fussing after the event just makes you look like poor losers. Better served by moving on and maybe using it (internally) for added motivation...

(Some grumbling about the Smith lbw too I see. Which is pretty silly as unless you think ball tracking is somehow totally flawed it is obvious that Joel Wilson (surprise !) and other observers got it wrong live. Not the first lbw to fool the human eye)

[sussexpob]

(Some grumbling about the Smith lbw too I see. Which is pretty silly as unless you think ball tracking is somehow totally flawed it is obvious that Joel Wilson (surprise !) and other observers got it wrong live. Not the first lbw to fool the human eye)

Hawkeye did not provide the usual ball-tracking visuals on screen, it went to the third umpire and it came up with the point of impact, then showed three reds. None of the usual lines/path of the ball before/after impact came up, so there was clearly an issue with hawkeye on the delivery.

There is absolutely no way that ball was hitting leg stump. You can see Smith's offstump, so he isn't that far across even if his trigger movement brings him to offside.... and it just catches the edge of his pad. That is missing, and I would guess by a stump at least....

I haven't seen live pictures of the Stoinis dismissal ; but it seems he might have been on the end of a rough call. Not that it can have made much difference to the result in this case !

Don't much care for this apparent intention of Australia to "seek clarity" over the decision

Again, complete sympathy for the Aussies. The onfield decision was not out, how the umpire can be certain that the ball hits his finger AND that hand is still holding the bat... nah, no way. Terrible decision for me. Most likely conclusion is the ball hits the finger of glove (but cant be certain, the image is actually blurred) but the hand is not on the bat.... but even if the reality was it is out, there is NO WAY the umpire can be sure enough to over turn.

I think in both cases Australia should definitely question why. Hawkeye clearly didnt work properly on the Smith ball, and Stonis was not out.... umpires cant make these mistakes without having to explain them

[sussexpob]

I would love to know why the BCCI are using Dharmasala as a venue. Ok, its a gorgeous place to play cricket, but the outfield is a sandpit, its among the most difficult places in India to get to, its a small town, a small ground..... maybe one game in the tournament to spread it around if they really wanted, but 6 group matches being played here really doesnt make sense to me.

With the ticket and schedule fiasco leading to mostly empty stadiums, I cant help but think that the ICC and BCCI are trying their hardest to make 50 over cricket look unpopular, so they can schedule more T20s in its place. The fact you couldnt get tickets until days/weeks before the tournament for some matches is quite utterly mad - the internet is full of empty stadium pictures, but who is spending 2 grand to go india for the tournament when they dont have a ticket guaranteed for a match? And why would domestic viewers do the same, especially if the match is played in a Tibetan village high in the Himalayas.

[andy]

I'm surprised NZ haven't opted to rest Trent Boult today....2 from 2, tight schedule give him a rest and try someone else

[Arthur Crabtree]

BD far from a gimme though.

[Arthur Crabtree]

KW is playing!

Will Young makes way.

[andy]

Is southee fit yet?

[alfie]

(Some grumbling about the Smith lbw too I see. Which is pretty silly as unless you think ball tracking is somehow totally flawed it is obvious that Joel Wilson (surprise !) and other observers got it wrong live. Not the first lbw to fool the human eye)

Hawkeye did not provide the usual ball-tracking visuals on screen, it went to the third umpire and it came up with the point of impact, then showed three reds. None of the usual lines/path of the ball before/after impact came up, so there was clearly an issue with hawkeye on the delivery.

There is absolutely no way that ball was hitting leg stump. You can see Smith's offstump, so he isn't that far across even if his trigger movement brings him to offside.... and it just catches the edge of his pad. That is missing, and I would guess by a stump at least....

I haven't seen live pictures of the Stoinis dismissal ; but it seems he might have been on the end of a rough call. Not that it can have made much difference to the result in this case !

