• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Recent content by bcubed

  1. B

    Abolish the DRS

    Err no you didn't But don't worry if it's too difficult to grasp
  2. B

    Abolish the DRS

    It doesn't say might have hit. It doesn't say would probably have hit. It says would have. So to me (and this is why the cricketing world has traditionally interpreted it this way) it means the umpire needs to be sure it definitely would have hit
  3. B

    Abolish the DRS

    So the batsman is only out if "but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket". Unless the ball would have (i.e. without doubt) gone on to hit the stumps, the batsman is not out lbw. i.e. he should get the benefit of the doubt
  4. B

    Abolish the DRS

    You are confused You previously referred to the DRS system being reality - I said its not and the only reality is whether a ball hits the stumps or not. Anything else is guesswork, scientifically supported or not So lbw is absolutely not a black or white scenario hence one should get the...
  5. B

    Abolish the DRS

    Fair comment but my point is that without DRS umpires are guessing (albeit using their judgement) and should still not give things out if they are in doubt
  6. B

    Abolish the DRS

    It's not reality which is what you claimed. Reality is ball hitting stumps or ball not hitting stumps. Of course the technology helps but batsman should only be given out when the umpire believes the ball will definitely hit the stumps, I.e. there is no doubt And I can only say it is...
  7. B

    Abolish the DRS

    Except no one (at least not me) is talking about thrusting your pad down the pitch. Bat and pad together is still a legitimate defence as far as I know and if it was that easy to "use your bat to defend" why do all cricketers, especially Test cricketers, keep getting out lbw?
  8. B

    Abolish the DRS

    No argument was presented "use your bat then" is facile
  9. B

    Abolish the DRS

    First of all its not reality its a predicted path And since when was the benefit of the doubt a trite maxim?! And local umpires do give them because they see these decisions being given on TV and think they should also give them
  10. B

    Abolish the DRS

    Perhaps you are a bowler. Perhaps you don't play cricket. Perhaps you are incapable of a coherent response. But if that's the standard of considered response round here, I will waste no more time
  11. B

    Abolish the DRS

    Am new to this Forum - I needed somewhere to talk DRS I am having issues with DRS I think umpires have lost their way and no longer know what's out and what isn't Darma clearly needs a rest and Tucker can't spot a massive inside edge Case in point is Cooks dismissal on 4th day. Pre DRS that...
See more

Top