2ND TEST: Australia v West Indies Adelaide Oval Dec 4 - Dec 8 2009

[ElectricEelMan]

Diabolical decision against Chanderpaul.

Absolutely no conclusive evidence he hit that and thus the third umpire can NOT overturn the initial decision.

 

[yappy]

Well that was an interesting one. I think he did hit it, but there wasn't much evidence to overturn a decision on.

 

[Ridders]

Chanderpaul goonskies

 

[lockyno1]

Was definately an edge, great decision. Good to see the ump give it.

Snicko confirms it!

 

[beads6]

SUNSHINE OH SUNSHINE!!! Lets start placing bets that the Aussies are batting today hahah. Hopefully not though I'd like the windies to make 400 at least

 

[lockyno1]

What a man, what a butt..and what a ball! WATTO!

 

[Hallatia]

when's Nash going to come back out?

 

[TimmyB]

This review system is incredibly ill conceived if decisions like that will be overturned. I support a system that eliminates blatantly wrong or shocking decisions. That was not a blatantly incorrect decision. So why was it overturned?

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is that you lose a review, even when you are correct. If the original call is correct, why should Australia lose a challenge.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Should really be confined to lbws imo.

 

[Fui!!!]

when's Nash going to come back out?

2nd innings :?

EDIT: Actually he seems to be good now, they just showed him in the nets.

 

[lockyno1]

This review system is incredibly ill conceived if decisions like that will be overturned. I support a system that eliminates blatantly wrong or shocking decisions. That was not a blatantly incorrect decision. So why was it overturned?

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is that you lose a review, even when you are correct. If the original call is correct, why should Australia lose a challenge.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Should really be confined to lbws imo.

It was blatantly wrong- he clearly hit it. Snicko has just confirmed it. Controversial maybe, but the reality is he hit it, just like he hit the previous one!

 

[Hallatia]

2nd innings :?

I was under the impression he would be back this innings and it was looking a lot better ....

 

[Fui!!!]

I was under the impression he would be back this innings and it was looking a lot better ....

Yeah I just noticed that... Maybe next batsman?

 

[lockyno1]

Hope Johnson breaks it this time!

 

[ElectricEelMan]

It was blatantly wrong- he clearly hit it. Snicko has just confirmed it. Controversial maybe, but the reality is he hit it, just like he hit the previous one!

That is total bullsh*t
He DID not clearly hit that.
There was asbolutely no conclusive evidence he hit it ... in fact hot spot showed nothing

 

[TimmyB]

Locky - Snicko is not a part of the technology because it's not reliable.

It's important to remember that under the referral system, the umpire is not meant to decide whether a batsman was in or out. They are required to assess the ORIGINAL DECISION. Even if the evidence suggests a decision contrary to that of the on field umpire, it should not be overruled unless this evidence is conclusive. There was no conclusive evidence in this case.

Think of it this way. The umpire on the field has a civil standard of proof and the referral umpire has a criminal standard - beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[lockyno1]

That is total bullsh*t
He DID not clearly hit that.
There was asbolutely no conclusive evidence he hit it ... in fact hot spot showed nothing

It deviated off the bat, it was out. No doubt in my mind he hit it. He got away with the first one, not so lucky on the 2nd occasion. The reality though is he hit it. Hotspot was never going to show it as the angle of the bat was not straight. Snicko confirmed the edge, frankly that is enough evidence for me to give the decision.

 

[lockyno1]

Locky - Snicko is not a part of the technology because it's not reliable.

It's important to remember that under the referral system, the umpire is not meant to decide whether a batsman was in or out. They are required to assess the ORIGINAL DECISION. Even if the evidence suggests a decision contrary to that of the on field umpire, it should not be overruled unless this evidence is conclusive. There was no conclusive evidence in this case.

Think of it this way. The umpire on the field has a civil standard of proof and the referral umpire has a criminal standard - beyond reasonable doubt.

Snicko is just as reliable as hotspot, both have their faults. Fine edges do not show up on hotspot, I remember AB Devillers nicking one in a similar fashion and hotspot not showing anything.

In my view the evidence was conclusive, the ball deviated from the original line at the point of contact with the bat. In my view there was enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to overturn the decision.

 

[Hallatia]

there's the Bravo century off 145

 

[Fui!!!]

I still think WI can push on 400... not so sure about there bowling though.

 

[TheParraboy]

SUNSHINE OH SUNSHINE!!! Lets start placing bets that the Aussies are batting today hahah. Hopefully not though I'd like the windies to make 400 at least

and a side bet Sunshine will get another quack? :crazy:

Bravo not out lbw, good decision