*Official* England in West Indies

[Richard]

Anyone watching with fair eyes will see the ball going wide beyond the bat.

You being a clown (and a good deal besides BTW) has precisely nothing to do with what is currently happening at Queen's Park Oval.

 

[GIMH]

Anyone watching with fair eyes will see the ball going wide beyond the bat.

My unfair eyes haven't even seen it, just a general comment on you and your posting style

 

[Manee]

Notice how opinions are split between the two teams and the only impartial party i.e. Manee agrees with the West Indian boys, showing that England are trying to make themselves feel hard done by when the right decision was made...

Woop, I'm the impartial party.

 

[Richard]

Notice how opinions are split between the two teams and the only impartial party i.e. Manee agrees with the West Indian boys, showing that England are trying to make themselves feel hard done by when the right decision was made...

Or rather, showing both that and that West Indies are trying to avoid the thought that they've gotten lucky.

Simple truth is that partisanship comes in damn often, and it is doing so here.

 

[Manee]

Or rather, showing both that and that West Indies are trying to avoid the thought that they've gotten lucky.

Simple truth is that partisanship comes in damn often, and it is doing so here.

I thought we'd established that I am law in this case

 

[roseboy64]

Or rather, showing both that and that West Indies are trying to avoid the thought that they've gotten lucky.

Simple truth is that partisanship comes in damn often, and it is doing so here.

Not really. 'Tis pretty clear.

 

[sammy2]

Tony laughing at nas..


Wasn't nas talking about common sense a few days ago ?

 

[King Pietersen]

I'm not going to contest whether or not he hit it, as without snicko or hotspot we can't conclusively tell. My gripe is, there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the decision was 100% incorrect, meaning the decision should have stood. Same if it was given not out, there's no conclusive evidence either way, so the umpire should have stuck with his original decision. This is where the referral system falls on it's arse.

 

[pskov]

Botham et al. blabbing about how there has to be 'conclusive evidence' and it has to be 'clear' or 'definite' that a mistake was made are misinformed. The third umpire only needs 'a high degree of confidence' that an incorrect decision was made, so the system is marginally more malleable than they are suggesting.

 

[Richard]

Not really. 'Tis pretty clear.

Well as I say - unfortunately nothing is clear to me as I'm watching on a poor-quality TV. Either way, Hinds was definately out there, but you can't really moan too much at it not being given.

 

[Manee]

I'm not going to contest whether or not he hit it, as without snicko or hotspot we can't conclusively tell. My gripe is, there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the decision was 100% incorrect, meaning the decision should have stood. Same if it was given not out, there's no conclusive evidence either way, so the umpire should have stuck with his original decision. This is where the referral system falls on it's arse.

There was conclusive evidence, the sound was not as the ball passed the bat combined with the sound coming as the bat hit the shoe. If that isn't conclusive, I don't know what is. It does not have to be a shocker for the evidence to show conclusive evidence against the decision.

 

[Uppercut]

Fair point. I haven't seen it but sounds to me like there were two bad decisons- the decision to give him out, and the decision to overturn it- and it's balanced out. It couldn't be more conclusive than Brendan McCullum's was, so a call for consistency wouldn't be out of place.

 

[Jigga988]

I thought we'd established that I am law in this case

Exactly, how have people not established this yet!

 

[Manee]

Fair point. I haven't seen it but sounds to me like there were two bad decisons- the decision to give him out, and the decision to overturn it- and it's balanced out. It couldn't be more conclusive than Brendan McCullum's was, so a call for consistency wouldn't be out of place.

I disagree, both were good decisions. It was right to give him out based on the evidence that Harper had and it was right to advice Harper otherwise once we saw the slow motion and side on view.

 

[King Pietersen]

I didnt' see the side on angle, and from the angles I saw there was definitely no conclusive evidence. It appears the entire Sky Commentary team missed this conclusive evidence as well. I don't think there was enough to definitely say the decision was wrong. The Hinds lbw shout was definitely out though, just awful umpiring all round.

 

[Manee]

I didnt' see the side on angle, and from the angles I saw there was definitely no conclusive evidence. It appears the entire Sky Commentary team missed this conclusive evidence as well. I don't think there was enough to definitely say the decision was wrong.

The view was played twice and really was that clear.

 

[King Pietersen]

If it was that clear, why did it take the 3rd umpire that long to make the call. It seems that you're the only person that saw this as well, and you're the only person claiming it to be conclusive evidence. From what I saw (and what 99% of people saw), there was no conclusive evidence to reverse the decision, it's all guess work, so therefore the original decision should have stood.

 

[Richard]

Fair point. I haven't seen it but sounds to me like there were two bad decisons- the decision to give him out, and the decision to overturn it- and it's balanced out. It couldn't be more conclusive than Brendan McCullum's was, so a call for consistency wouldn't be out of place.

It just shows yet again - this is about the 7th or 8th time I've said it - that the onus being put on changing a decision is so stupid. The evidence which is going to be available should be shown before any decision is made.

 

[roseboy64]

If it was that clear, why did it take the 3rd umpire that long to make the call. It seems that you're the only person that saw this as well, and you're the only person claiming it to be conclusive evidence. From what I saw (and what 99% of people saw), there was no conclusive evidence to reverse the decision, it's all guess work, so therefore the original decision should have stood.

The 3rd umpire used that view that you're referring to last IIRC. He utilised more than one angle hence taking that long.

 

[Richard]

Ryan Hinds, you are a waster; Matthew Prior, you are a lucky boy to get the chance to make that stumping.

Thank **** he didn't miss it. Swann deserves that.