No. I meant it was purposefully designed to protect the umpire. I don't agree with it but that's what the ICC wants.Disagree, for mine it is to get better results. You don't see say the hawkeye challenge in tennis protecting the umpire/linesman.
Yep can do without bone head running when it's all on the line.So very angry at that last wicket. Strauss' effort was bad enough but that is collective idiocy at its worst, stubbed out any chance of a win and made a Saffer victory look more likely.
That has been factored in. Todays play is more than 90 overs.Btw, don't you get to bowl extra overs if you've lost overs on previous days ?
No. It's a pressure situation.Will Bell survive?
I know its what the icc wants. I'm not sure how we even have a disagreement here.No. I meant it was purposefully designed to protect the umpire. I don't agree with it but that's what the ICC wants.
How about the nick when it goes outside the hotspot range?FTR, I disagree with 'upheld umpire's call' result of UDRS. It should just take a call and not give it back to umpire in any condition.
Outdated thinking imo.No. It's a pressure situation.
Tbf, if SA didn't come out aggressively they could have lost the game, it wasn't a dead game when England came out to bat, now they have a few wickets it will surely only enhance their determination in this game.It's nice as a Saffer to see a hungry Protea team, yeah they could of played for a draw and kept their 1-0 lead, (Will give England their due, they forced SAs hand a bit by bowling well for a bit) but don't remember the last time I saw SA this aggressive.
And a fired up Dale Steyn is a sight to behold. Thank god he's on ourside.
That's exactly what they're doing though - umpire was correct, loss of review.FTR, I disagree with 'upheld umpire's call' result of UDRS. It should just take a call and not give it back to umpire in any condition.
Really? I thought they were trying to lose.England is now going for Draw....
Really? I thought they were trying to lose.