• 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* Second Test at Trent Bridge

Xuhaib

International Coach
Cook is very vulnerable to pitched up swinging which the sub cont fast bowlers are usually very good at lucky wicket aside this has been a fantastic opening burst by Ishant he's finally turning his potential to product.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
i don't understand why people make a big fuss about umpires not giving batsmen out when the ball's hitting leg stump, for example...
benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman remember..ALWAYS!!
If theres doubt you have to rule the decision in the batsman's favour.
for more than 100 years thats how the lbws have worked.

if you keep making brave calls, sooner or later you are bound to get some wrong... thats why it's better to play it safe (batsmen have only 1 chance)- should rule doubtful decisions in batsman's favour
cook should not have been given out but **** happens. thats how it is.

different umpires make different decisions..
Missing the point; DRS takes the whole 'different umpires' bit almost completely out of the equation, hence the angst. Has little to do with the fact a decision was given against him, more to do with a better system being available but not used for stupid reasons.
 
Last edited:

KiWiNiNjA

International Coach
Then first one was going to be given not out because of it being 2.5 metre out just to clarify, even if it was hitting the middle of leg. This is a weakness of the system if it was implemented.
But isn't it the Indians that are concerned about the predictive path? The further a batsman is down the wicket, the bigger the predictive path is. Therefore, there is a larger margin of error.

[/rocket science]
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
But isn't it the Indians that are concerned about the predictive path? The further a batsman is down the wicket, the bigger the predictive path is. Therefore, there is a larger margin of error.
Yep. Indians are concerned for the predictive path which showed it just missing the stumps for the one he was given out too. Can't just hide behind the weakness of the predictive path and the system in one instance.
 

Anku31

U19 Vice-Captain
But it hasn't happened.
Oooh!!! Really!! It has happened in the past.Not much of evidence in current series (if I am not wrong),but the previous series against WI.
And my point is that it wasn't that much 'not out'.We must respect the umpires.
And it's a fair point.."good appeals can fetch you wickets..on close calls"
 

KiWiNiNjA

International Coach
Yep. Indians are concerned for the predictive path which showed it just missing the stumps for the one he was given out too. Can't just hide behind the weakness of the predictive path and the system in one instance.
I wasn't hiding.

If the ball is missing on Hawk-eye, it should be not out.
If the ball is clipping the leg stump when the batsman is more than 2.5m down the track, I don't mind if it is in or out.

It's just baffling how one can be so concerned about the predictive path yet complain over the margin of error. The margin of error is built in because the system isn't 100%, and within that margin of error either decision is perfectly acceptable.

Baffling.
 

Top