You say I have no argument but you understand it perfectly ... Ok.
Yes I do, and you've not given any argument that contradicts the facts:
Man hit on pad.
Umpire considers it was going onto hit stumps from his vantage point, with his experience of Cricket around the world and of the pitch in question and gives him out.
Man objects and calls for a review whereby the technology shows that the umpire was right.
Someone watching on TV with a different angle and without the in depth knowledge or experience of the umpire decides the umpire was wrong to give the man out in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Fwiw I'm not complaining bcos the dismissed batsman was Australian. I've never said that and if you have insisted on that with certainty that is your projection. I've commented before on lbw in light of DRS with a concern the changes are not representing the original intention of the LBW law.
Funny how you protest that you're not complaining about it because of the batsman's nationality yet nobody else has even hinted at that at any point in the discussion. To quote Shakespeare - "Methinks the lady doth protest too much".
I'd love you to explain how DRS has made changes that are not representing the original intention of the LBW law (which is surely to give batsmen out when they stop the ball with their leg (or other parts of the body such as the shoulder in extreme cases) and by doing so prevent the ball from hitting the stumps) as all DRS is doing is showing that things have been done wrong in the past and are now being done more accurately. Unless of course you're going to claim to know that the original lawmakers intended something different from what they wrote down that is?
Marc many errors are made bcos people had no doubt they were doing the right thing beforehand. I mean no one deliberately goes out to make a mistake right.
No, and in this case the umpire didn't make a mistake so what's the problem?
Chappelli would often say that if you were the batsman would you be happy with that lbw decn?
What batsman is ever happy about an LBW decision given against him?
Imagine if there wasn't DRS. Most would be laughing at such a decn however certain the ump thought himself to be. Its relevant bcos at the time of decn the ump doesn't have DRS to assist him.
But we do have DRS and that has shown that in the past umpires have been wrong whereas now these errors are being eradicated, hence the umpire making the right decision this time.
You offer ball tracker as proof of his decn. You don't see the irony?
No I don't Alanis, but I'm going to guess that it's something like having 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
He doesn't have that available at the time! He has to fall back on actual and conventional guidelines to assess lbw. And so far down the wicket you just can't. If the conditions for out aren't met then you know where the benefit should lie.
Except he also has years of experience, a better viewing angle, knowledge of the pitch to assist him in making that assessment, rather than watching it on TV. In his mind all the conditions were met for LBW to be given and so he gave the batsman out.
Btw no need to put benefit of doubt in scare quotes as if I invented the concept for the benefit of my argument. It follows from whether an umpire can ascertain if the conditions for out have been clearly met. You are being disingenuous to downplay it.
I put benefit of doubt into quotation marks because it is not part of any law and clearly in this instance there was no doubt, hence he gave him out. If he doubted that the batsman was out, he'd not have given it but he didn't so for you, by trying to assert that he did have doubt, are the one being disingenuous.
