*Official* Australia in India 2010

[chicane]

No ball! -(

 

[Daemon]

Ishant should've had four for the match by now if not for the no balls..

 

[Prince EWS]

That has to be the first time a standing umpire has ever gone to the third umpire to check a front foot no-ball. Would he has even bothered if it wasn't a wicket?

 

[Spark]

Man, still laughing

Even if he gets out next ball.

He doesn't.

 

[social]

And again - ****ing hopeless

I wonder how many times Aussie batsmen have to throw their wickets away before something is changed

This has being going on for more than 18 months

 

[Kylez]

WTF Australia? Don't let this hack take 3 wickets in an over..

Thank god that was a no ball.

 

[Jayzamann]

Zero cricket skill on display in this over.

 

[Johnners]

so dumb Ricky

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That has to be the first time a standing umpire has ever gone to the third umpire to check a front foot no-ball. Would he has even bothered if it wasn't a wicket?

Going to go out on a limb and say no, given that I've never seen it happen before on any other delivery.

 

[Athlai]

That has to be the first time a standing umpire has ever gone to the third umpire to check a front foot no-ball. Would he has even bothered if it wasn't a wicket?

Almost certainly not but if he is only half sure it is a valid ball and there is a wicket involved it's a question that needs to be asked.

 

[NasserFan207]

At least the Aussies can now feel the pain of other teams when their players get out to Johnson.

 

[Prince EWS]

Going to go out on a limb and say no, given that I've never seen it happen before on any other delivery.

I've never seen it happen on a wicket ball before either, so precedent isn't really the issue here.

 

[Spark]

I have no idea what is going on ATM.

Would be so funny if Clarke got 100 now. Come on mate, it's your day

 

[Daemon]

That has to be the first time a standing umpire has ever gone to the third umpire to check a front foot no-ball. Would he has even bothered if it wasn't a wicket?

Thats the way it should be tbh, if you're unsure, why take the risk with a wrong decision? But your point that he wouldn't have referred it if it wasn't a wicket still stands I guess. Anyhow, respect to Bowden for that decision.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've never seen it happen on a wicket ball before either, so precedent isn't really the issue here.

Right, but I think he'd consider the decision a bit more significant because it was a wicket. I really can't imagine a non-wicket taking no ball decision going to the third umpire and holding up play and so on.

Very strange moment anyway.

 

[Jayzamann]

Clarke 300* (150) and 10/10. It's his day.

 

[GotSpin]

 

[vcs]

Haha, cricinfo commentary resorting to the use of OMGs and WTFs to describe the situation.

Now please Bhajji, step up here.

 

[Prince EWS]

Right, but I think he'd consider the decision a bit more significant because it was a wicket. I really can't imagine a non-wicket taking no ball decision going to the third umpire and holding up play and so on.

Very strange moment anyway.

Yeah, I definitely agree; I just think it makes it a bit inconsistent. I mean, is he even allowed under the rules to check a front-foot no-ball off a delivery that wouldn't otherwise take a wicket?

 

[four_or_six]

Doesn't get better on second or third viewings, does it? If one's primarily an off side player why try to fetch that onto leg. Daft batting.

Ishant an odd call for nightwatchman? He done it before? Chance to prove that he's good for something tho, I suppose

Great play from the umpire, always good to see common sense.

Amazing how fragile the Aussie batting is.