Referral Discussion

[ankitj]

Actually speaking the rule just asked the on field umpire to use common sense for these cases. Sadly Billy lacked it.

Yes, if the replay showed the ball just hitting the top of the wickets for example, it will be legitimate for the on field umpire to give that not out for being hit very far in front of the wicket. But in this case it was middle of middle stump. No question of considering the 2.5 m distance.

[Spark]

Yeah having seen the replay now that is a dreadful decision by Billy. Really quite horrible.

[Daemon]

I ****ing hate umpires. Always ruin things.

[salman85]

Sometimes things will go your way,sometimes they won't.Reverse the teams,and you would see England/English fans getting upset,and the Indians accepting it as a part of the game.

Lighten up.**** happens.

[ankitj]

Sometimes things will go your way,sometimes they won't.Reverse the teams,and you would see England/English fans getting upset,and the Indians accepting it as a part of the game.

Agree with that. But like to think I am different

[Howe_zat]

Bell doesn't get it either.

Part #54 in the ongoing "Ian Bell Doesn't Understand Things" saga.

[Marcuss]

I will say that I think the people who are saying it's a horrible decision are focussing on the fact it was hitting middle half way up. In real time quite a few people had doubts whether it was outside the line or not.

[Cruxdude]

I will say that I think the people who are saying it's a horrible decision are focussing on the fact it was hitting middle half way up. In real time quite a few people had doubts whether it was outside the line or not.

Where it hit is not the predictive element of Hawkeye. The only predictive part is how it goes after hitting the pad. So there was no issue about hitting in line.

Think what lost India the match is not appealing for Strauss caught behind.

[Blaze 18]

Where it hit is not the predictive element of Hawkeye. The only predictive part is how it goes after hitting the pad. So there was no issue about hitting in line.

Think what lost India the match is not appealing for Strauss caught behind.

Twice!

[Shri]

Match fixing ****s!

[Bun]

Yeah, exactly. If the rules say don't overturn it if it's more than 2.5m, then you can't apply common sense.

Argue with the rules, fine but let's not give the umpires grief for doing their job.

It was shown on the big screen... Silly Billy, if he had half a brain, would've known whatever be the "approximations", it was going to hit the stumps.

[ankitj]

Match fixing ****s!

And Warne is involved in this.

[Bun]

The funniest thing is that Bell started walking... FFS Billy you egoist ****... The only person in the whole ****ing universe who thought that was missing the stumps was him...

Anyway much water, bridge etc. But I am pretty sure ICC can shelve any hopes of implementing UDRS in test cricket

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, because it's better to have 4-5 howlers per match than to have one wrong decision in a whole ODI tournament.

[Howe_zat]

For ****'s sake. The UDRS does not have "Ian Bell cannot be given out lbw" written into its rules.

It was a pants decision by Bowden. Blame him if you want to moan. He's been awful for some time.

The UDRS still allows **** desicions because - perfectly fairly - it is a way of allowing the technology to be used by the umpires. Who then make decisions. Said decisions will be the same as they were before, only more informed.

**** decisions are of course still possible with UDRS. It simply makes them rarer. And this kind of distracting topic can be avoided more often.