***Official*** England in India

[Neil Pickup]

Actually, the decision is correct under the playing conditions.

APPENDIX 4 - SECTION 3.1
c) The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. However, when reviewing the television replay(s), if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball, he shall indicate that the batsman is not out

http://static.icc-cricket.com/ugc/do...203813_266.pdf

[Prince EWS]

Rod Tucker has got a lot of answering to do

He's the one who gave Compton not out before changing his mind and giving him lbw after he's completed a run too. Weird Test from him.

[Jamee999]

Adam Mountford ‏@tmsproducer
In non DRS match regulations allow for umpires to ask if ball was hit even if they are only checking for a low catch. But he's out anyway!

[Howe_zat]

Actually, the decision is correct under the playing conditions.

APPENDIX 4 - SECTION 3.1
c) The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. However, when reviewing the television replay(s), if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball, he shall indicate that the batsman is not out

http://static.icc-cricket.com/ugc/do...203813_266.pdf

Ah, fair play in that case then.

[Prince EWS]

Actually, the decision is correct under the playing conditions.

APPENDIX 4 - SECTION 3.1
c) The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. However, when reviewing the television replay(s), if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball, he shall indicate that the batsman is not out

http://static.icc-cricket.com/ugc/do...203813_266.pdf

That's an absolutely ridiculous rule. So you're only allowed to check the edge if a fielder takes a catch near the ground?

If I was an umpire I'd be "checking to see if the fielder caught it" whenever I wasn't 100% on an edge, even if he took in the chest.

[stumpski]

I'd have settled for 3 wickets in the session btw, any more willl be a bonus. Just want to see SRT make a few now.

With Sehwag there India would likely have been ahead by tea.

[flibbertyjibber]

Get Tendulkar before tea and it might be over today.

[Prince EWS]

Get Tendulkar before tea and it might be over today.

Haha, best post!

[Turbinator]

Yup, it's over.

[Daemon]

Actually, the decision is correct under the playing conditions.

APPENDIX 4 - SECTION 3.1
c) The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. However, when reviewing the television replay(s), if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball, he shall indicate that the batsman is not out

http://static.icc-cricket.com/ugc/do...203813_266.pdf

No doubt this will now appear on Cricinfo. Those bastards.

[Neil Pickup]

I'd have settled for 3 wickets in the session btw, any more willl be a bonus. Just want to see SRT make a few now.

With Sehwad there India would likely have been ahead by tea.

Er, no. As many wickets as possible as fast as possible.

[flibbertyjibber]

I am not giving you guys the lottery numbers for tonight before you ask.

What a session for us. Innings win?

[silentstriker]

Yup. That's a bicycle stand lineup alright.

[Howe_zat]

Yesyesyes

[Turbinator]

Seriously Yuvraj, don't even bother, you're useless.