***Official*** England in India

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Spark

The **** is going on?

India are "batting".

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

But what does where the fielder took the ball have to do with the edge though?

If that had carried further and Trott took a more obvious catch then Gambhir would have been out. That would be a travesty

I'm happy with the end result but the process is ridiculous. If you can trust it there why you can't you trust it everywhere else?

Yeah that strikes me as bizarre.

However, I'm sure something very similar happened during the 09 Ashes with Ponting. Though there it was given out anyway, to the confusion of everyone...

[Jono]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

He wasn't looking that good in the first dig for the first 30-40 runs was he?

Yes but Tendulkar is playing for India, and himself, not playing for some legacy in 30 years.

He's still one of India's best 6 batsman, and still enjoys playing.

Really should only retire when he's not good enough to play for India any more or he doesn't enjoy the game any more. Neither of these is true right nw.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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.

Just to make this even more complicated, I'm going to put it out there that Rod Tucker may have done exactly this, knowing the rule. It took him ages to actually call for the replay to see if the ball carried, so perhaps he never thought Gambhir hit the ball but after England's elongated appeal and the position Trott took the ball he decided to "check to see if it carried". Wink wink nudge nudge.

[NasserFan207]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

But what does where the fielder took the ball have to do with the edge though?

If that had carried further and Trott took a more obvious catch then Gambhir would have been out. That would be a travesty

I'm happy with the end result but the process is ridiculous. If you can trust it there why you can't you trust it everywhere else?

I agree with you that the process and original premise in this system is rubbish. Personally though all I care about is the end result and getting good decisions, so although I'd prefer DRS, at least in this scenario a right decision was made, even if it was kinda weird.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Jono

Yes but Tendulkar is playing for India, and himself, not playing for some legacy in 30 years.

He's still one of India's best 6 batsman, and still enjoys playing.

Really should only retire when he's not good enough to play for India any more or he doesn't enjoy the game any more. Neither of these is true right nw.

Thank you Jono. I cbf today.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

But what does where the fielder took the ball have to do with the edge though?

If that had carried further and Trott took a more obvious catch then Gambhir would have been out. That would be a travesty

I'm happy with the end result but the process is ridiculous. If you can trust it there why you can't you trust it everywhere else?

It doesn't. I think the umpires can technically just ask if a batsman has edged it. I don't think there's a law preventing that?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by NasserFan207

I agree with you that the process and original premise in this system is rubbish. Personally though all I care about is the end result and getting good decisions, so although I'd prefer DRS, at least in this scenario a right decision was made, even if it was kinda weird.

Yeah, it's only going to lead to more decisions being correct if they leave it in, so I'm in favour of it I guess. My problem is that it doesn't actually make any sense at all to allow it in only that situation. It's like saying you can only use Hawkeye on the fourth ball of the over.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

It doesn't. I think the umpires can technically just ask if a batsman has edged it. I don't think there's a law preventing that?

Nah I'm 99% sure they can't do that. They can only ask if the catch carried, and if the third umpire finds that the batsman didn't hit it while looking at that, then it's not out. If the catch obviously carried then it doesn't get reviewed and the batsman is out. Which is just weird.

[Jono]

Yuvraj is poor against spin and poor against pace with movement.

How are you still in the team ffs.

(p.s. I'm glad you have made a come back from cancer)

[NasserFan207]

Originally Posted by Daemon

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

A frantic first hour after lunch with plenty of drama. Turns out by the way, that the umpires are actually allowed to check anything they like! But if that's the case, why is there a need for DRS?! Bizarre. Anyhow, Monty is in the building...

Hmm...

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Spark

Yeah that strikes me as bizarre.

However, I'm sure something very similar happened during the 09 Ashes with Ponting. Though there it was given out anyway, to the confusion of everyone...

In fact I suspect it would've been changed in exactly this case. I think it was Lord's first dig, where one came off Ponting's pad through to Prior, and they claimed the catch. They checked if it had carried (which it had)... then gave it out, despite it being plainly obvious that he'd gotten nowhere near it. Was absolutely absurd (although tbf he was probably plumb LBW as well)

[AndyZaltzHair]

This rule is unfair to the batsmen whose non-edges-given-out carrying comfortably to the fielder

[flibbertyjibber]

Originally Posted by Jono

Yuvraj is poor against spin and poor against pace with movement.

How are you still in the team ffs.

(p.s. I'm glad you have made a come back from cancer)

Agree with all of that but seeing as you are playing England I am glad he is in the team. If he is hardly bowling no real point to him being in the side at all. A bit like Fatit for us.

[Jono]

Stayed low, this could be over before tea.