Search results

The point is they will start to look for runs where there is none - giving away edges etc. Not irrelevant at all.

Do they? Siddle - their number 8 - has an average of 15. That's very poor for a number 8.

For those who don't think it took a nick, how do you explain the clear deviation immediately after the bat?

I thought I was going MAD that I saw the clear deviation and no one else did?!

One of the first things I learnt about cricket, around age 8 - "If in doubt, not out." Some people are still struggling with this well into adulthood. Even if you THINK it was out, it's still NOT OUT, because there is doubt. Complex, I know.

Hot spot wasn't working. Decision overturned. Utterly scandalous. Someone could be in quite a bit of trouble for this one.

They KEEP going back to the Trott decision. Time and time again. Be really weird for them to do that if there was ZERO doubt, wouldn't it? :jester:

As soon as the umpires see "Ah, there was a slight deviation in the ball after it passes the bat" that's it. Done. End of. Not out.

What you put above alone = DOUBT = NOT OUT. Simple as that. Poor, poor decision to overrule. You have to be 10,000% to overrule, especially to an OUT rather than to a NOT OUT.

You're looking at it with the benefits of tonnes of replays. Not looking at the original, at full and fast speed. Could EASILY have taken an inside edge.

As I said - I had the sound off. However, you are forgetting the umpire does not have the use of all of this technology at the exact MOMENT the ball is bowled - only at review. In real time it definitely could've looked like it COULD have taken a slight nick, therefore there is some doubt, and...

Any doubt = not out. He must've had some idea that it may have been bat onto pad. Pretty simple really. I thought it looked slightly like it, the shadow causing a slight optical illusion - it looks a bit like the ball changes direction slightly, immediately post-bat.

Did no one else think it looked like bat onto pad? I've only been glancing over with the sound off, admittedly.

This. Some decisions will always be controversial. What technology simply does is INFORM the decision as best possible.

His passing is similar to Gerrard's. Err what? He has VERY few attributes. Slow, not particularly good at heading, scores rarely from open play for an attacking player, not particularly skilful, doesn't dribble. Brilliant at free kicks and crosses, not bad at passing but WAY too ambitious.

At freekicks - yes, world class. That is literally IT though pretty much, his overall technique is nothing to write home about. He is a PERFECT example of someone who has made the VERY most of their ability through hard work, professionalism and graft. A real Peter Siddle of a player, you could say.

Err, you're a big fan of David Beckham, aren't you? I can't think of someone more suited to the above in terms of getting WAY beyond his abilities via hard work.