1st Test: Australia v South Africa at Brisbane 9-13 Nov

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

if the umpire had given it out and the batsmen referred it he still would have been out.

i dont see how there was any doubt that it pitched in line.

the correct call was out.

 

[Big Pete]

if the umpire had given it out and the batsmen referred it he still would have been out.

Obviously but in general it should go with the batsmen.

Which the umpire would have taken into consideration when making his original decision.

 

[madunit]

What the f**k has happened to Siddle? Has he forgotten that last year against all odds he finally stopped being utterly shithouse simply by pitching it up? Terrible this morning.

this clearly defines the entirety of Siddle's career. Very good bowler when he allows the ball a chance to swing. But too often bowls short, most of those short deliveries don't threaten the batsmen either, too short, down leg side, too wide of off stump. It defies the purpose he has for bowling short, to intimidate the batsmen.

We're already paying the price for Quiney. Need a 4th seamer out there and one of Christian/Henriques/Faulkner batting at 7 would have been a better option.

1/90 at lunch with DeVilliers, Kallis and co still to come? This spells trouble.

Yep, I thought 3 quicks, a seamer and a spinner would've been the best bowling attack to go with.

We'll bowl short for most of the rest of the summer. Do we have any bowlers with any discipline or brains at all?

 

[Hutty1986]

this clearly defines the entirety of Siddle's career. Very good bowler when he allows the ball a chance to swing. But too often bowls short, most of those short deliveries don't threaten the batsmen either, too short, down leg side, too wide of off stump. It defies the purpose he has for bowling short, to intimidate the batsmen.

Yep, I thought 3 quicks, a seamer and a spinner would've been the best bowling attack to go with.

We'll bowl short for most of the rest of the summer. Do we have any bowlers with any discipline or brains at all?

What worries me is that it sounds like Mitchell Johnson is a chance of getting a game this summer as well.

 

[El Diablo]

For basically that reason.

BotD should always go with the batsmen and while it's a little hard to swallow by the rules and technology the umpire was right.

Deserves credit for it.

how was giving it not out right if giving it out was also right?

 

[hineyrulz]

Good to see Shittle back, Billy leaves and he's back to his old ways. They shoulda played the lefty in Starc. We are missing Sunshines bowling big time.

 

[madunit]

Yes, thats a major concern.

We have some bowlers with a lot of natural ability but absolutely no brains.

More concerning than Mitchell returning is the news I just heard that Siddle is a vegetarian. That alone should see his CA contract torn up.

You can't be a bowler if you can't enjoy eating an animal.

 

[Big Pete]

how was giving it not out right if giving it out was also right?

I already answered that question in the very post you quoted.

 

[Hallatia]

I don't understand why Quiney was chosen to replace Watson, I know he got some attention because he just made some runs in the tour match. But for mine Watson has greater value to the Australian team as a bowler than a batsman, but Australia replace him with someone who doesn't bowl. Odd

 

[El Diablo]

I already answered that question in the very post you quoted.

where?

you said BOTD should go with the batsman

if he'd been given out and referred it he would have remained out

 

[Hutty1986]

Amla looks to be cruising to another 50, still plenty of quality to come sitting in the sheds. Faaaaaarrrkkk

 

[Big Pete]

where?

you said BOTD should go with the batsman

if he'd been given out and referred it he would have remained out

When the umpire originally made the decision he would have had the benefit of the doubt in mind. The referral proved his doubt thus it's a good call.

Bitter pill to swallow but that's life.

 

[madunit]

Amla needed to be forced to fish at wider deliveries early on, best chance to get an edge from him and to stop him from scoring runs.

Instead they just bowled either too short or too full straight too him and he just puts those away and accumulates the runs with ease.

 

[Didgi]

how was giving it not out right if giving it out was also right?

It's not a case of what's right and what's wrong, the fact is a decision was made and there was insufficient evidence to change that. From the technology available a definitive call cannot always be made.

 

[Hallatia]

Amla made his 5000th test run a couple of overs ago. Exactly a year since his 4000th, which is made more impressive by how few matches South Africa play in a year

 

[Didgi]

:lol: Healy with a sneaky dictating terms.

 

[beads6]

Hilfy bowling like he did in the Ashes and Siddle back to bowling short. Pitch is pathetic for day one though. Nothing in it at all. It will spin on day 3.

 

[undertaker]

shit rule that they're saying the umpire is right no matter which way he rules

defies logic

Yeah, that's the subjective component of the LBW ruling under DRS rules that I absolutely hate. What you said is correct: Most cricket fans fail to realise that in the DRS, the umpire is right, no matter what. If an LBW is reviewed when the umpire has not given it out, at least 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps whereas if the umpire HAS given it out, only 1% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps. How does the umpires decision justify the 49% variation between the two situations???:?

I remember that incident in the Sri Lanka vs Australia test series (either last year or the year before I saw on YouTube) where Copeland had an LBW appeal referred that wasn't given out and the ball was only slightly less than 50% (no less than 46-49% hitting) hitting the stumps and as a result, the umpires decision stood, the batsman was given not out and Tony Greig went apeshit in the commentary box. However, from the naked eye on replay, the ball was CLEARLY going to hit the stumps regardless of whether DRS thought it was only 46-49% hitting

This part of the DRS definitely needs to be changed, that's for sure

 

[El Diablo]

When the umpire originally made the decision he would have had the benefit of the doubt in mind. The referral proved his doubt thus it's a good call.

Bitter pill to swallow but that's life.

where?

you said BOTD should go with the batsman

if he'd been given out and referred it he would have remained out

 

[El Diablo]

good one Shittle

Victorian