|
By:
Gave him out caught - he wasnt so NOT OUT
While they were there they checked the lbw but had to overrule the umpire's on field decision which was NOT OUT lbw and there wasnt enough evidence to overturn it, so NOT OUT. |
|
By:
the drs has worked here but the process is at fault
bottom line he is right to be given not out, poetic justice |
|
By:
Why check lbw? Who reviewed that?
|
|
By:
be out next ball anyway
|
|
By:
about time the players learnt the rules.......pathetic
|
|
By:
How do they know the umpire gave him out for caught rather than lbw?
|
|
By:
Genuine question here guys
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
the umpires check all forms of dismissal on review, which is how it should be.
|
|
By:
Presumably because the umpire elected to not give it!
|
|
By:
@songs The umpire will have said it in discussion with the video ref
|
|
By:
because the onfield umpire talks to the third umpire ffs.
jesus christ, it's not facking quantum mechanics. |
|
By:
the decision is n't confusing but the review for lbw is because it's redundant.
Unless it had n't been 'umpire's call' and had been 'hitting' in which case would have been out I presume? |
|
By:
England team and a number of forumites not very bright.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Lets hope the umpire understands the rules too.
|
|
By:
The assumption would be if they checked for lbw and caught, that he didn't give a reason for out. Could have easily given him out, as if he hit it it was caught, and if he didn't, he was lbw.
Strange really. |
|
By:
facking embarrassing replays of the celebrations from england.
has no-one explained how it works to them yet. |
|
By:
well it wasnt redundant then was it. if it been clear cut hed be out for lbw. regardless of what the umpire thought.
|
|
By:
The ball was hitting the stumps, it should have been given out. Surely the whole idea of the process is to arrive at the correct decision. This is a joke.
|
|
By:
That umpire just guesses anyway - he only get's about 25% right and 80% wrong
|
|
By:
An appeal covers all forms of out.
So should a review cover all forms of error at once? |
|
By:
Well if he thought he hit it, he wouldnt be giving him out lbw.
|
|
By:
Peterson needed to be explained to 10 time.
Bright lad. |
|
By:
Okay, so it goes back to the 1st umpire, he is told 'not out caught, lbw your call' and his call is not out lbw, so he gives not out.
|
|
By:
the way Root celebrated before it was given out vindicates Warner's decision to punch him,imo.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
actually I think the process has worked...shocker!
|
|
By:
Does anyone know why i can't view innings runs market on the betfair iPad app. Nor iPhone for that matter
|
|
By:
Also the ball just clipped the pad, how the hell did it deviate so far that it was hitting the stumps in the first place.
Query Hawkeye? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I dont know why
|
|
By:
what gives?
|
|
By:
so we have the interesting situation where the umpire's call is shown to be based on an error (ie that it wasn't LBW because he'd hit it), thus creating a situation where the umpire's told to stick with the decision that's just been judged wrong.
|
|
By:
So, if England then said to the umpire, "why the hell were you checking for caught when we were appealing for lbw", then what happens?
|
|
By:
Did eng appeal for the catch or lbw? Did the ump know what he was deciding on?
|
|
By:
if this was boxing, ref would have stopped Broad v Rogers by now.
|
|
By:
pauliow 10 Aug 13 12:06
The ball was hitting the stumps, it should have been given out. Surely the whole idea of the process is to arrive at the correct decision. This is a joke. stop assuming hawkeye is definitive. it has a margin of error which is precisely what the umpire's call is all about. the review process showed that there was a possibility that the ball may not have hit the stumps. as there was no lbw decision the default assumption is that he wasn't out lbw therefore there was not enough evidence to overturn the decision. why is this so difficult to understand? |
|
By:
|