*Official* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

[Dan]

its interesting that if the umpire gives an lbw not out on the basis of an edge but thinks it's smashing the stumps, then there is no edge, the batsmen retains the 'umpires call advantage.'

The decision made there is still relating to the LBW though, not caught behind.

 

[andyc]

when you think about it as problematic as DRS is, the amount of wrong umpiring decisions is so ridiculous. It's almost like a 50/50 chance the decision will be wrong.

Wouldn't mind seeing it revised to say a third or a quarter of the ball rather than the current half. Surely it can't be that inaccurate?

 

[Ruckus]

Because obviously the only decisions umpires ever make go to DRS.

I was exaggerating, but if you include all the false negatives and false positives, it would be a LOT of errors

 

[BoyBrumby]

Appeals cover all dismissals tho, don't they?

Thread's taken a disturbing "UDRS for wuckfits" turn.

 

[Tangles]

"I was unsighted by the bowler in his follow through" - every time a guy gives his best mate not out.

Or you could be honest and say that your following the same standards they did.

 

[Dan]

Why wouldn't they?

Because they were correct in their review of the caught behind; Rogers has not made his decision to review based on the umpire's LBW call. Or at least I assume that is the thinking behind it.

 

[Spikey]

Russell Jackson ‏@rustyjacko 1h
Mark Waugh really doesn't rate Swann, does he?

Gavin Robertson ‏@GavRobbo375 3m
@rustyjacko mark Waugh has never rated any off spinners, they r there to mix drinks, be net bowlers and laugh at his jokes at dinner.

 

[benchmark00]

Appeals cover all dismissals tho, don't they?

Thread's taken a disturbing "UDRS for wuckfits" turn.

Yeah but decisions are specific.

 

[hazsa19]

That's the point, they shouldn't check the LBW in the first instance unless it is specifically reviewed by the bowling team.

Surely the idea is to make the correct call. If he's given out caught behind, but it's actually plumb lbw then that decision should be made.

 

[Burgey]

Why wouldn't they?

Because he's reviewing a caught behind decision. And he's right.

 

[uvelocity]

hit it

 

[Spikey]

broad is just on fire with his appeals so far today

 

[NUFAN]

Hands up who thinks Gunner or Pistol wouldn't make a better job of umpiring than Hill, regardless of perceived nationaistic bias.

Pistol is one of those guys that I would never think of favouring the team he played for. Seen him umpire in domestic matches involving Victoria, he just comes across very professional, even if a little laidback.

Not sure who Gunner is, but if his eyes are working I think he would do a better job for sure over Hill.

 

[Swingpanzee]

Great ball.

 

[91Jmay]

Broad up there with the spell of the match so far. Brilliant.

 

[benchmark00]

This pitch has a Clarke nutting written all over it.

 

[Riggins]

The decision made there is still relating to the LBW though, not caught behind.

didn't mean this example, where the ball was caught, just on bat pad lbw's in general.

 

[Jarquis]

In such circumstances you've got to did out whether the umpire thought the ball was hitting the stumps. Ask the umpire 'but for the edge would you have given it lbw?'
It's all very well and good saying that England should have to counter-review but once the edge has been disproven does Hill et to make a new decision regarding lbw? Seems wrong to bind him to a decision he made upon evidence which has then since been proven to be incorrect.

 

[Ruckus]

This is a different pitch to yesterday. Both Aust and Eng bowlers showing that.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah but decisions are specific.

Yeah, that's fair enough; hence Rogers being NO.

He should've still been gone with three reds tho, surely? The original decision would've been wrong doubly so. Given out for caught behind wrongly; overturned. Give not out for LBW wrongly; also overturned.