No, which is stupid given the reasoning used was “inconclusive evidence”So wait do Aus keep the review?
I have no idea. Even CricInfo is giving misleading data.So wait do Aus keep the review?
Says who? Aus keep review according to Cricinfo.No, which is stupid given the reasoning used was “inconclusive evidence”
But Cricinfo is claiming they do (which frankly would only be fair), although it would have been obviously not out had it gone through to HawkeyeNo, which is stupid given the reasoning used was “inconclusive evidence”
channel 7 are talking about it right now with Taufel who said it was lostSays who? Aus keep review according to Cricinfo.
Is it?Soft signal doesn't matter these days
He probably just ****ed it up.Is it?
I was watching the second Eng vs Pak game recently and the 3rd ump decided not to change a grab down leg (don't remember the batsman but the bowler was Wood) when it looked certain to touch the ground because the soft signal was out
3rd umpire was Joel Wilson btw
Cricinfo has chanaged Australia to 2 reviews in line with thischannel 7 are talking about it right now with Taufel who said it was lost
Its not supposed to matter. I think Wilson went with the older interpretation but there has been a recent rule change. The soft signal is only supposed to be taken into account if they dont get the right camera angles or if there are technical glitches and you dont get the replays. That sort of thing. As long as you get a reasonable amount of angles, the 3rd umpire is basically expected to make their own call.Is it?
I was watching the second Eng vs Pak game recently and the 3rd ump decided not to change a grab down leg (don't remember the batsman but the bowler was Wood) when it looked certain to touch the ground because the soft signal was out
3rd umpire was Joel Wilson btw
I mean with him, anything goes3rd umpire was Joel Wilson btw
I think the reviews are retained only on what are considered defined umpire's calls which really only exists for LBWs. So for caught behind or caught others appeals, you either retain it if the batsman is ruled out or you dont retain it if they are ruled not out.Cricinfo has chanaged Australia to 2 reviews in line with this
Didn’t they go upstairs on an lbw which they lost? I wasn’t watching at the time but I thought I heard one of the comms say they’d reviewed something which pitched outside leg?Cricinfo has chanaged Australia to 2 reviews in line with this
Never went through to ball tracking. 3rd ump reckoned he couldn’t tell if it hit the bat, cos he’s an idiot.Didn’t they go upstairs on an lbw which they lost? I wasn’t watching at the time but I thought I heard one of the comms say they’d reviewed something which pitched outside leg?
@TheJediBrah still have doubts.Well bowled Lyon. Looked very likely the past few overs