Was pinged straight in front of the stumps; the ball had next to no distance to travel. It was exactly the kind of erroneous decision we saw upheld in the Windies the first time England were exposed to the review system.
I would tend to think AUS didn't bowl at him there since none of Hilfenhaus/Johnson/Siddle had/has the ability to make the ball leave the left-handers like how Morkel got him.
Check the rules mate...
As I said earlier in the thread that's a problem with the current system, there is no allowance for how far the ball has to travel from the point of impact to the stumps.
The onfield umpire should have given that out, but as he didn't it was too close to overturn. Had it been given out it would have remained out on review.
I disagree and I do so because of the way in which balls clipping the stumps have a decision kept not out if it is reviewed by the fielding side. For example, batsman gets big stride, it is given not out, fielding team reviews and it is clipping the stumps and so the original decision stays. If the big stride was not done, then the original decision would have been out and so he would have been out.
On the topic of Botham. Anyone else amazed that he looks healthier, better and stronger than he did 20 years ago?
Yes I wouldn't have expected it based on how he looked at the end of his playing career - almost looks like he could still do a job - lifestyle issues no doubt
Surely Prior moving to the leg side would suggest to the umpire that the last place the ball was going was down leg?
He declined first use of a pitch which has become increasingly difficult to bat on. Will probably cost us this test - and our best chance of competing in the series.
Shredded Wheat > shredded weed
Combo of grandkids and the charity walks, for mine. Always seems to shed quite a lot of beef (sorry
) when he's pounding the highways and byways.
I never really explained myself very well before but it seems to have been covered off since. I think I agree with him. In any instance like the three we saw today where it was a case of 'on field umpire's decision stands' rather than the referral being wrong, it would make sense for the team to not lose a referral - same as they don't if it's a no-ball UIMM.
Now I've actually seen the incident I must admit my flabber is well and truly gasted. For me it's the kind of decision that makes the review system farcical. The umpire got it wrong but the decision was upheld. Why? Because it wasn't that wrong? Either we should use the technology properly or not at all.
Fairly sure there was a similar one in our first innings batting where the same thing happened, ball was hitting outside of leg and was umpires call (which was originally not out). Can't remember the batsman, might have been Swann.
