On a computer ftr.Athlai's in Paeroa using a phone btw, only a small step towards more informed observations on this test than Phlegm, who's in the wops with a tranny.
Never. as far as I'm aware.How often does Simon Doull say something which isn't complete horse****?
and high five each other before the review.So no review for catches off the batsman's glove, but they do review when the ball hits the pad a foot outside off.
They're on the field ffs. They should be able to tell.They can't look for a signal from someone watching it in the dressing room? I'm guessing that isn't allowed?
that would be terribad, the play would be stopped every time someones uncles cat disliked a callThey can't look for a signal from someone watching it in the dressing room? I'm guessing that isn't allowed? I would prefer them to be allowed at least 5 reviews - it's so crucial and the human eye is too unreliable.
In some cases, but a) it often happens too fast to be sure b) people aren't viewing it in line or are obscured, c) you get multiple sounds off bats & thigh pads. The tv viewer has the best evidence, which is why I'm always baffled by the reluctance to use it more (granted delays can be a problem, but I think 2 reviews isn't enough given the number of potential poor decisions).They're on the field ffs. They should be able to tell.
Was talking about an lbw missing by a foot tbh. No non-spaz bowler should be asking for a review there.In some cases, but a) it often happens too fast to be sure b) people aren't viewing it in line or are obscured, c) you get multiple sounds off bats & thigh pads. The tv viewer has the best evidence, which is why I'm always baffled by the reluctance to use it more (granted delays can be a problem, but I think 2 reviews isn't enough given the number of potential poor decisions).
The game goes for 5 days. How much extra time does it take for a review? 90 seconds?that would be terribad, the play would be stopped every time someones uncles cat disliked a call