Australia tour of India, Feb 17-March 29

[GarlicJam]

So, he was out LBW (watching Cricinfo), yet the Indians went up for caught (apparently). What did the on-field ump say the Thirdie when referring the decision?

Seems like this has been given out caught at silly point. No edge, though. This has hit him on the knee roll in front of off. They check the lbw too. This has returned umpire's call for height on middle stump. The on-field decision remains, which means the umpire must have given him out lbw on the field

Was this a procedural stuff-up, or did he say "out, lbw" to the Thirdie?

[rich1uk]

So, he was out LBW (watching Cricinfo), yet the Indians went up for caught (apparently). What did the on-field ump say the Thirdie when referring the decision?

Seems like this has been given out caught at silly point. No edge, though. This has hit him on the knee roll in front of off. They check the lbw too. This has returned umpire's call for height on middle stump. The on-field decision remains, which means the umpire must have given him out lbw on the field

Was this a procedural stuff-up, or did he say "out, lbw" to the Thirdie?

thats one of my bug bears about DRS and umpires call in particular

if the onfield umpire gives a batsman out caught but replays show he didn't hit it, they then go on to check for an LBW and it shows as umpires call on the stumps should the decision stand ?

the onfield umpire wouldn't have made a decision on LBW as he has assumed that the batsman hit it to give it out as caught so an umpires call hawkeye shouldn't stand but afaik it does.

[bigfluffylemon]

Well, India's day, barring late wickets. They should take this home, but I expect there will be a few nerves jangling overnight.

[meninblue]

106 to win. Well played boys, boyz and boyzez. I am so happy to see this scorecard.

[alfie]

So, he was out LBW (watching Cricinfo), yet the Indians went up for caught (apparently). What did the on-field ump say the Thirdie when referring the decision?

Seems like this has been given out caught at silly point. No edge, though. This has hit him on the knee roll in front of off. They check the lbw too. This has returned umpire's call for height on middle stump. The on-field decision remains, which means the umpire must have given him out lbw on the field

Was this a procedural stuff-up, or did he say "out, lbw" to the Thirdie?

I don't think it matters though ? Once it's given out on field it would need a definite "missing" to overturn. Which is probably fair enough in any case.
Though I think he was given lbw anyway.

[Dr Cricket]

So, he was out LBW (watching Cricinfo), yet the Indians went up for caught (apparently). What did the on-field ump say the Thirdie when referring the decision?

Seems like this has been given out caught at silly point. No edge, though. This has hit him on the knee roll in front of off. They check the lbw too. This has returned umpire's call for height on middle stump. The on-field decision remains, which means the umpire must have given him out lbw on the field

Was this a procedural stuff-up, or did he say "out, lbw" to the Thirdie?

thats one of my bug bears about DRS and umpires call in particular

if the onfield umpire gives a batsman out caught but replays show he didn't hit it, they then go on to check for an LBW and it shows as umpires call on the stumps should the decision stand ?

the onfield umpire wouldn't have made a decision on LBW as he has assumed that the batsman hit it to give it out as caught so an umpires call hawkeye shouldn't stand but afaik it does.

might be wrong but if the umpire gave it caught but was lbw, umpire call goes to the batsman benefit.
was a case like this before in england.
in this case the umpire must have given it out lbw.
since if it was out by catch, Australia would still be batting.

[alfie]

Lively first over from Cummins : but all it gets is twelve off the target...

Smith between a rock and a hard place - cant really afford a third man , for instance. But very few runs to play with. Will we see Lyon tonight ?

[Dr Cricket]

here is the link.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-afric ... 05061.html

[rich1uk]

here is the link.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-afric ... 05061.html

that wasn't the incident i was thinking of, dont think i even saw that match

but remember having a prolonged discussion about whether or not the onfield umpire had made a decision on lbw and whether umpires call should be a factor when he had technically not made a decision either way regarding lbw

[GarlicJam]

I don't think it matters though ? Once it's given out on field it would need a definite "missing" to overturn. Which is probably fair enough in any case.
Though I think he was given lbw anyway.

If the ump HAD given him out as caught, then the "umpire's call" of hitting in front of the stumps would be incorrect - as the ump never made that call.

If the ump gave it LBW, then it is out.



Is anyway.

[alfie]

here is the link.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-afric ... 05061.html

Yes that's clear enough. Not sure I agree thatshould be the rule (umpire might well think "that's hitting ; and if he edged it he's caught anyway" ...but there isn't any ambiguity in that .

Vaguely recall the incident , now. Guess that confirms they gave Hazlewood lbw...

[Dr Cricket]

lol Australia reviewing.

[Dr Cricket]

no idea why Australia reviewing considering none of the Australian players were keen for it.

[alfie]

Now Australia burn a review....

Smith has been way off with his referrals in this match. That was not even too close. The sort Stuart Broad would fancy

[Dr Cricket]

india day by a big margin.
hard to see how Australia can turn this around and win the series.