***Official*** Pakistan in New Zealand 2016/17

[NZTailender]

"no foot pull"

 

[Flem274*]

That was a glorious hook shot, but who are the others you speak of?

colin, colin, corey and neesh can all belt a glorious pull and hook. this colin and corey have a jesse ryder-esque "lol you're so cute" swat as well

 

[TheBrand]

Are you guys still saying Williamson didn't edge it, despite the evidence that he did?

It's not so much this, but the fact there was not enough conclusive evidence to overturn it.

 

[Blocky]

So there was evidence that he hit it, but because the umpire said he didn't, you don't want it over-turned - I get you... you're just one of those NZ people who only like the law when it's on your side.

 

[TheBrand]

So there was evidence that he hit it, but because the umpire said he didn't, you don't want it over-turned - I get you... you're just one of those NZ people who only like the law when it's on your side.

What? How do you extrapolate that from my post?

There wasn't any CLEAR evidence that he hit it from all the replays I saw. And to give it out based on front spin vision doesn't seem to be enough conclusive evidence given there was nothing on hotspot and barely anything on snicko.

For the record I'm a big fan of DRS and I would happily point out any inconsistencies when it goes for NZ as well.

 

[Blocky]

Watling just needs to come out and play some shots in the afternoon. He's not looking good on defense and to be honest, the game needs him to get on with it a bit more, getting closer to the new ball being available and that will mop us up if Amir bowls anything like he did.

 

[Zinzan]

So there was evidence that he hit it, but because the umpire said he didn't, you don't want it over-turned - I get you... you're just one of those NZ people who only like the law when it's on your side.

Considering I read Pakistani fans also thought it was stiff since it had been given not out, I don''t think being biased has to do with anything.

Gould's actual words were that he had 'conclusive evidence' that he hit it and therefore the decision should be overturned. The debate is whether or not that one line registering on snicko without being coupled by anything on hot-spot made it 'conslusive'.

 

[Blocky]

What? How do you extrapolate that from my post?

There wasn't any CLEAR evidence that he hit it from all the replays I saw. And to give it out based on front spin vision doesn't seem to be enough conclusive evidence given there was nothing on hotspot and barely anything on snicko.

For the record I'm a big fan of DRS and I would happily point out any inconsistencies when it goes for NZ as well.

There was clear evidence, the seam rotation changed once it went past the bat, there was a spike on the snicko as it went past the bat, before it then had another spike upon hitting his elbow. The only thing that wasn't evident was hotspot, but sometimes you can hit the cover off the ball and hotspot still doesn't show up.

 

[Dan]

what is with all of our allrounders having a devastating pull shot

glorious

A fitting song for CdG, tbh. What a hero.

 

[Dick Rockett]

There was clear evidence, the seam rotation changed once it went past the bat, there was a spike on the snicko as it went past the bat, before it then had another spike upon hitting his elbow. The only thing that wasn't evident was hotspot, but sometimes you can hit the cover off the ball and hotspot still doesn't show up.

Give it up man.

 

[Zinzan]

There was clear evidence, the seam rotation changed once it went past the bat, there was a spike on the snicko as it went past the bat, before it then had another spike upon hitting his elbow. The only thing that wasn't evident was hotspot, but sometimes you can hit the cover off the ball and hotspot still doesn't show up.

We also know that sometimes snicko shows a small registration when there's daylight. I didn't see the ball rotation changing truth be told.

 

[Blocky]

The Sky Commentators also felt he had hit it, I just don't get this "He's hard done by, he probably edged it but it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn" line of bollocks from NZ fans.

 

[Dan]

tbf the Sky commentators, like most commentators worldwide, aren't exactly an authority on what is and isn't out. Or on DRS process. Or on cricket in general, really.

 

[Zinzan]

The Sky Commentators also felt he had hit it, I just don't get this "He's hard done by, he probably edged it but it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn" line of bollocks from NZ fans.

And your explanation for Pakistani fans not thinking it was out?

 

[Blocky]

No, but neither are you guys.

 

[Blocky]

And your explanation for Pakistani fans not thinking it was out?

They, like you, want to see a big spike, hotspot and deviation on the ball in order to confirm it's out... rather than use the evidence available to assess whether or not the ball touched the bat on its way through.

If you had to put $10,000 on whether or not that touched the bat on the way through, based on what you saw, and could have comprehensive confirmation one way or another - would you put your $10,000 on that it did kiss the bat on the way through, or miss?

I know where my money is going.

 

[Blocky]

I get what you guys are saying, that basically another umpire would maybe have said that was not out, therefore it's not a consistent process..

But my view is that the umpire is there to ensure the right decision is made once a referral happens, and the right decision based on the evidence was that there was a very thin edge.

 

[Moss]

Pakistan's session, somewhat salvaged by CdG refusing to change his approach despite the conditions. The 6-41 has clearly earned Lord Colin the right to be aggressive.

 

[Dan]

Just looked at a replay of it for the first time -- and admittedly it was single-angle and via cricket.com.au -- but I'm personally not convinced either way.

If I were umpiring in that situation, I'd defer to process, consider the evidence as non-conclusive because there's doubt in my mind, and Williamson bats on. It might end up being the incorrect outcome, but in my mind I can't be absolutely certain that the standing umpire's decision was wrong based on that footage.

Further angles may yet change my mind -- again, only saw the one snicko replay from behind.

 

[TheBrand]

They, like you, want to see a big spike, hotspot and deviation on the ball in order to confirm it's out... rather than use the evidence available to assess whether or not the ball touched the bat on its way through.

If you had to put $10,000 on whether or not that touched the bat on the way through, based on what you saw, and could have comprehensive confirmation one way or another - would you put your $10,000 on that it did kiss the bat on the way through, or miss?

I know where my money is going.

Before I answer this, I'm relatively new here and you seem to have a reputation... I dont judge, but I want to know your thoughts on the Nathan Lyon non-dismissal from the Day Night test last year. Your thoughts will determine how I answer this question :P