Pardon me for rehashing, but the Neesham 'dismissal' was kept as out due to not sufficient evidence to overturn the original decision?
Honestly, it makes me tear my ****ing hair out.
Technology that is implemented because it is statistically much more dependent than a human decision in real time, yet the human's decision still forms relevancy. Especially with no-balls, which to be fair to umpires is ****ing hard to call when a guy is bowling 140km+. I just don't get it. The technology is superior, use it exclusively to decide. Aren't the ICC trialling with no balls to be called upstairs soon anyway? So they've said it's a bloody hard thing for the on-field umpire to get right, yet his decision holds relevancy. Can someone channel their inner Ian Taylor and tell me why that isn't ****ing stupid.
If I am a builder, and I've used a hammer for years and now they've invented nail guns...I use the hammer for the smaller, easier stuff and the nail gun for the bigger jobs. I don't just decide to use the hammer every now and then to save its feelings. I know that's not a perfect analogy but I feel like it partly encapsulates the stupidity of umpires call in lbws/caught behinds etc (unless used like in rugby, for when views are obscured/other issues) and now this.
I don't feel sorry for Jimmy particularly, because at the end of the day he's nicked out to a ball there or there abouts on the front crease. But it's a no ball. And it's outrageous that the on-field umpire's call has a lick of relevancy when Homer Simpson, I mean Rod Tucker presses the wrong button and unleashes nuclear hell.
