The Final Test Thread

[Mr Angry]

Even before that. They took to long to get 650 IMO. So anytime during the last session on day 2 was ideal.

If the target was lower, the Aussies could have got the runs.

I don't think he did much wrong.

Your not setting my fields :?

 

[Southern Rooster]

Bowden again made a great decision :roll:

Yeh he is a good ump isn't he?

Yeah, just ask Anil Kumble.

All bowlers will tell you the umps wrong...unless they rule in their favour that is. LOL.

So when Martyn was plum you agreed with Bowdens decision? :?

I didn't see it,The thing is umpires in any sport get some right and they get some wrong. Bowden is no better or worse than anyone else in that regard, and LBW decissions are probably the hardest of all to rule on, so many variables. I mean the Steve Bucknor at the other end couldn't rule on one the other day because the bowler got in his way, how do we know something similar didn't happened in this case? we aren't there in front of the wicket so how do we know he was plum? Not an easy job.

Well if you saw it you'd be wondering how he didn't give it out.

Last ball before lunch. If that is the one you mean where he padded up. The ball pitched outside leg stump and hence you cannot be out. Playing a shot or not.

 

[Mr Angry]

Check your rule book dude, if no shot is offered, it is irrelevent where it pitches.

 

[Doctor]

Check your rule book dude, if no shot is offered, it is irrelevent where it pitches.

In order to get an LBW the ball must pitch either in line with the stumps or on the off-side of the stumps - it is called a law book and I didn't need to consult it to know that.

The umpire got it 100% correct and suggestions that you can get out having been trapped in front by a ball pitching outside leg stump is ridiculous.

I'm not sure if that incident is the one Tony and El are discussing, but I know the ABC reporter on Tuesday got it wrong too when he stated that the batsman was lucky to survive the appeal.

 

[Doctor]

Check your rule book dude, if no shot is offered, it is irrelevent where it pitches.

Just to clear this up. The ball can pitch anywhere from leg-stump to wide on the offside.

The law you're thinking of is where the ball hits the batsman - this is called the point of interception. If the ball bounces outside off, and hits the batsman in front of the stumps, he can be given out regardless (if the umpire is satisfied that it was hitting the stumps)

If the ball bounces outside off and hits the batsman outside the line of the stumps, he can only be out if he doesn't play a shot - if he does play a shot, even if it was going to wreck the stumps completely, he cannot be given out.

So: It is where the batsman is hit, not where the ball pitches, that you're thinking of regarding playing or not playing a shot.