From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 12:48:32 GMT

In article 27920@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU,  kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>You seem to be forgetting in this example that for an umpire, judging
>the direct throw cases is much, much, easier than the ones where a
>player takes the ball and removes the stumps.   In the direct throw
>case he can watch the bat, and listen for the ball breaking the stumps,
>and he'll have a pretty easy decision to make - even the slight delay
>in the sound reaching him (if he's at square leg) will act in the
>batsman's favour, so he doesn't have to worry about that.
>
>When one of the players is to take the ball and remove the stumps, the umpire
>has to watch that happen, he has to be sure the ball has been taken cleanly,
>and before the bails are removed, not as sometimes happens, the bails being
>removed an instant before the player catches the ball, or removed with the
>hands after dropping the ball near the stumps, and all kinds of other
>possibilities.   After he's seen that the wicket has been properly put down,
>he then has to shift his attention to the batsman and see if he's out of his
>ground - that takes time, and that time can make all the difference.  What's
>more, the umpire has to do it this way, he can't watch the bat, listen for
>the bails being removed, and then try to work out of they were removed
>properly, after they've been removed its too late to tell.
>
I feel that you are wrong so I shall try to make my point in more simple terms. 
In Gooch's case, he was going for a second run after having struck the ball. 
Thus the umpire was already at square leg. The ball came in to Moin Khan 
who took the bails off. If an umpire stands at square leg in this situation he 
does not have to focus on the bails, then on the batsman, etc as you point out. 
Such a serial behavior is entirely unnecessary. The frame of view includes both the 
stumps and the crease. If the bat reaches the crease whilst the bails are still undisturbed, 
the batsman is not out. 

Contrast this with Asif's run out. He had dabbed the ball down, did not know that Latif 
was going to call him for a run. He then starts sprinting towards the bowling end. 
Shepherd starts to sprint towards the square leg position. Smith starts 
to throw the ball at the stumps. Three things happen simultaneously. Asif is out 
of the crease by six inches, Smith's throw breaks the stumps, Shepherd reaches 
square leg to see this. Much less time, more action to take into account. 

The problem is the following, Robert. You have seen the Gooch incident once 
on Aussie TV, and have not seen the Asif incident. I have seen the Gooch incident 
on TV replays a hundred times, at normal speed, at slow motion, etc. 
And I have seen Asif's decision many times. While you are arguing from 
general principles I am talking about these two particular decisions. 
In general you may be right but in these two cases I feel my conclusion is 
the correct one. The Leeds decision was horrible, the Oval decision a superb one. 

Water under the bridge anyway. All's well and all that. 

	--SAN

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket