In some cases specially with Spin bowling ,Hawkeye has showed some really bad tracks of what the bowl would have done."All logic"? Lol. Hawkeye>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your/my eyes.
How do you know what it would have done?In some cases specially with Spin bowling ,Hawkeye has showed some really bad tracks of what the bowl would have done.
True.Man, that's good. Vague suspicion of height again, but to bring it back into the right-hander like that is top, top swing bowling.
EDIT: Hawkeye's clearly wrong there, plotted the ball going on gunbarrel straight, but Zak had brought it back into Boucher. Hmm.
According to what your human brain thinks the BALL would have done?In some cases specially with Spin bowling ,Hawkeye has showed some really bad tracks of what the bowl would have done.
Where and when was that?In some cases specially with Spin bowling ,Hawkeye has showed some really bad tracks of what the bowl would have done.
You could call it BCCI's stubbornness and stupidity. That'd be better. Indians, like myself, actually hate these bad decisions.Pfffff, crap umpiring and Indian stubberness & stupidity robbing me of a great day of cricket!
I hate this!
Can't find a example at the moment.Ummm, no.
That makes no sense at all.
The incorrect decision standing? Hell no. If there is doubt then it goes back to the umpire. If there is clear evidence of the ball going well over the top, then of course it is going to be reversed. How hard is it to understand?
Yeah but that doesn't apply when it's missing the stumps. If it's missing the stumps it's not out and that's that.Can't find a example at the moment.
But in a case the batsmen is given not out but the hawkeye says it is hitting the stumps ,then there have been cases where after calling it marginal the original decision has stood ,due to uncertainty.