***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2017

[Bahnz]

Yep. thought it was plumb live. FFS. Chalk another one up in the NZ review hall of shame.

Umpire shouldn't escape without criticism either. As soon as he turned that down I yelled out "Oh come on!" at the screen.

 

[NZTailender]

Wagner robbed by his own team

 

[Zinzan]

Yep. thought it was plumb live. FFS. Chalk another one up in the NZ review hall of shame.

I thought it would be an umpires call. If it was given out, I had no doubt it was hitting.

 

[NZTailender]

tbf I thought it was sliding down leg live, but second and third replay had me interested.

 

[Zinzan]

Is it time they change it that you don't lose your review if it's not out due to umpires call?

 

[Bahnz]

I thought it was just stone dead when I saw it live. The only reason I can think of for why they didn't review is that they thought the two noises was bat onto pad.

 

[TheBrand]

Is it time they change it that you don't lose your review if it's not out due to umpires call?

No, that's not the point of the DRS.

EDIT: However, if you're going to change that it needs to take the benefit of the doubt to the umpires out of the equation and focus on making the right decision. But doubt can be a very interesting thing.

 

[Bahnz]

Is it time they change it that you don't lose your review if it's not out due to umpires call?

Nah, just get rid of umpire's call. If it's hitting your out, otherwise not.

 

[Zinzan]

Nah, just get rid of umpire's call. If it's hitting your out, otherwise not.

I'd prefer that, but then you'd need to question what the point of umpires are, and also remember you're relying on the predictive element for LBWs.

 

[TheBrand]

The only problem with this is in the instances is when the ball is literally only just clipping the stumps... that shows there's enough doubt as to why the umpire gave it out/not out and that's where it gets tricky imo.

 

[hendrix]

I like the system as-is, except the one change I'd make is if the ball is missing by the same margins as when the ball is hitting for an umpire's call (i.e. half the width of a cricket ball), it is also umpire's call.

This means that the bowlers and the batsmen both get the same margin of error on ball tracking.

In current rules if the ball is missing by ANY margin, even 1mm, the verdict is Not Out. That is not fair to bowlers as the same does not apply in reverse.

 

[hendrix]

He is handy when there's nibble in the track tbf.

he's our Jadeja. Well, not quite as good as Jadeja and we don't quite have as equivalent wickets.

TBF I think England could get away with doing the same thing more often.

 

[Zinzan]

The other thing about the review is it was Duminy. If it was Amla, Faf or de Kock, I think they would have reviewed on the player.

BTW, Jeez that black cloud looks ominous.

 

[Zinzan]

Agree with the commentators, Amla's looked like his old self today, total class.

 

[Bahnz]

Argh, this is umpire's call at best.

 

[Meridio]

Going to be just pitching outside imo. Henry doesn't bowl from particularly close to the stumps.

 

[Bahnz]

We're so ****ing bad at this.

 

[hendrix]

That is a ****ing terrible review, wtf

 

[Zinzan]

That was brainless... and it was Henry's fault. He said it pitched on, which is why KW went upstairs. Didn't look nearly as convincing as Wagner's one live.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Why can't we do drs ffs