BROAD STRIKES... Warner bowled by a beaut... Australia 12-1
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Fourth Investec Ashes Test, England v Australia, Chester le Street 9-13 Aug 2013
- Thread starter Bold Seagull
- Start date
and AGAIN!!
Khawaja gone for a DUCK... caught behind off the toe end, good low catch going the wrong way from Matt Prior.
12-2
Khawaja gone for a DUCK... caught behind off the toe end, good low catch going the wrong way from Matt Prior.
12-2
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Australia need 14 to avoid the follow-on. Could be tight....
review... LBW from Broad...
did it pitch in line? looks to be hitting...
OUTSIDE leg stump by some distance. Review gone.
OUTSIDE leg stump by some distance. Review gone.
and another review.. this one given OUT caught behind... did he hit it?
NOT OUT... flicked the pad.
Pevenseagull
Anti-greed coalition
- Jul 20, 2003
- 19,840
well that was a bit of a farce
But also given NOT OUT LBW... on the umpires call... even though it WAS hitting and he was given out.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Hee Hee! What fun this technology is!
Why even look at Hawkeye if you are reviewing the appeal for caught behind? Bizarre. Aggers says it is bonkers and I have to agree.
Why even look at Hawkeye if you are reviewing the appeal for caught behind? Bizarre. Aggers says it is bonkers and I have to agree.
So that is a double poor decision from Tony Hill... given out caught when he didn't hit it (a clear HOWLER), and not out LBW when it was (with a small margin for error perhaps that is not an absolute HOWLER).
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
Correct decision there. DRS does it's job, if he'd been given out for a marginal lbw when the appeal was for an edge it would've been ridiculous.
pasty
A different kind of pasty
So let me get this straight. He was given out caught behind, reviewed it, no edge so over ruled, but WAS out lbw, but because England didn't appeal for lbw he stays in. WTF 
So let me get this straight. He was given out caught behind, reviewed it, no edge so over ruled, but WAS out lbw, but because England didn't appeal for lbw he stays in. WTF
No, it is not because England didn't appeal... because they did (as an appeal is not specific to a particular mode of dismissal).. it is because Tony Hill gave him out CAUGHT and not LBW.
Having said that, if Hill has realised he hadn't hit it, and had given it out LBW (which was perfectly possible), it would have still been OUT on review. Clear?
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
So let me get this straight. He was given out caught behind, reviewed it, no edge so over ruled, but WAS out lbw, but because England didn't appeal for lbw he stays in. WTF
England appealed. When you appeal, you don't specify what for. Umpire gave him out and he now should be out.
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
So let me get this straight. He was given out caught behind, reviewed it, no edge so over ruled, but WAS out lbw, but because England didn't appeal for lbw he stays in. WTF
The important point being that it didn't look like an lbw, it always looked too high. People need to be careful what they wish for, if they start giving lbw for every sing ball that clips the stumps like that I think it'll ruin the game
Phil B
New member
I get what you are saying but England appealed - ie Howzat !
Howzat covers all posible dismissals .
The decision must be covered by DRS rules .....
Howzat covers all posible dismissals .
The decision must be covered by DRS rules .....
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
I think so, he was given out caught behind so the umpire thought the bat hit the ball, as he thought the bat hit the ball it could not have been given as lbw.
Yes?
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Totally agree.
pasty
A different kind of pasty
Good clear explanation.
So, if for arguments sake it had been the other way round what would have been the decision? i.e. if an umpire gives someone out lbw, but an edge shows up which the wicket keeper caught, then the lbw is decision is not out, but would the batsman be given out caught behind?