CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
So Cook fails in yet another innings in the series. He is one of the 2-3 guys in the world currently with a small chance to overtake Sachin's runs tally. And Indian bowlers determined to prevent him getting that 
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Second Test at Trent Bridge
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Heh.
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Cevno doesn't really seem to 'get' LBW
(cenvo was the only who kept on ****ting on about Raina right?)
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
I consider both those equal. Can call them whatever you want.
Even if we rely fully on the Hawkeye, one was hitting middle of leg and one was going over.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Worst thing about no DRS.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Nah, the first one was marginal and could have gone either way but given he was so far out of his crease it's understandable that it was given not out. You can't really say "he survived one that was out", if it had been reviewed it would have still been not out.
Agree, shame isn't it?
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Nope.
I didn't think it was possible for someone to not understand such a simple set of rules.
The first one was given not out by the Umpire. If it had been referred to hawkeye it would have stayed not out as there wasn't enough of the ball hitting the stumps to conclusively overrule him. The second one was clearly missing and would have been not out.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Is struggling a bit against the pitched up swinging ball.
can someone clarify here as I understand it, it was because he was 2.5m+ down the pitch and that's why it's original call. so which one? the ball not hitting fully or being 2.5m+ down the pitch?
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
i don't understand why people make a big fuss about umpires not giving batsmen out when the ball's hitting leg stump, for example...
benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman remember..ALWAYS!!
If theres doubt you have to rule the decision in the batsman's favour.
for more than 100 years thats how the lbws have worked.
if you keep making brave calls, sooner or later you are bound to get some wrong... thats why it's better to play it safe (batsmen have only 1 chance)- should rule doubtful decisions in batsman's favour
cook should not have been given out but **** happens. thats how it is.
different umpires make different decisions..
benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman remember..ALWAYS!!
If theres doubt you have to rule the decision in the batsman's favour.
for more than 100 years thats how the lbws have worked.
if you keep making brave calls, sooner or later you are bound to get some wrong... thats why it's better to play it safe (batsmen have only 1 chance)- should rule doubtful decisions in batsman's favour
cook should not have been given out but **** happens. thats how it is.
different umpires make different decisions..
The heck are you talking about? The ball was cleanly hitting the stumps on the first appeal. It would've absolutely been given out if referred.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
He was 2.6m down the pitch so there is more margin for error.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Then first one was going to be given not out because of it being 2.5 metre out just to clarify, even if it was hitting the middle of leg. This is a weakness of the system if it was implemented and weakness of the Hawkeye which isn't completely accurate for such both Marginal calls in any case.
Last edited:
Sorry i badly worded it. Because he was 2.5m+ down you couldn't conclusively say enough of the ball was hitting.