-
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*** Australia in South Africa + South Africa in Australia 2016/17
- Thread starter StephenZA
- Start date
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
The vast majority of batsmen need to get this memo
New DRS rule for lbws is great news for bowlers | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
wouldn't say he looked dead on impact.. he was struck in line of the stumps sure but everything else is hard to comment on considering he's 3 metres down the crease. has 100+ years of precedent been ignored all of a sudden for any particular reason by this forum
cnerd123
likes this
Yup
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I honestly thought it was dead watching it live, no joke. I was surprised when it was only clipping leg on the replay.
RE the 100+ years, you can't have been watching cricket in the last couple if you think this is the first time.... a couple of NZ batsmen were given well down the wicket in India recently, and that was without DRS....
I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the introduction of DRS has resulted in umpires having the confidence to give LBW even if batsmen are well down the wicket, ones they wouldn't have given previously...
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Thats because we're slowly realizing that the 100 years of precedent might actually have been wrong. Seriously, think about it, why should a batsman be totally immune to an lbw just because he's come down the pitch? Disregard for a moment here that the ball was maybe clipping leg stump... If it had been showing hitting middle of middle on replay, would you still say he shouldn't have been given out just because he jumped down the track and because of the precedent we've set? We need to establish what it is that's actually iffy about the decision here : a) the fact that he was down the pitch b) the fact that the ball was clipping leg.
If it's a), I don't think "precedent" is a solid argument.
Of its b) you have a problem with, it's just a standard umpires call which we see every test. A marginal 50-50 call which could go either way.
Last edited:
Blocky
Banned
Because we now have technology indicating that the ball will go on and hit more often than not.
It's pure stupidity and an arbitrary thought to think "Well I'm three metres out of my crease, I can't possibly be given out for LBW" - are you saying no ball at the three meter mark will hit the stumps?
Just petulance from an arrogant little toad who is trying to be more than he actually is.
indiaholic
International Captain
If you are calling Smith petulant, then you are wrong. He explicitly said in the press conference that his decision was fine.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Injured Peter Siddle out of Hobart Test, Joe Mennie in line for debut | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
Both sides have now lost their biggest Aortas.
Both sides have now lost their biggest Aortas.
Gnske
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Jackson Bird as """"bowling cover"""""
Lel. Well I wish Mennie all the best, debuting in a Steve Smith captaincy is no easy thing.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Would have been shown to be missing the stumps entirely if the DRS parameters were entered correctly.
And can we please stop talking about the Smith lbw? Maybe he was a bit unlucky, but you can't say the decision was explicitly "wrong". Let's just all get over it.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not sure if that's aimed at Smith or Mr_Mister... I'm guessing the former.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's pretty obvious that he meant Smith, Zinzan. Although he isn't right there either. Smith hasn't really had a whinge about it at all.
the big bambino
International Captain
Somehow if he had to risk serious money on it he would have politely refused.
Shady Slim
International Coach
i thought that it was plumb live so was surprised to see how narrow it was
big strides in down the wicket are a stupid reason to not be given
big strides in down the wicket are a stupid reason to not be given
Shady Slim
International Coach
also smith's a **** captain been saying it for ages his presence on the field is horrid for morale
it'd be a bit difference if he was being harsh on himself but he's being harsh on everyone else and that's bad
it'd be a bit difference if he was being harsh on himself but he's being harsh on everyone else and that's bad
SeamUp
International Coach
I remember that. Was fuming at the time. There was DRS but India didn't use it. Couldn't believe AB was given out besides the fact it was missing, that batsman don't even have protection for going down the wicket anymore. So kind of understand to disbelief re: Smith even if clipping the stumps.
Bowlers do need a bit more protection in the game today is the only reason I can go with it but only just.
There was a suspect decision involving DRS when England beat us at Durban after/before that but can't quite remember who it was