Cricket
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 2806 comments are related to the topic:
**The Ashes 2013 4th Test 09-13 August Emirates Durham**
**The Ashes 2013 4th Test 09-13 August Emirates Durham**
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 2,806
|
By:
Poor review. Very poor.
|
|
By:
Shocking review
|
|
By:
Broady
Englands own Shane Watson! |
|
By:
These cricketers are pretty bad at reviewing their own work...is it rush of blood to the head? Ego? Most of them are just awful at it.
|
|
By:
Surely an international bowler knows that is pitching outside leg. Terrible review. Even behind the wicket they should have known it is unlikely to hit middle/leg without swinging back in. Ball was straight up and down ffs.
|
|
By:
Sounded bat
|
|
By:
if he get's this wrong he needs shooting
|
|
By:
Australian batsmen...hang around long enough for Clarke to get a 50!
|
|
By:
omg you have to laugh
|
|
By:
How bad has the umpiring been. Absolute clowns
|
|
By:
rotflmfao
|
|
By:
lol
|
|
By:
He can be a knob jockey at times!
They have done a great job at keeping him quiet so far in this series This is wrong too, should not be given out lbw! |
|
By:
LBW is umpires call which surely means not out?
|
|
By:
lol lbw
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
OUT
|
|
By:
Eh?!?
|
|
By:
hotspot in 'works as intended' shocker
|
|
By:
oh?
|
|
By:
Amazing scenes
|
|
By:
oh :(
|
|
By:
wut?
|
|
By:
Did he actually say out caught?
|
|
By:
WHY EVEN SHOW THE LBW THEN?!?
|
|
By:
So why did we look at the lbw then?
|
|
By:
That was bound to happen eventually
|
|
By:
This is ludicrous. Should be out I hate to say
|
|
By:
Correct decision
England moaning |
|
By:
wtf
this is dumb! Get John Holder back for lunch at TMS! |
|
By:
well that is interesting, but correct decision arrived at according to the process we have
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
plumb
|
|
By:
Surely if it was given out caught, and it goes to review, then they don't review the lbw anyway? Why check it if nobody reviewed it?
|
|
By:
OK, that does kind of make sense, I suppose.
|
|
By:
Surely they have to go back to the umpire then, to ask if he thought it was LBW
|
|
By:
Cant see why they looked at the LBW
|
|
By:
it should be not out and it's NOT confusing
it's simple: he didn't give him out lbw so the null hypthesis is that he's not out lbw. therefore you need evidence to overrule that. they are changing this soon - which is facking ridiculous. |
|
By:
how can he give him out lbw if he thinks he hit it?
As pointed out above review for lbw is redundant. |
|
By:
'Umpires call'....umpire says it was out....=not out
 |