Shame, but the on-field umpire called it as he saw it, in real-time it looked closer. We've all seen much worse decisions (lbw when pitched outside leg etc).The ball was missing off stump by some distance
No. The reason is simple. India wanted it and got it in SL. There were some teething problems and India didn't know how to use it properly and so the senior players soured on it. BCCI (the organization) doesn't give a crap either way really, but they are backing the [idiot] senior players who are harping about it not being 100%.Shame, but the on-field umpire called it as he saw it, in real-time it looked closer. We've all seen much worse decisions (lbw when pitched outside leg etc).
On this point, what's the real reason India officialdom don't want umpire reviews? They allow on-field umpires to refer to third umpire (e.g. 1st innings catches). Can't be cost of snickometer etc as India is the current financial powerhouse of world cricket. If they think Hawk-eye projection is not accurate they could allow the ball tracker to be used up to the point where the ball hits the pad, but not use the projected path after the impact. Could the reason be that they think on-field umpires give more pro-India decisions on home soil (pressured by crowd and atmosphere?) and they don't want to give up this advantage?
Yeah spot on. It's not a conspiracy or even something planned to gain a tactical advantage; the people making these decisions are just frustratingly dumb.No. The reason is simple. India wanted it and got it in SL. There were some teething problems and India didn't know how to use it properly and so the senior players soured on it. BCCI (the organization) doesn't give a crap either way really, but they are backing the [idiot] senior players who are harping about it not being 100%.
It's possible that bias is clouding my judgement, but I do think it's the latter.Pitch seems to be doing less? Or are they make it look easier.