Somerset
Cricketer Of The Year
TBH I think it was reasonably conclusive on the replay after it was confirmed that the ball hit the pads of Sarwan in line with the stumps and without an inside edge from the bat.
-
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 West Indies in New Zealand***
- Thread starter Athlai
- Start date
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
You spelt it right the second time, but not the first.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Somerset
Cricketer Of The Year
Correct. As I say, very similar to Flynn's dismissal, with the ball hitting in line the issue.
Players walking off now as the light's been offered. Time to head back over to the Perth test!
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Nah, it's 1/2, and that only applies to the pitching in line (ie. not outside leg) rule. Any part of the ball hitting in line qualifies.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
If any part of the ball hits in line it is considered in line.
http://www.supersport.co.za/cricket/content.aspx?id=15797&print=1
9.2. When using technology to determine the point of impact (as per Law 36.1 (d)), if any part of the ball is intercepted between wicket and wicket, then the point of impact is deemed to have been between wicket and wicket.
Cam7
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
The Sarwan dismissal was far from 50/50. The television evidence quite clearly indicated that the ball did everything required for it to be judged LBW. It hit in line and was going on to hit the stumps (and height wasn't an issue). The only 50/50 part of the equation was whether the ball hit the bat or pad first, which would have been extremely difficult for most umpires to determine. The replays quite clearly showed the ball hittling the pad first, which then made it "100/0" that it was out.
This whole referral system is utter bull****. Not only are the 3rd umpires being incredibly inconsistent with LBW's, they are getting them wrong (Mills). With actual video footage (no hawkeye crap) it never looked like it was going to hit the stumps.
The referral system works great for things like bat pads and caught behinds, but it simply DOES NOT work for LBW's. LBW's should be left up to the onfield umpire, but every other mode of dismissal should be able to be referred.
P.S - the ICC are idiots.
The referral system works great for things like bat pads and caught behinds, but it simply DOES NOT work for LBW's. LBW's should be left up to the onfield umpire, but every other mode of dismissal should be able to be referred.
P.S - the ICC are idiots.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just showed Powel's effort over here on the news.
I'm only saying this because when he pulled out of bowling he threw the ball way outside the line of the batsman and thus didn't seem to be throwing it at him:
That was ****ing hilarious. I mean the bloke's got a test bowling average of 40 ffs, he must have been charged at a hundred times - why would he struggle to cope with it? Look on his face was gold.
Cam7
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I disagree completely that the ball in the Mills dismissal never looked like it was going to hit the stumps. The video footage indicated that it was possibly going to at least clip the leg stump (and Hawkeye later suggested the same thing). That said, I think the decision to give Mills out was completely wrong because there was certainly a lot of doubt and Mills wasn't given the benefit of that doubt.
Believe it or not, Hawkeye is a lot more accurate than some of the video footage from the TV cameras, so I don't know why you think it's "crap". The video footage can sometimes be misleading when it comes to LBWs, due to the high end-on cameras sometimes not being absolutely in line with the wicket. In fact, the "super slo-mo" cameras (which show the extreme close-ups of the ball) are never in line with the wicket, so they can be highly misleading if they're used to judge LBW decisions. Hawkeye, on the other hand, is calibrated to a high level of accuracy and, therefore, it gives a much better representation of the actual flight-path of the ball relevant to the exact line between the wickets.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Agreed.
Not only was there doubt, but How had been given not out yesterday in almost exactly the same situation. That being, the ball looked like it could just be shaving the leg stump but there was enough doubt to not over-turn the umpires decision.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
I agree as well. With Mills there was clearly some doubt, and if there is doubt, then the 3rd umpire should always stick with the on field umpires decision, whether he gave it in or out.
I can see tomorrow going two ways. Either Gayle gets out early and the windies splutter to be all out for under 200, or Gayle and Chanderpaul pile on the runs and finish the day with a 300+ lead.
I can see tomorrow going two ways. Either Gayle gets out early and the windies splutter to be all out for under 200, or Gayle and Chanderpaul pile on the runs and finish the day with a 300+ lead.
Last edited:
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
May I request one or two details on how he bowled? I know seven wickets points to a good performance, but was it merely seven wicket taking deliveries or sustained pressure or hostile wicket taking bowling, etc.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
He actually should've had 9. Both McIntosh and McCullum were dropped off his bowling. Having said that, while he bowled well, there were still plenty of loose deliveries being served up. He bowled best right at the end, when the light was gloomy and the kiwi's were running scared. He generally looked better yesterday, where he kept it tight and his short ball had McIntosh in trouble often.
The wickets
How: pulled a long hop straight to square leg. Batsman error.
Flynn: clever slower ball that the batsman popped back to the bowler. Bowler's wicket.
Taylor: lazy stroke to a good ball. 50/50
Ryder: even lazier waft to a wide half volley. Batsman error.
Vettori: caught out by the pace trying to run it down fine. Bowler's wicket.
Mills: dubiously given out lbw. Bowler's wicket
Patel: good bouncer into the ribs that was parried to short leg. Bowler's wicket.
Last edited:
After reading up on Hawkeye and seeing that it's used for brain surgery and missile path tracking, I have absolutely no problem with the accuracy of Hawkeye either.
Didn't see Mills' LBW though. Did manage to see Sarwan's LBW, and I thought that definitely looked out even without Hawkeye, once it was determined ball hit pad before bat.
