*Official* Second Test at Lords

[Jakester1288]

We need luck.

Jeez, none so far. Hughes was dropped but given out, and Katich was dismissed off a no ball.

 

[Burgey]

Big test of temperament this for the young Prince, if he does well in this situation and helps his side reach safe shores, it would do further prove that he is the real deal.

Big test of integrity for Strauss who says he definitely caught it. Fails.

 

[Richard]

I thought you were playing by the spirit of cricket, though, Ricky?

He was, until it didn't suit Australia to do so.

Either way, Hughes can't moan, he was dropped just a few minutes ago. Get out, you're lucky you were even around for that non-catch to be "caught".

 

[Craig]

Yeah not out for mine.

 

[duffer]

Yeah, let's take the word of the fielders. Piss off.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

**** you Koertzen.

 

[Andre]

Now, I don't mind that it has been given out without referring to the third umpire, but where is the consistency in the decision making? Why did the catch that Hauritz took yesterday that get referred but this one not?

Like I said, I don't mind this decision (or yesterdays for that matter), but surely for the sake of consistency, if Rudi is unsure, surely it has to go upstairs?

 

[pup11]

If Ravi Bopara wasn't out yesterday, then this too wasn't out.

 

[R_D]

haha..... that looked not out..

Still Ricky you harp on about spirit of cricket..... you're not the ****ing umpire don't try to be one.

 

[Prince EWS]

Now, I don't mind that it has been given out without referring to the third umpire, but where is the consistency in the decision making? Why did the catch that Hauritz took yesterday that get referred but this one not?

Like I said, I don't mind this decision (or yesterdays for that matter), but surely for the sake of consistency, if Rudi is unsure, surely it has to go upstairs?

Yeah, AWTA strongly.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Find it a bit hard to see why that wasn't referred when the decision yesterday was.

Surely you've got to go one way or the other - either the third umpire is a reasonable judge of a low catch and it should be referred if it's contested, or the third umpire can't judge it, and you shouldn't. No way you could be certain about that as an umpire, and it looks far more grounded than the Hauritz catch yesterday.

 

[Richard]

Ridiculous. ****ing absurd, why didn't Rudi refer that?

Because they always get given n\o when they're referred, it's completely pointless.

Fewer errors get made when you let the standing Umpires make that call - they're far closer than the camera is.

 

[Uppercut]

Strauss didn't catch that, although he seemed to genuinely think he had.

It's still all coming up England big time this morning, a wicket off a no-ball and a catch that hit the ground.

 

[duffer]

Rudi didn't give him out, Doctrove told him it definitely carried. Blame him

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Either way, Hughes can't moan, he was dropped just a few minutes ago. Get out, you're lucky you were even around for that non-catch to be "caught".

Oh get off it, Flintoff's catch was hardly a sitter. Was never going to catch it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

1-0, well done Rudi.

Cause it's Rudi's fault that Doctrove told him he was certain that it was out.

 

[JBH001]

Thought that was out in real time, myself. But yeah, replays are...

Still, I thought referrals are only in case both umpires are unsure. If the square leg umpire (Doctrove) was certain, then there is no need for the third umpire.

Still, bad luck, Australia.

 

[Pizzorno]

Looks like all the dire luck Fred's had with injury over the years has finally decided to help him on his last ever game at Lords.

 

[alternative]

So guessing from that reaction from ppl above, it was not out, right?

 

[Prince EWS]

If the square leg umpire (Doctrove) was certain, then there is no need for the third umpire.

It's impossible to be both certain and wrong at the same time. He can't have been certain.