• 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.

*Official* Australia in Pakistan 2022

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
tbf there were spikes before the ball reached the bat too, but I think it was still out regardless
 

Spark

Global Moderator
That's the faintest edge I've seen given out. The logic holds - there was a murmur on snicko and you couldn't see any gap between the bat and ball - but man feel bad for Azhar.
Yeah that's why I'm surprised. Feels like those usually aren't given
 

cnerd123

likes this
Yeah that's why I'm surprised. Feels like those usually aren't given
It's really pushing the edge of 'conclusive evidence'. Had the on field umpire given that out then it's fine to uphold it based on that, but seems a bit harsh overturning the decision. No clearly audible sound from the stump mic either.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
There is though isn't there? Or am I getting confused with NRL when the bunker says there's insufficient evidence to overturn a decision.
I think I've only ever seen one review for a non-LBW come back as "inconclusive", Kohli against Hazlewood in 17.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah that's why I'm surprised. Feels like those usually aren't given
Those typically have a frame missing right when the ball lines up next to the bat, but it wasn't really the case here. It did seem to be out based on balance of probabilities, but I'm not sure there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision.
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think I've only ever seen one review for a non-LBW come back as "inconclusive", Kohli against Hazlewood in 17.
Hmm don't remember that one. That bat / pad he got recently is the one I think to that should have had that word used.

In any case, I think we can all agree there's a clear precedent with how snicko is used in defining what a snick looks like, we all watch enough of this outdated sport to know this. And that's not how they are 99% of the time defined by the third umpire when a referral happens. Azhar should be incredibly confused.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Surely Imam can't last if he plays at all of these, just brings so many catching options into play.
 

Top