• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

Nate

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
As an umpire, do you honestly think you`d have given that out?

Pitching on middle, moving to leg, Hayden on a huge stride forward and he started outside the crease.
 
S

Shane Warne

Banned
Nnanden said:
As an umpire, do you honestly think you`d have given that out?

Pitching on middle, moving to leg, Hayden on a huge stride forward and he started outside the crease.
Click to expand...
Yeah everyone here gives those one's out, it seems.

It's Warnes plumb one's which are not out.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nnanden said:
As an umpire, do you honestly think you`d have given that out?

Pitching on middle, moving to leg, Hayden on a huge stride forward and he started outside the crease.
Click to expand...
I certainly could, it pitched the off-side part of leg-stump, instead of going on with the angle it went dead straight in line with wicket to wicket. Only a bit more swing after contact with pad on hawk-eye meant it was hitting the outer half of leg-stump.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Scaly Piscine said:
Only a bit more swing after contact with pad on hawk-eye meant it was hitting the outer half of leg-stump.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that hawkeye showed the ball swinging further down leg AFTER contact with the pad?
 
Loony BoB

Loony BoB

International Captain
Scaly piscine said:
I certainly could, it pitched the off-side part of leg-stump, instead of going on with the angle it went dead straight in line with wicket to wicket. Only a bit more swing after contact with pad on hawk-eye meant it was hitting the outer half of leg-stump.
Click to expand...
So you're saying, if you were right where the umpire was at the time, only given one look, you would have NO DOUBT that the batsman was out? None at all? If it's just shaving a stump, that's not really good enough for an LBW. There's still the doubt, even with Hawkeye, when it's a shaving.

People who say that they can do a better job than the umpires can go out and take up the job. I'm not stopping them.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I certainly wouldn't rule Australia out of this yet. Several Australians are due runs, and 444 isn't really a mammoth total on this pitch, it's above par but gettable if Australia bat well. It depends a great deal on how well Australia's top 4 apply themselves, especially with Clarke missing.

Clarke can bat at 7 if fit, but as he's not even at the ground it seems unlikely.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Loony BoB said:
So you're saying, if you were right where the umpire was at the time, only given one look, you would have NO DOUBT that the batsman was out? None at all? If it's just shaving a stump, that's not really good enough for an LBW. There's still the doubt, even with Hawkeye, when it's a shaving.

People who say that they can do a better job than the umpires can go out and take up the job. I'm not stopping them.
Click to expand...
It wasn't shaving the stump it was hitting half of it. Also it's not a matter of no doubt, it's a matter of no reasonable doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top