*Official* West Indies In Australia

[NasserFan207]

Pffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttttt

The Australians thought it was out, Bowden thought it was out. The replays were inconclusive either way, although leaning towards Roach being not-out.

The point is, the referrals are there so that absolute shockers can be overturned. For mine, the third ump would've said "Billy, we're not sure either way mate, what do you think?" to which it was clear Bowden thought it was out.

If there was daylight between bat and ball, or an obvious detection of bat onto pad, then fair enough. But Roach could've edged that and so the original decision stands.

The Australians wanted it to be out, Bowden went along with them because he's a terrible umpire, the replays were conclusive showing that he was NOT OUT.

It was a shocker. It tainted the test match in my eyes.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I blame Chris Broad for this decision. Obvious bias involved.

I'd say he's probably cobbling together a badly edited version of the dismissal that will show the ball deflecting to second slip as we speak.

It's funny, but I think the disappointment of Australia winning has blown this incident out of proportion in some people's eyes. If you hear a noise and the bat's near the ball I think most people would go up for the caught behind. Reading some posts on here, if I'd never seen the delivery, I'd be thinking Roach missed it by a foot and snicko showed nothing.

 

[Nate]

The Australians wanted it to be out, Bowden went along with them because he's a terrible umpire, the replays were conclusive showing that he was NOT OUT.

It was a shocker. It tainted the test match in my eyes.

 

[aussie]

You don't think there's any error in measuring heat from a distance on a game played in summer? Dunno what super-charged scientific equipment you've been using but in my experience, there's plenty.

HAAAA...Top_Cat has officially ended this argument...

 

[pasag]

Yet happy to bash Benn?

The only time I've mentioned Benn this series was saying he shouldn't have been banned. Nice try though.

 

[Furball]

That Bowden thought it was out shouldn't be relevant to the review. The evidence cast significant doubt on there being any edge, last time I checked benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the batsmen.

If people are happy with the decision made and the process which led to the decision, then the current review system is a waste of time, as it will not allow batsmen to overturn incorrectly given caught behinds where the ball has passed close to the edge.

 

[Furball]

And, if the 3rd umpire, after several looks, cannot say for certain that there was an edge, how on earth can Bowden be certain?

 

[Redbacks]

And, if the 3rd umpire, after several looks, cannot say for certain that there was an edge, how on earth can Bowden be certain?

He heard a noise?

 

[thierry henry]

If there was daylight between bat and ball, or an obvious detection of bat onto pad, then fair enough. But Roach could've edged that and so the original decision stands.

DWTA.

I don't think you can apply the same logic to caught behinds as you can with lbws. I'm certainly not comfortable with it anyway.

Either Roach hit it or he missed it. It's not as if he's "more out" because he only missed it by a little bit. imo it's really no different to a player being given out leaving a ball 3 feet outside off. He simply didn't hit it (btw I haven't seen the snicko yet, so take these comments on the basis that snicko shows nothing much. If it does I might change my mind on this particular decision).

As far as I'm concerned if a player is given out caught there needs to be at least some evidence that he actually hit the ball (and I wouldn't count a tiny movement on snicko that could be anything as evidence).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Somebody from the dressing room should have told him to let it go. Since he clearly wasted that review - there was no evidence it was missing at all. Another player later down in the innings could have used the review for a real shocker...

I was talking about Roach, he's about as far down in the innings as you can go.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As far as I'm concerned if a player is given out caught there needs to be at least some evidence that he actually hit the ball (and I wouldn't count a tiny movement on snicko that could be anything as evidence).

It's a bit bigger than a 'tiny' movement on snicko. It's just not the pronounced peak a snick usually looks like.

 

[Top_Cat]

And, if the 3rd umpire, after several looks, cannot say for certain that there was an edge, how on earth can Bowden be certain?

I'd back the human ear and associated machinery from 19m away over sound tech 100m+ away.

 

[NasserFan207]

That Bowden thought it was out shouldn't be relevant to the review. The evidence cast significant doubt on there being any edge, last time I checked benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the batsmen.

If people are happy with the decision made and the process which led to the decision, then the current review system is a waste of time, as it will not allow batsmen to overturn incorrectly given caught behinds where the ball has passed close to the edge.

Thats my issue as well. Once the decision is reviewed it should be left entirely in the hands of the third umpire. The onfield umpire will NEVER change their original decision voluntarily.

 

[pasag]

The reason these mistakes are being made is because the review system wasn't trialled long enough in domestic cricket (one half assed season in county cricket uimm) and just thrusted like a Shane Watson celebration onto the international spotlight.

On a side point I think the main reason it works so well in the tennis is because the crowd get involved, so they should definitely be showing it on the big screen as Gilly alluded to.

 

[Nate]

It's not as if he's "more out" because he only missed it by a little bit. He simply didn't hit it.

As far as I'm concerned if a player is given out caught there needs to be at least some evidence that he actually hit the ball (and I wouldn't count a tiny movement on snicko that could be anything as evidence).

How do you know he didn't hit it? Can you honestly tell me from the replays that you are 100% sure he didn't hit it? Why did Bowden give it out? Because, assumedly, he heard an edge, that eleven Australian players heard aswell. There was not enough evidence to overrule Bowden's decision, so it stands.

 

[silentstriker]

Ah, the world where players only appeal when they are sure the batsman hit it .

With that said, if there was a snicko sound, he might have hit it, and I don't have a problem with uphelding it. Has anyone asked Roach if he hit it yet?

 

[Goughy]

Ah, the world where players only appeal when they are sure the batsman hit it .

I hope we still live in that world. Or at a minimum at least believe the batsman hit it.

 

[Nate]

Ah, the world where players only appeal when they are sure the batsman hit it .

With that said, if there was a snicko sound, he might have hit it, and I don't have a problem with uphelding it. Has anyone asked Roach if he hit it yet?

To me, anyhow, it looked very certain and unanimous by the Australians, and I'm the first person to get annoyed at a false, fake appeal.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear Roach say he edged it. And who could blame him for referring?

 

[silentstriker]

Nah, I'm fine with both appealing and his referral. I was just making a point.

 

[silentstriker]

I hope we still live in that world. Or at a minimum at least believe the batsman hit it.

Really?