World Cup James Taylor 98* disgrace

[ethybubs]

I've opened a thread about the pathetic decision I've just witnessed in the game between Australia vs England. A quick over view of what's happened, James Taylor Was on 98 and on strike, the ball hit him on the pad and he was given out LBW, he then reviewed the decision and the LBW was reversed to not out, after which the 3rd umpire proceeded to give James Anderson (the non striker) out 'run out' even though Taylor had been given out and the ball should have been officially dead. This is a disgrace to the world cup and cricket in general, there are three umpires to discuss the decision and none of the had the slightest bit of awareness to realise the official law (Law 23: "the ball will be deemed dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal). But my anger does not stop there, George Bailey (the Australian captain) was arrogant enough to shake hands and walk off the ground, if ever there is a time to call a batsman back that was it, the umpire made a mistake, Australia were never going to loose and James Taylor deserved his hundred in a great performance while his team collapsed around him. What has cricket come to?

 

[bigred]

Not down to Bailey to make decisions like that. He probably wasn't clear on laws considering two very experienced umpires weren't.

 

[ethybubs]

Even if Bailey is unclear of the rule surely he should have been able to realise that this was not right, even if it was a correct interpretation of the law. Does no-one else seem to remember that thing called "the spirit of the game."

 

[MUFC1987]

I think it's a real shame for two reasons. Firstly, James Taylor has had the chance of a hundred taken away from him, by a poor decision.

But secondly and mainly, the opening day of the World Cup has had a massive talking point which is a negative for the Umpires involved and the game. On what should be a showcase day, we're all going to be talking about bad decisions and it puts our sport in a bad light.

 

[Biggs]

I was chatting with @MattW at the time and we both agreed they should've withdrawn the appeal and just called him back. England was down and out, should've given him a proper shot at his 100, regardless of what the law does or doesn't say in the convoluted rule book.

 

[Ohm]

Wasn't that James Anderson who ran in striker's end direction to complete his run? What exactly happened at the wicket falling end(consider Jimmy's state), Jimmy moved towards striker's end to pick up a run not knowing if the umpire had dismissed his partner who played the shot and gone out temporarily after Aussie's LBW appeal and at the same time bails get off by Maxwell's throw before James could reach. So if there was a successful run out attempt at the non striker's end, then advantage was all the way in Taylor's favor since he could easily knew if first umpire's decision was against him.

And what's all with dead ball thing anyways? I would not agree this - Law 23: "the ball will be deemed dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal." The bowler has putted his efforts but the catching or LBW related decision in his favor, later turns out to be wrong after batsman's demand for the review and the ball considered as valid makes total sense to me.

 

[_Sam_]

Seeming as the ICC have apologised to the English management I think we can assume it was the incorrect decision....

 

[Ho3n3r]

I'm sure Taylor would be more concerned about the pathetic way they lost today, than those 2 runs he never got. If he isn't, he really shouldn't be there.

 

[MattW]

And what's all with dead ball thing anyways? I would not agree this - Law 23: "the ball will be deemed dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal."

Imagine if the umpire's finger went up a bit earlier and Anderson had stopped mid run and then the Aussies threw down the stumps with him mid-way down the pitch. No one would expect that to be out - because it's the umpire's decision that caused the reaction of the player, and they can't be expected to keep running on the off chance that the decision gets reviewed.

Being close and at the other end doesn't change that principle - you can't know if the run would have been completed had the appeal been given not out - especially when you have 90,000 in the crowd helping the umpire.

 

[_Sam_]

I'm sure Taylor would be more concerned about the pathetic way they lost today, than those 2 runs he never got. If he isn't, he really shouldn't be there.

Why should Taylor be that concerned? He got runs and proved his worth to the team. It's the others that need to be concerned. Not much else he can do.

 

[Aislabie]

It's hardly a complicated rule either - I knew it at the time, as did both my parents, and as would most club cricketers I play with. If three ICC Elite Panel umpires can't work it out, there's something seriously wrong.

It's not a big thing in the long run - 98* or a hundred; lose by 111 or 95; whatever. But to deny a young player his maiden ODI hundred, in his World Cup debut, on the opening day of (quite probably the last proper) Cricket World Cup is just disgraceful.

 

[Ohm]

Imagine if the umpire's finger went up a bit earlier and Anderson had stopped mid run and then the Aussies threw down the stumps with him mid-way down the pitch. No one would expect that to be out - because it's the umpire's decision that caused the reaction of the player, and they can't be expected to keep running on the off chance that the decision gets reviewed.

It should have been all okay then. But Anderson didn't seem doing that, he stuck on completing his run while Maxwell too didn't appear busy appealing with his team mates. Anderson didn't look back during his run, though.

ICC accepts umpiring error on Anderson run-out | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
I still agree what habitual failure Dharmasena did there.

 

[MattW]

It should have been all okay then. But Anderson didn't seem doing that, he stuck on completing his run while Maxwell too didn't appear busy appealing with his team mates. Anderson didn't look back either during his run, though.

You can't write a rule that tries to implement a check on whether the batsman was focused on running or not.

Considering they wouldn't have awarded England the run had Anderson made it back safely that's enough to imply the rule even if they didn't know it.

 

[_Sam_]

It's hardly a complicated rule either - I knew it at the time, as did both my parents, and as would most club cricketers I play with. If three ICC Elite Panel umpires can't work it out, there's something seriously wrong.

It's not a big thing in the long run - 98* or a hundred; lose by 111 or 95; whatever. But to deny a young player his maiden ODI hundred, in his World Cup debut, on the opening day of (quite probably the last proper) Cricket World Cup is just disgraceful.

Another 13 more runs and we wouldn't currently be in last place however .

 

[Satan666]

Even if Bailey is unclear of the rule surely he should have been able to realise that this was not right, even if it was a correct interpretation of the law. Does no-one else seem to remember that thing called "the spirit of the game."

Was never a strong suit of Australian cricket. Of recent years probably Ghilchrist the only exception.