askabob
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,630
Kinda like us giving up our 2 goal leads at the beginning of the season, no?I can't imagine the reaction of the Indian press if they somehow contrive to lose this game.
Kinda like us giving up our 2 goal leads at the beginning of the season, no?I can't imagine the reaction of the Indian press if they somehow contrive to lose this game.
I can't imagine the reaction of the Indian press if they somehow contrive to lose this game.
I can't imagine the reaction of the Indian press if they somehow contrive to lose this game.
I can't imagine the reaction of the Indian press if they somehow contrive to lose this game.
Flat deck...poor bowling attack. Simples really.
More on the line of stoning to death...
Especially if Bell is still there at the end.
Especially if Bell is still there at the end.
They'll make sure the ICC doesn't bring in UDRS permanently....Remember they have been staunch anti-UDRS advocates so far, and had to be begged to allow it for the World Cup.
Tbf, this isn't that controversial a decision(obviously many Indians won't see it like that), yes it would have gone on to hit the stumps, but we know Batsmen are at times given the benefit of the doubt, if they are far enough down the wicket, and actually playing a shot...
They'll make sure the ICC doesn't bring in UDRS permanently....Remember they have been staunch anti-UDRS advocates so far, and had to be begged to allow it for the World Cup.
Tbf, this isn't that controversial a decision(obviously many Indians won't see it like that), yes it would have gone on to hit the stumps, but we know Batsmen are at times given the benefit of the doubt, if they are far enough down the wicket, and actually playing a shot...
I fecking love Straussy.
His batting has gotten better since he's taken charge unlike a lot of players who've become captain.
I didn't see the incident... what happened? And batsmen should get the benefit, it's always been the case.
Wasn't it India who asked for the >2.5m rule? It's no different to the hitting in line rule. Sure it was hitting the stumps, but if he's got far enough forward or far enough outside, it's not out.
Bell went to sweep, missed. India appealed for lbw, umpire denied the appeal, but India decided to ask for a review.
In the review it showed the ball hitting halfway up middle or off stump, but instead of instructing the umpire to give it OUT, the third umpire threw the decision back to the on-field umpires.
*His rationale being, while the technology showed it hitting the stumps, the batsmen was forward enough from the stumps to say with certainty that it would hit the stumps, and seeing as how he was playing a shot...should get the benefit of the doubt.
Which is what happened...but the crowd don't like the decision(not surprising, we had a similar incident in the Bangladesh-Ireland match) and I was irate...
No such rule exists in cricket Mike...
Wasn't it India who asked for the >2.5m rule? It's no different to the hitting in line rule. Sure it was hitting the stumps, but if he's got far enough forward or far enough outside, it's not out.
It's in the referral regulations.
It's in the referral regulations being used for the World Cup.
Fair enough if it's the rules.
Why do the commentators/we don't not know these regulations?
Why? Common sense dictates that it's hitting the stumps. The idea is to eliminate uncertainity in hawkeye because in bouncier pitches it might go over the stumps. This is a sub-continental pitch with a slow bowler bowling.
Ridiculos decision.
And we're bowling some right fecking shit.
Twice Strauss has nicked and they haven't appealed. Is the noise so loud? Loud and clearo n TV.
Fair enough if it's the rules.
Why do the commentators/we don't not know these regulations?
They do. They keep saying 'the umpires have been told to not change their decision if it's over 2.5m... but I still think it should have been out.'
Why do you think they even have the >2.5m graphic on the TV?
Relevant ICC law:
http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net...A2F335D543EF937F162F837_1257924398353_687.pdf
The bit we're interested in:
3.3.i-iii
This is what happened....
*thanks to OldSpot for the info.
They got rid of the best part of this Australia advert, that random guy in the background who just says,
"That's not a bear."
They got rid of the best part of this Australia advert, that random guy in the background who just says,
"That's not a bear."
Been watching footie on the other channel, so just tuned into this. What a supremely shit bowling performance this must have been from the Indians.