2nd Test: West Indies v Australia at Port of Spain Apr 15-19, 2012

[Hallatia]

that means it was out under the law, I don't think the decision should have been reversed because someone withdrew their appeal. I think the umpires should do their job regardless of whether they are being asked too. That was a stupid incident

 

[Horrie Is God]

It wouldn't be an issue if Sammy asked the umpire what the decision was before withdrawing it..

 

[Horrie Is God]

Hala made the cricinfo coverage..

 

[lockyno1]

Was a silly incident but it was not out...the umpire gave him out CAUGHT BEHIND! He was not given LBW so therefore under the laws you cannot over-rule an on field decision that was 50/50 at best. Not out was the right decision.

 

[Hallatia]

Hala made the cricinfo coverage..

thanks, wasn't my first time, have made it with far more inane comments. I think this was, however, the biggest slab of text I've gotten.

 

[Horrie Is God]

Where has this Ed Cowan been??..

It's bizzaro world..

Davey is batting like Ed..And Ed's batting like Davey..

 

[Hallatia]

turns out I am wrong about the need for appeals according to the laws of cricket.

Law 27 (Appeals)
1. Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal
Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 7 below.

Sauce
what a dumb dumb law

 

[Horrie Is God]

turns out I am wrong about the need for appeals according to the laws of cricket.

Sauce
what a dumb dumb law

That's what i was saying..:lol:

Sammy is an idiot for withdrawing the appeal before asking the ump..

 

[Hallatia]

so, according to this rule, if someone has been bowled out, you still need to appeal for it in order for it to be a wicket under the laws of cricket

 

[Horrie Is God]

Under Law 27 yes..

 

[Hallatia]

I guess the lesson is, appeal for everything and take whatever you can get.

From the same law

4. Appeal "How’s That?"
An appeal "How’s That?" covers all ways of being out.

 

[Horrie Is God]

Thankfully they never apply Law 27 to bowled decisions..

These 2 just chalked up another 50 partnership while we've been on about cricket laws..

Well done Davey & Ed..

Australia 0/53 off 15 overs..

 

[Horrie Is God]

Spinner gets Davey 1st over..

1/53..

 

[lockyno1]

so, according to this rule, if someone has been bowled out, you still need to appeal for it in order for it to be a wicket under the laws of cricket

Correct. For a decision to be upheld there must be an appeal, no appeal=no wicket. Really simple concept to be honest. Lets not forget that Warner would not have been given under DRS...

Warner gone to the pie thrower

 

[Hallatia]

Correct. For a decision to be upheld there must be an appeal, no appeal=no wicket. Really simple concept to be honest. Lets not forget that Warner would not have been given under DRS...

there has to be an appeal or the batsman has to have walked, the law recognises that as a wicket too

 

[lockyno1]

there has to be an appeal or the batsman has to have walked, the law recognises that as a wicket too

Sure...Warner didn't walk though. Plus no batsmen EVER walks for an LBW!

 

[Patorick]

Good even session.

Run out is odds on for next wicket though.

 

[TheParraboy]

day 1 tea

Aust 3/132

pup to the rescue again, Sunshine could get a biggie here too

Groundhog day after the new ball has lost its shine, run rate very low. Not an ideal endorsment for test cricket. as intriguing and challenging as it is

 

[hineyrulz]

day 1 tea

Aust 3/132

pup to the rescue again, Sunshine could get a biggie here too

Groundhog day after the new ball has lost its shine, run rate very low. Not an ideal endorsment for test cricket. as intriguing and challenging as it is

:lol: can you ever use your powers for good???? Like a Parra win??

 

[aussies1st]

Shane "Mr 50s" Watson doesn't need anymore help to get out in the 50s.