*Official* England in South Africa

[Nate]

How's that ball for LBW?!

EDIT: If they reviewed that for the catch, could they have gotten him LBW?!?!??!

 

[Prince EWS]

EDIT: If they reviewed that for the catch, could they have gotten him LBW?!?!??!

Yeah. You don't have to specify what you're reviewing for.

 

[Nate]

Yeah. You don't have to specify what you're reviewing for.

Given, sorry. Was more "Imagine if they reviewed it hoping for the catch, and then it showed him out LBW."

 

[silentstriker]

How's that ball for LBW?!

EDIT: If they reviewed that for the catch, could they have gotten him LBW?!?!??!

AFAIK, you simply review the delivery, I think you can be given out for any reason, just like the umpire can give out caught even if you appealed for LBW or something. I don't think the umpire talks to the guys upstairs before they start reviewing.

 

[grecian]

Was going over the top, certainly enough that the original decision.

Steyn on, BIG.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ian Bell on the verge of saving a Test for England. So many lolz.

 

[Shri]

Yo, Bell wassup? What are you doin' out there man?

 

[Nate]

The big yorker last ball Steyn, c'mon.

 

[Prince EWS]

This has really been a pretty awesome Test. First two Tests of the new year decade have both been absolute crackers.

 

[Nate]

Another LBW shout, surely?! Anyone?!?!

 

[silentstriker]

I love Steyn, and it was ****ing awesome, but it didn't get the wicket. Sharma did. So it wasn't a better spell, because that wicket blew the match open.

Had Steyn got Collingwood, they'd have probably been favourites.

Just because it was a better result for the bowler, it doesn't mean the bowling was better. Yes, in the long term, better bowling gets more wickets but we're talking about one spell here. It's kind of like saying a bowler who got 5 wickets always bowled better than a teammate who got 4. It might be true more often than not but you can't judge it solely on the number of wickets for one spell.

 

[Nate]

Where can I e-mail the commos?

 

[GIMH]

AFAIK, you simply review the delivery, I think you can be given out for any reason, just like the umpire can give out caught even if you appealed for LBW or something. I don't think the umpire talks to the guys upstairs before they start reviewing.

Yeah, although the other day we reviewed one where the batsman was actually out stumped and that never got looked at

I think that's what happened anyway

We appealed for the catch IIRC

 

[Prince EWS]

Honestly, why pull Duminy to bowl Harris at this point? Just don't get it at all.

 

[Shri]

Too late I think for RSA now. If a wicket falls now, there will be tension but Eng will draw this imo.

 

[Jono]

Just because it was a better result for the bowler, it doesn't mean the bowling was better. Yes, in the long term, better bowling gets more wickets but we're talking about one spell here. It's kind of like saying a bowler who got 5 wickets always bowled better than a teammate who got 4. It might be true more often than not but you can't judge it solely on the number of wickets for one spell.

Yeah I agree, good point.

 

[GIMH]

Where can I e-mail the commos?

cricket@skysports.com

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

FFS, appealing for that.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, although the other day we reviewed one where the batsman was actually out stumped and that never got looked at

I think that's what happened anyway

We appealed for the catch IIRC

Yea though I assume that was because they just didn't bother checking rather than being precluded from doing so by the laws. Anyone have a link or something for the official rules for UDRS by any chance?

 

[Jono]

LOL @ the look on the England players' wives and girlfriends. Hilarious.

Go away Broady.