Don't much care for this apparent intention of Australia to "seek clarity" over the decision

Again, complete sympathy for the Aussies. The onfield decision was not out, how the umpire can be certain that the ball hits his finger AND that hand is still holding the bat... nah, no way. Terrible decision for me. Most likely conclusion is the ball hits the finger of glove (but cant be certain, the image is actually blurred) but the hand is not on the bat.... but even if the reality was it is out, there is NO WAY the umpire can be sure enough to over turn.

I think in both cases Australia should definitely question why. Hawkeye clearly didnt work properly on the Smith ball, and Stonis was not out.... umpires cant make these mistakes without having to explain them

Sorry , not buying the "Hawkeye didn't work " theory. I don't altogether love the whole drs thing but we are stuck with it ; and I'm inclined to trust the technology more than human viewers from in front of a TV set.

As for the Stoinis thing : sure , sympathy for the Aussies. But my point is what good does "seeking clarity" do ? Umpire made a mistake - OK , not the first time in history : what do they want ? An apology ? A replay ? Extra points ? Suck it up and get on with the game ...

[alfie]

After a horrible early period , Bangladesh fighting back through their most reliable pair...but Shakib gone now and at 153/5 in the 31st it's asking a lot of Mushfiqur to get them up to a defendable total.

NZ continuing to look a very efficient outfit.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Is southee fit yet?

Internet says he's fit.

[andy]

213-7 with 7 overs to go

[sussexpob]

Sorry , not buying the "Hawkeye didn't work " theory. I don't altogether love the whole drs thing but we are stuck with it ; and I'm inclined to trust the technology more than human viewers from in front of a TV set

As I said, at the time he was given out, a Hawkeye replay with ball tracking was not available, it simply showed the point of contact with the leg from behind the stumps and registered it as three reds/out. So we can conclude from this alone that something was not right with Hawkeye, because the usual multiple angles with tracking was not shown to the umpire at the time it was referred.

Much later in the innings, an angle confirming the dismissal from the front (with tracking) was shown, but the image of Smith superimposed onto Hawkeye is clearly several frames after the point the ball hits the pad. When he is hit, his leg left is moving slightly forward, and the bat is almost tucked into his inner leg on the offside... Hawkeye shows him being impacted after this moment, when during his follow through his body turns, the bat comes horizontal as if he playing a leg glance and is parallel to the pad, and he is falling away to leg side. There is a clear error in play here, because the images of the ball are not synced to the correct image of the batsman. Its like they have two images slightly out of time, with the image of the batsman speed up slightly. So the point of impact on the pad cannot be trusted, because Smith was not in that position in reality.

Everyone looked shocked when the dismissal was given. Joel Wilson looked bemused, and the camera the over after showed Rabada laughing and shaking his head in the outfield in disbelief.... I dont think anyone watching the replay on the field thought it was close to being out, and everyone looked stunned when it was.... and my eyes tell me its not close. It just doesnt look out.

[sussexpob]

As for the Stoinis thing : sure , sympathy for the Aussies. But my point is what good does "seeking clarity" do ? Umpire made a mistake - OK , not the first time in history : what do they want ? An apology ? A replay ? Extra points ? Suck it up and get on with the game ...

Of course, the cynical (and most likely) take is that its just Australia trying to shift some blame for an appalling performance onto the umpires, and maybe that has some value for the team self-belief and confidence for the rest of the tournament. But I think its still useful to "seek clarity" where bad decisions are made, because it forces the umpires and ICC to consider their own processes, and to improve them.

I can remember recently in the NFL for instance, someone challenged a decision and had to explain to the refs a very rare rule no one knew existed, which was then referred to a rules expert in real time and turned out the guy was right, and was the only guy on the field out of players/coaches and umpires who knew of the rule. I guess you might have the same here..... so rarely is someone given out with glove off the bat, does every umpire even know the rule? Or considers it? I think this dismissal suggests not, so no harm in the ICC using this example to remind everyone.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Classic Kane. 66 off 92 balls.