***Official*** Australia in Sri Lanka

[Spark]

If anything, wouldn't the ball have turned towards offstump and hit that instead of leg?

Yeah. Don't think anyone is arguing with the decision... just the track.

 

[Spikey]

knowing hughes' luck he'll slam a sweep into short leg's foot and get caught by leg slip

Now we didn't get that awesome image but I think we all agree he's been screwed over there

Wonder if we'll kick up a fuss after play today

 

[Spark]

Coolio, how was Lyon's consistency? Drop it short much?

A little, but the field set ensured he didn't get punished too badly.

 

[Jayzamann]

Is he the new new new new McGrath, or the new new new new new McGrath?

We need to convince the new new new McGrath that we're in the new new McGrath's dream and not his own.

 

[Prince EWS]

Coolio, how was Lyon's consistency? Drop it short much?

One or two, yeah, but it wasn't a persistent problem for him ala Krejza. Was very impressive.

 

[adub]

If anything, wouldn't the ball have turned towards offstump and hit that instead of leg?

I reckon it's pitched in line, but was already outside off by the time it's hit the back leg. Unless the close up view is from a long way outside leg and exaggerating the angle it had turned well past off, no way would have hit.

Not a massive problem with it as decisions have been wrong since 1877, and hawkeye gets much more right than wrong, but it might have them having a closer look at the system if anyone with pull was looking at that closely.

 

[Jayzamann]

That was so slick from Prasanna.

 

[Spark]

That ended up closer than I thought.

 

[Prince EWS]

I reckon we just got a funny angle on the slowmo tbh. The HawkEye track did show the ball land on the pitch and then hit the pad, and that track showed the pad impact to be closer to leg than where it pitched. It's not like it just showed it to be a full toss, in which case I'd probably agree.

HawkEye > Cevno (or anyone else) watching on TV.

 

[Redbacks]

I reckon it's pitched in line, but was already outside off by the time it's hit the back leg. Unless the close up view is from a long way outside leg and exaggerating the angle it had turned well past off, no way would have hit.

Not a massive problem with it as decisions have been wrong since 1877, and hawkeye gets much more right than wrong, but it might have them having a closer look at the system if anyone with pull was looking at that closely.

Hawkeye uses a different camera angle which means tv viewers constantly get different images by which to compare its predictions unfortunately.

hawkeye accuracy and believability

 

[Riggins]

Just watching the morning highlights online, wonder if Copeland is the first person to hit a boundary first ball of his batting and bowling!?

 

[Burgey]

Hawkeye uses a different camera angle which means tv viewers constantly get different images by which to compare its predictions unfortunately.

Yeah it does, but irrespective of whether the angle was straight on or not, the ball deviated. Hawkeye had it going perfectly straight on. It maybe, as Spark said, it got lost in the dust. Can't say the decision wasn't right, couldn't tell off one angle.

In Hughes generally, for a bloke who fences so much at the seamers, he plays with such soft hands to spinners.

 

[Spark]

I reckon we just got a funny angle on the slowmo tbh. The HawkEye track did show the ball land on the pitch and then hit the pad, and that track showed the pad impact to be closer to leg than where it pitched. It's not like it just showed it to be a full toss, in which case I'd probably agree.

HawkEye > Cevno (or anyone else) watching on TV.

Yeah maybe. I'd like another look though.

 

[Spikey]

Look I've got no doubt it wasn't gonna as per the Hawkeye angle says. But Hughes would have gone anyway, as per the ump's call. So. but geeez if Hughes got given not-out, SL referred and then given I would have been pissed

 

[Redbacks]

Yeah it does, but irrespective of whether the angle was straight on or not, the ball deviated. Hawkeye had it going perfectly straight on. It maybe, as Spark said, it got lost in the dust. Can't say the decision wasn't right, couldn't tell off one angle.

Haven't seen the footage, just following of cricinfo so I can't comment on the specifics of this case. One room for error is the frame rate of the cameras. It's high at 100+ per second but that still means there will be more than 5cm flight of the ball between images for spinners which is enough to miss the deviation. Thus the fuller the pitch of the ball the harder to accurately predict the path. So it's possible these errors cobmined to remove the prince.

 

[Spark]

Once you push mid-on to long-on Clarke you might as well just auto-add two runs to his total every over and save yourself the effort of bowling the ball.

 

[Jayzamann]

Just watching the morning highlights online, wonder if Copeland is the first person to hit a boundary first ball of his batting and bowling!?

iirc, Spikey posted that he was the 27th(?) and the first specialist bowler.

Or Benchy. idek

 

[Son Of Coco]

Close? Maybe just too high.

 

[Jayzamann]

Close

 

[Jayzamann]

cricinfo: The lead has gone past 250. The highest successful chase at Galle is 96