*Official* Australia in Pakistan 2022

[Daemon]

tbf there were spikes before the ball reached the bat too, but I think it was still out regardless

 

[Gnske]

When are those given

 

[Spark]

That's the faintest edge I've seen given out. The logic holds - there was a murmur on snicko and you couldn't see any gap between the bat and ball - but man feel bad for Azhar.

Yeah that's why I'm surprised. Feels like those usually aren't given

 

[Gnske]

Smith still at first slip

It's like we deserve to lose

 

[Spark]

Smith still at first slip

It's like we deserve to lose

didn't you see the screamer he just took

 

[Xix2565]

When are those given

MCG 2020 Paine.

 

[Gnske]

Yeah that's why I'm surprised. Feels like those usually aren't given

They aren't. Especially when the original decision is not out.

If it was originally called out, you could connect the dots. But this one is a bit of an aberration.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah that's well in "probably out but probably shouldn't be overturned" territory for me.

Yeah in those situations it should be umpires call. Alas I don’t think there’s a mechanism for it….

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah that's why I'm surprised. Feels like those usually aren't given

It's really pushing the edge of 'conclusive evidence'. Had the on field umpire given that out then it's fine to uphold it based on that, but seems a bit harsh overturning the decision. No clearly audible sound from the stump mic either.

 

[Gnske]

Yeah in those situations it should be umpires call. Alas I don’t think there’s a mechanism for it….

There is though isn't there? Or am I getting confused with NRL when the bunker says there's insufficient evidence to overturn a decision.

 

[trundler]

There is though isn't there? Or am I getting confused with NRL when the bunker says there's insufficient evidence to overturn a decision.

That's for when there's doubt about the catch being clean, no?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Those kind of spikes are generally not given. Pretty surprised tbh.

 

[Spark]

There is though isn't there? Or am I getting confused with NRL when the bunker says there's insufficient evidence to overturn a decision.

I think I've only ever seen one review for a non-LBW come back as "inconclusive", Kohli against Hazlewood in 17.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah that's why I'm surprised. Feels like those usually aren't given

Those typically have a frame missing right when the ball lines up next to the bat, but it wasn't really the case here. It did seem to be out based on balance of probabilities, but I'm not sure there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision.

 

[morgieb]

There is though isn't there? Or am I getting confused with NRL when the bunker says there's insufficient evidence to overturn a decision.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen it for a non-LBW.

 

[trundler]

Do the umpires have it out for Azhar Ali or what

 

[SteveNZ]

Yet Lyon off Santner in Adelaide wasn't out.

Still bitter.

 

[Gnske]

I think I've only ever seen one review for a non-LBW come back as "inconclusive", Kohli against Hazlewood in 17.

Hmm don't remember that one. That bat / pad he got recently is the one I think to that should have had that word used.

In any case, I think we can all agree there's a clear precedent with how snicko is used in defining what a snick looks like, we all watch enough of this outdated sport to know this. And that's not how they are 99% of the time defined by the third umpire when a referral happens. Azhar should be incredibly confused.

 

[Gnske]

Yet Lyon off Santner in Adelaide wasn't out.

Still bitter.

"There's a spike but it could have been anything"

 

[Spark]

Surely Imam can't last if he plays at all of these, just brings so many catching options into play.