Andrew Fidel Fernando, courtesy of ESPNcricinfo, 19 December 2015, where the title is “Jayasundera dismissal causes another DRS stir”
Sri Lanka bowling coach Champaka Ramanayake said the DRS system had “a lot of errors”, in the wake of what seemed to be an incorrect DRS call which cost Sri Lanka a wicket. Third umpire Richard Kettleborough had overturned Paul Reiffel‘s not-out decision on a caught-behind call on batsman Udara Jayasundera in the 23rd over of Sri Lanka’s second innings. There appeared to be no conclusive evidence that the batsman had gloved the ball on snicko or hotspot, but Kettleborough may have instead relied on a seeming deviation from the glove. This deviation, seen from a rear camera angle, was later shown to be an optical illusion.
Sri Lanka cricket team captain Angelo Mathews (R) speaks with the umpire RA Kettleborough during the final day of their third and final cricket Test match against Pakistan at the Sharjah International Cricket Stadium, in the Gulf emirate of Sharjah, on January 20, 2014. Pakistan pulled off a thrilling five-wicket win over Sri Lanka in the third and final Test in Sharjah, levelling the series at 1-1. AFP P PHOTO/ISHARA S. KODIKARA (Photo credit should read Ishara S.KODIKARA/AFP/Getty Images) — in Hamilton the Third Umpire mis-reading the DRS vis a vis Jayasundera’s dismissal was Kettleborough
“What I saw on the TV – it looked like not out,” Ramanayake said. “I can’t talk about the umpiring. We haven’t spoken to anyone. Whatever the decision is made we have to take it. We have to have a real serious think about this DRS system. There are a lot of errors.”
The short ball from Doug Bracewell left a faint hotspot mark as it passed Jayasundera’s gloves, but this mark faded quickly, meaning it could have been made by air friction generated by the moving ball. Snicko showed no conclusive spike.
The rear angle initially showed a significant deviation, but importantly, the glove did not appear to move when the ball seemed to brush it. Kettleborough had not seen a split-screen before making his decision. The broadcaster later put up a side-angle view of the dismissal, simultaneous with that rear angle, which seemed to show that the deviation seen on the rear angle came well before the ball had reached the glove. In any case, both umpire Reiffel and batsman Jayasundera appeared unhappy with the eventual outcome.
New Zealand bowler Neil Wagner, who had only seen the original review on the big screen at the ground, acknowledged that there was little evidence on hotspot or snicko. However, he thought the correct decision had been arrived at, due to the seeming deviation seen in that rear-angle shot. courtesy of ESPNcricinfo, 19December 2015, with title ”
Sri Lanka bowling coach Champaka Ramanayake said the DRS system had “a lot of errors”, in the wake of what seemed to be an incorrect DRS call which cost Sri Lanka a wicket. Third umpire Richard Kettleborough had overturned Paul Reiffel‘s not-out decision on a caught-behind call on batsman Udara Jayasundera in the 23rd over of Sri Lanka’s second innings. There appeared to be no conclusive evidence that the batsman had gloved the ball on snicko or hotspot, but Kettleborough may have instead relied on a seeming deviation from the glove. This deviation, seen from a rear camera angle, was later shown to be an optical illusion.
“What I saw on the TV – it looked like not out,” Ramanayake said. “I can’t talk about the umpiring. We haven’t spoken to anyone. Whatever the decision is made we have to take it. We have to have a real serious think about this DRS system. There are a lot of errors.”
The short ball from Doug Bracewell left a faint hotspot mark as it passed Jayasundera’s gloves, but this mark faded quickly, meaning it could have been made by air friction generated by the moving ball. Snicko showed no conclusive spike.
The rear angle initially showed a significant deviation, but importantly, the glove did not appear to move when the ball seemed to brush it. Kettleborough had not seen a split-screen before making his decision. The broadcaster later put up a side-angle view of the dismissal, simultaneous with that rear angle, which seemed to show that the deviation seen on the rear angle came well before the ball had reached the glove. In any case, both umpire Reiffel and batsman Jayasundera appeared unhappy with the eventual outcome.
New Zealand bowler Neil Wagner, who had only seen the original review on the big screen at the ground, acknowledged that there was little evidence on hotspot or snicko. However, he thought the correct decision had been arrived at, due to the seeming deviation seen in that rear-angle shot.
