England seek clarity over Trott dismissal

[StriKe]

The ECB have requested clarification from the ICC on the chain of events that led to Jonathan Trott being adjudged lbw in England's second innings at Trent Bridge. Andy Flower, the England team director, went to see the ICC match referee, Ranjan Madugalle, after the TV umpire, Marais Erasmus, overruled the on-field umpire, Aleem Dar, following Australia's review of Dar's decision to give Trott not out. Erasmus took the decision to overrule Dar despite conflicting TV evidence and without the chance of inspecting Hot Spot from the crucial side-on position. Sky Sports, the host broadcaster who supply the Hot Spot cameras, told Erasmus the technology was not available as the delivery to Trott was not recorded because the technology had been cued to show the previous delivery, the dismissal of Joe Root to a catch down the leg side. In a comment posted on ESPNcricinfo, Warren Brennan, Hot Spot's inventor, said the issue was down to "operator error". "Here is the absolute truth from our perspective in regard to the Trott incident," he wrote, "it was operator error. My operator did not trigger the system in order to cater for the Trott delivery. Instead the operator sat on the Root delivery in order to offer a replay from the previous ball and did not realise until it was too late that he should have triggered the system for the Trott delivery as the priority. Simple mistake, something that anyone could have made but my Hot Spot operator has worked on the system since 2007 and to my knowledge this is the first serious mistake he has made." England have asked the ICC to explain the protocol whereby a TV umpire can overrule despite an absence of the expected technological aides and asked for those protocols to be reviewed. "It's very frustrating," James Anderson said afterwards. "Trott has hit the ball and been given not out. He did hit it. It is frustrating that it got overturned. We're all for technology because, since it came in, more decisions have been given out correctly than wrongly, so we want it." The Huddle: Hot Spot wasn't working While replays suggested a deviation before the ball hit Trott's pad - perhaps from an edge, perhaps in the air - there was no evidence of an edge on Hot Spot from the front-on angle. The Snickometer, a visual representation of the noise made as the ball makes contact with the bat, is utilised by Sky for the purposes of entertainment, but is not currently among the approved ICC aides. It did not suggest an obvious edge. The England team management were also perplexed after Ashton Agar was given the benefit of the doubt by Erasmus following a very tight stumping appeal when he had scored just 6. Agar went on to score 98 - the world record contribution from a No. 11 batsman in Test cricket - and added 163 for the tenth wicket - another world record - in partnership with Phil Hughes. "I thought the stumping was out, but I saw it on the big screen so it's hard to tell," Anderson added. "Matt Prior was pretty confident it was out." It may also be worth noting that, had Root utilised the DRS, he may well have been reprieved. There was no evidence of Hot Spot following his dismissal to a leg side catch but, after consultation with his captain, Alastair Cook, Root did not call for a review. Those who suggest that the technology does not currently support the DRS, may feel they have further evidence for their case.

Source

[Debutant]

As usual winging Poms :haha:

[Old guy]

that was not out tbh

[Debutant]

that was not out tbh

Yeah, from the replays it was clear that there was some deviation and he had some inside edge. But it did not show in the hot spot. The umpire did not saw any hotspot so gave out. Umpires have given out when there was no deflection but solely on the result of hotspot. So here also they had to go with hotspot. Anyways Poms should stop whining as this technology is advocated most by the ECB and Aussies.

[Old guy]

Yeah' date=' from the replays it was clear that there was some deviation and he had some inside edge. But it did not show in the hot spot. The umpire did not saw any hotspot so gave out. Umpires have given out when there was no deflection but solely on the result of hotspot. So here also they had to go with hotspot. Anyways Poms should stop whining as this technology is advocated most by the ECB and Aussies.[/quote'] they had to go with hotspot ...but there was no hot spot of angle needed :((

[rkt.india]

That was out. Snicko did not show any sound. There was hotspot available and that was front hotspot which did not show any edge.

[rkt.india]

they had to go with hotspot ...but there was no hot spot of angle needed :((

You did not actually essentially need side on hot spot. Front on hot spot was there and it did not show any spot on the bat.

[FischerTal]

:whine:

[Old guy]

You did not actually essentially need side on hot spot. Front on hot spot was there and it did not show any spot on the bat.

yeah bcos inside edge was not being shown

[Sachin=GOD]

it was not out but there's no need to whine so much :headshake:

[rkt.india]

yeah bcos inside edge was not being shown

because there was no inside edge. Front on hot spot was there which did not show any inside edge. If not hot spot, at least snicko should have shown something which did not.

[Old guy]

because there was no inside edge. Front on hot spot was there which did not show any inside edge. If not hot spot' date=' at least snicko should have shown something which did not.[/quote'] but there was big deflection and front hotspot cant really see side of bat

[kubrickian]

So much whining from the poms. There was nothing on the front on hot spot, nothing on snickometer. Where did the edge come from ?

[adi B]

So much whining from the poms. There was nothing on the front on hot spot' date=' nothing on snickometer. Where did the edge come from ?[/quote'] vaseline

[G_B_]

nobody is whinging. They are seeking a clarification. Nobody has called for the umpire to be removed or Trott to be brought back.

[Jersey #10]

nobody is whinging. They are seeking a clarification. Nobody has called for the umpire to be removed or Trott to be brought back.

What clarification? Umpire decision is the final decision (even when wrong). In cricket you don't seek clarification after you have been given out by the umpire. The DRS is a little over the top but ok, if it makes the game a bit more fair. Teams and players need to learn to deal with it. It's ridiculous to harras the umpires and the ICC over something like this. This is beyond whining.

[zep1706]

My position is that if there is any doubt the on field call should not be overturned. I did see a deflection and because of that it should have stayed not out. But when India traveled England in 2011 they overruled the on field call twice to get Dravid out if I remember correctly, both of those were dodgy without any hot spot evidence. The poms were very happy back then.

[G_B_]

What clarification? Umpire decision is the final decision (even when wrong). In cricket you don't seek clarification after you have been given out by the umpire. The DRS is a little over the top but ok' date=' if it makes the game a bit more fair. Teams and players need to learn to deal with it. It's ridiculous to harras the umpires and the ICC over something like this. This is beyond whining.[/quote'] so why have the icc issued an apology and why have hot spot issued an apology? England just want to know what the rules are so that they may understand them better. simple

[jalebi_bhai]

Wasn't DRS supposed to simplify things for everyone??? :hmmm:.....

[FischerTal]

Wasn't DRS supposed to simplify things for everyone??? :hmmm:.....

jalebi, if you can in your free time, can you make something cool to illustrate the whining the English are doing?