Yeah, shocker. Also, Im guessing it was Brett Lee but that ball isnt even close to the glove. Clearly comes of the forearm guard.
Absolutely. The reason I was looking at this clip was I saw the Waqar clips and wanted to re-watch Caddick swinging the ball around corners in his amazing spell against WI.
No and the errors in his favour and the errors against him may have evened each other out. My view is that we shouldn't need to rely on two wrongs making a right any more. We have the ability to improve decision-making and on-field behaviour dramatically by the introduction of "technology", and rather to my surprise it has been embraced by the powers-that-be. Praise be!
Yeah just watched that four wickets in an over.
Yes bad one aswell.
I have to say, as something of a sceptic initially, it has worked a lot better on our current tour than it did in the Windies. Using the pitch map and Hawkeye have definitely made it more effective. The absence of snicko and hotspot is very annoying, but easily (if not cheaply) rememdied. Absolutely agree with tight calls staying with the on-field umps too, but think the definition of "tight calls" is a little broad currently. Swann had one review rejected where it looked like the majority of the ball was hitting the stumps on the projection. There's obviously a margin of error, but not that big a one, surely?
Your point is obviously completely valid, and it's a concern I share, but I think there's an important trade-off here though. There might be a case for having, say, 3 reviews per innings rather than 2. But regardless of the precise number of reviews, I'm all for limiting it in this sort of way because it encourages the players to show some discipline in the use of the system, and it improves players' behaviour. Unlimited reviews would cause pretty bad delays and I think would be both unpopular and too unwieldy to work in practice.
I do agree and I think the captains have increasingly made efforts to only refer the real howlers (of which we saw none under Dar and Davis in two tests but three under Hill and Harper in one, go figure...) but it's not an exact science and it seems to me that major injustices could still have stand because the captain or the previous batsmen have been a bit trigger happy.
I think two is a good number. Three would be pushing it, and anymore than that and you will start just referring random things. Two-three is a good amount.
Exactly.