*** ***
ALSO SEE Andrew Fernando: “Reckless Sri Lanka speed their way to doom,”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Another Third Umpire Error in Interpreting DRS has Fatal Impact on the Course of a Tight Match
Andrew Fidel Fernando, courtesy of ESPNcricinfo, 19 December 2015, where the title is “Jayasundera dismissal causes another DRS stir”
Sri Lanka bowling coach Champaka Ramanayake said the DRS system had “a lot of errors”, in the wake of what seemed to be an incorrect DRS call which cost Sri Lanka a wicket. Third umpire Richard Kettleborough had overturned Paul Reiffel‘s not-out decision on a caught-behind call on batsman Udara Jayasundera in the 23rd over of Sri Lanka’s second innings. There appeared to be no conclusive evidence that the batsman had gloved the ball on snicko or hotspot, but Kettleborough may have instead relied on a seeming deviation from the glove. This deviation, seen from a rear camera angle, was later shown to be an optical illusion.
Sri Lanka cricket team captain Angelo Mathews (R) speaks with the umpire RA Kettleborough during the final day of their third and final cricket Test match against Pakistan at the Sharjah International Cricket Stadium, in the Gulf emirate of Sharjah, on January 20, 2014. Pakistan pulled off a thrilling five-wicket win over Sri Lanka in the third and final Test in Sharjah, levelling the series at 1-1. AFP P PHOTO/ISHARA S. KODIKARA (Photo credit should read Ishara S.KODIKARA/AFP/Getty Images) — in Hamilton the Third Umpire mis-reading the DRS vis a vis Jayasundera’s dismissal was Kettleborough
“What I saw on the TV – it looked like not out,” Ramanayake said. “I can’t talk about the umpiring. We haven’t spoken to anyone. Whatever the decision is made we have to take it. We have to have a real serious think about this DRS system. There are a lot of errors.”
The short ball from Doug Bracewell left a faint hotspot mark as it passed Jayasundera’s gloves, but this mark faded quickly, meaning it could have been made by air friction generated by the moving ball. Snicko showed no conclusive spike.
The rear angle initially showed a significant deviation, but importantly, the glove did not appear to move when the ball seemed to brush it. Kettleborough had not seen a split-screen before making his decision. The broadcaster later put up a side-angle view of the dismissal, simultaneous with that rear angle, which seemed to show that the deviation seen on the rear angle came well before the ball had reached the glove. In any case, both umpire Reiffel and batsman Jayasundera appeared unhappy with the eventual outcome.
New Zealand bowler Neil Wagner, who had only seen the original review on the big screen at the ground, acknowledged that there was little evidence on hotspot or snicko. However, he thought the correct decision had been arrived at, due to the seeming deviation seen in that rear-angle shot. courtesy of ESPNcricinfo, 19December 2015, with title ”
Sri Lanka bowling coach Champaka Ramanayake said the DRS system had “a lot of errors”, in the wake of what seemed to be an incorrect DRS call which cost Sri Lanka a wicket. Third umpire Richard Kettleborough had overturned Paul Reiffel‘s not-out decision on a caught-behind call on batsman Udara Jayasundera in the 23rd over of Sri Lanka’s second innings. There appeared to be no conclusive evidence that the batsman had gloved the ball on snicko or hotspot, but Kettleborough may have instead relied on a seeming deviation from the glove. This deviation, seen from a rear camera angle, was later shown to be an optical illusion.
“What I saw on the TV – it looked like not out,” Ramanayake said. “I can’t talk about the umpiring. We haven’t spoken to anyone. Whatever the decision is made we have to take it. We have to have a real serious think about this DRS system. There are a lot of errors.”
The short ball from Doug Bracewell left a faint hotspot mark as it passed Jayasundera’s gloves, but this mark faded quickly, meaning it could have been made by air friction generated by the moving ball. Snicko showed no conclusive spike.
The rear angle initially showed a significant deviation, but importantly, the glove did not appear to move when the ball seemed to brush it. Kettleborough had not seen a split-screen before making his decision. The broadcaster later put up a side-angle view of the dismissal, simultaneous with that rear angle, which seemed to show that the deviation seen on the rear angle came well before the ball had reached the glove. In any case, both umpire Reiffel and batsman Jayasundera appeared unhappy with the eventual outcome.
New Zealand bowler Neil Wagner, who had only seen the original review on the big screen at the ground, acknowledged that there was little evidence on hotspot or snicko. However, he thought the correct decision had been arrived at, due to the seeming deviation seen in that rear-angle shot.
*** ***
ALSO SEE Andrew Fernando: “Reckless Sri Lanka speed their way to doom,”
Share this:
Like this:
Leave a comment
Filed under Andrew Fidel Fernando, performance, Sri Lanka Cricket, technology and cricket, television commentary, unusual people