***Official*** England in India 2016/17

[artvandalay]

Why was he so confident he didn't hit it? Is snicko deceptive? I was cursing Kohli for taking that review but seems like they heard something.

 

[Adders]

The **** is going on with DRS over there??.......What the **** happened to overwhelming evidence to overturn the on field umpires call??

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Doesn't look like he hit it visually but the spike is clearly there before the bat hits the ground. Good review.

 

[honestbharani]

Root is convinced the noise came from somewhere else. Maybe the voices in his head then?

 

[ImpatientLime]

Why was he so confident he didn't hit it? Is snicko deceptive? I was cursing Kohli for taking that review but seems like they heard something.

oh i dunno, maybe he didn't hit it?

 

[Adders]

Why was he so confident he didn't hit it? Is snicko deceptive? I was cursing Kohli for taking that review but seems like they heard something.

Because he didn't............that snicko was bat hitting ground FFS.

There is no way they give catches close to the ground like that..........2 dimensional image and all that.

Roots been sawn off there for sure.

 

[honestbharani]

oh i dunno, maybe he didn't hit it?

Sure.. the change in the seam rotation came from the black magic of Jadeja too.

 

[Adders]

Sure.. the change in the seam rotation came from the black magic of Jadeja too.

No way was there any sign of the seam changing.........no ****ing way.

 

[Shri]

Interesting that no one except Kohli went up instantly.

 

[Adders]

That really was dead set ****ed and I'm really spewing.

 

[honestbharani]

Because he didn't............that snicko was bat hitting ground FFS.

There is no way they give catches close to the ground like that..........2 dimensional image and all that.

Roots been sawn off there for sure.

The bat did not hit the ground when the spike happened, FFS. And there was a change in the seam rotation direction. Come on mate, there are controversial decisions but there was no way was that noise coming from anywhere else but the inside edge. Bat hit the ground one frame later and there was a bigger spike to show that. You are clutching at straws thinner than that nick.

 

[ImpatientLime]

The difference in time between the bat hitting the ground and the ball passing the bat was so less that there could have been a slight time lag. Or it was just bat on ground and then bat on ball. But there was just one spike on Ultra Edge. So it was either bat on ground or on ball. Root is not happy at all. There was bat on ground too.

the level of doubt here is just too big.

 

[Shri]

Because he didn't............that snicko was bat hitting ground FFS.

There is no way they give catches close to the ground like that..........2 dimensional image and all that.

Roots been sawn off there for sure.

Clear gap between the ground and the bat at the frame of impact. Where did the spike come from? Faulty tech? Farty Root?

 

[Adders]

The bat did not hit the ground when the spike happened, FFS. And there was a change in the seam rotation direction. Come on mate, there are controversial decisions but there was no way was that noise coming from anywhere else but the inside edge. Bat hit the ground one frame later and there was a bigger spike to show that. You are clutching at straws thinner than that nick.

Mate do you understand why they very rarely give close to ground catches by the third umpire?? Because a 2 dimensional image is so hard to tell.

I'd have no problem if the onfield decision was out and Root reviewed it.....because the video is INCONCLUSIVE. So when the on field decision is out then there is not enough evidence to overturn.

 

[vcs]

Love DRS, cuts out the howlers.

 

[Compton]

Whilst there's an argument over whether that's out or not, I don't think there's much of an argument over whether the third umpire should have given it out.

The evidence was hardly sufficiently conclusive to overturn the on-field call.

 

[indiaholic]

Mate do you understand why they very rarely give close to ground catches by the third umpire?? Because a 2 dimensional image is so hard to tell.

I'd have no problem if the onfield decision was out and Root reviewed it.....because the video is INCONCLUSIVE. So when the on field decision is out then there is not enough evidence to overturn.

Bit different that I guess because the view is from top down. For this there was footage from ground level.

 

[Shri]

Mate do you understand why they very rarely give close to ground catches by the third umpire?? Because a 2 dimensional image is so hard to tell.

I'd have no problem if the onfield decision was out and Root reviewed it.....because the video is INCONCLUSIVE. So when the on field decision is out then there is not enough evidence to overturn.

You do realize there were multiple angles shown of the shot and they all showed a gap between bat and pitch?

 

[Adders]

Whilst there's an argument over whether that's out or not, I don't think there's much of an argument over whether the third umpire should have given it out.

The evidence was hardly sufficiently conclusive to overturn the on-field call.

Yes. This!!

 

[Adders]

You do realize there were multiple angles shown of the shot and they all showed a gap between bat and pitch?

LOL, yeah there was a gap if you want to see one. I'm 100% certain that there was sufficient doubt there for the decision to have never been overturned.

FMD, no wonder Root has a **** conversion rate