-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Pakistan in England
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Having actually got to watch the highlights for once, I think it's pretty clear that carried - but Geoffrey was going on about how the slips were too far back the over before...
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Swervy said:Got to love the headline on cricinfo
'Bell Ends England's One-Day Drought'
I do believe that Man City were considering naming one of the stands at their new ground after Colin Bell, their legend of yore, but decided against it because of that very reason.
Meanwhile, nice to see us finally win (& fairly comfortably, despite our best efforts at the death) but it's kinda a reflection of how far we've fallen as an ODI outfit that I feel so pathetically grateful for it!
I don't think Inzi's catch carried, FWIW (even allowing for the foreshortening effect it looked to bounce up into his hands to me), but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Teenage petulance is very unattractive in a man on the verge of middle age tho.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
marc71178 said:
WE'll see at the hearing.
tooextracool
International Coach
Why on earth would anyone have Plunkett and Mahmood in the squad?aussie said:
tooextracool
International Coach
Razzaq confirmed pretty much why i rate him as the best lower order batsman in the world. Forget about the hitting, hes the most versatile player you will see. His bowling may be a shadow of what it used to be but its still handy.ClownSymonds said:
tooextracool
International Coach
My first reaction when i saw it on real time was that it bounced in front. there was no way any of the replays could be said as conclusive either, and certainly strauss seemed pretty confident that it didnt carry. I dont blame inzamam(Even though the way he reacted was childish) though because theres no way he could have known whether it did or didnt.Neil Pickup said:
based on the article on cricinfo...speed is talking through his ****....as usual...marc71178 said:
excerpts: "If video evidence was the only criteria, taking the analogy of crime, we would not be able to prove a lot of murders and half the jails would be empty," said Speed. "I cannot say much, except that there are other forms of evidence, and all will unfold at the hearing."
when pressed to explain: "There is the ball, [the accounts of] other people who were present, and there's the umpires' version, which is the most important."
what new evidence??? what other people??? the umpires and the match referree will be asked for their "expert" opinions, they will obviously be in cahoots and will testify against pakistan....if there is any other evidence, he hasn't even hinted at it, and is keeping it under his hat....and by the way, the analogy to actual crime is such a load of bullcrap....
Fusion
Global Moderator
I've seen it several times now too and I think it carried. Atherton and Gower thought it was a catch, Holding was sure it wasn't. So if anything, it was extremely close. All of those people that came out guns blazing and saying that Inzi is a cheat and comparing it to the Hair issue should be ashamed of themeselves.Neil Pickup said:
Last edited:
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I agree; no correlation at all. Inzi behaved like a child afterwards, but that's neither here nor there.Fusion said:
As I said I don't think it carried because it clearly looks like it bounces upwards into Inzi's hands. Inzi may've had his fingers under it, of course, but it looks too far in front of him for that. Personally I don't think it should've been referred, I don't see how both umps could claim to have been unsighted, as I believe they have to be for a catch to be referred to the third umpire.
I think the law on this one should be tweaked slightly. Because the technology NEVER suggests that a catch has carried when in fact it has not, the umpires should be free to refer as long as they are of the instinctive opinion that it probably did not carry, regardless of whether they are unsighted or not. If on the other hand they think it has carried then they must not refer.BoyBrumby said:
Last edited:
