| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday 10:04 - Aug 26 with 5553 views | urbanblue |
They're all in a rage about it over here in Aus. They think that if the Umpire was unsure he should have given 'Out' so that Stokes would have reviewed and therefore it would have gone to DRS ....
... but he didn't
... Good!    |  | | |  |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 13:53 - Aug 26 with 772 views | Johnny_Boy |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 12:22 - Aug 26 by factual_blue |
I'd say their mentality is 'fight hard, but fight fair'. A winning mentality, but not at any price. |
That's the thing.
I practically agree with that sentiment - but I also think they're not adverse to bending any rules in their favour. Any way to get an advantage, they will pounce in it. Unfortunately, that also comes at a price of individuals going that extra distance to cheat. |  | | |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 15:13 - Aug 26 with 731 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 10:16 - Aug 26 by Guthrum |
They shouldn't have wasted their last review on a desperate punt (which pretty much nobody thought was out) shortly before. Indeed, that probably sowed the thought in the umpires' minds that such a ball was likely to be going down leg. |
This.
Plus they had been desperately appealing for things they clearly knew were not out as they gave no thought at all to a review when it was given not out.
It is embarrassing for an umpire to have their decision overturned, so I think as soon one side has used up all their reviews, if anything they are likely to side slightly on the side of the team with review(s) left.
As Sparks says, the standard of umpiring has been poor, but then again so have some of the reviews too. The Aussie's first review was for one that Bairstow missed by a long way too. |  |
| |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 15:17 - Aug 26 with 729 views | factual_blue |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 13:53 - Aug 26 by Johnny_Boy |
That's the thing.
I practically agree with that sentiment - but I also think they're not adverse to bending any rules in their favour. Any way to get an advantage, they will pounce in it. Unfortunately, that also comes at a price of individuals going that extra distance to cheat. |
One could say the same of Vaughan using sub fielders for his bowlers in 2005. Just about legitimate, and wound Ponting up no end.
It's a characteristic of 'success' in sport if not all walks of life, to find and exploit legitimate advantage. |  |
| |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 16:34 - Aug 26 with 699 views | Radlett_blue |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 15:13 - Aug 26 by Nthsuffolkblue |
This.
Plus they had been desperately appealing for things they clearly knew were not out as they gave no thought at all to a review when it was given not out.
It is embarrassing for an umpire to have their decision overturned, so I think as soon one side has used up all their reviews, if anything they are likely to side slightly on the side of the team with review(s) left.
As Sparks says, the standard of umpiring has been poor, but then again so have some of the reviews too. The Aussie's first review was for one that Bairstow missed by a long way too. |
Yes, the point of the review system was to eliminate umpiring howlers and the accusations of bias. It's generally done a pretty good job of that. Teams do still use it for desperate reasons, with the Aussie review for Cummins's ball that pitched way outside leg stump & ultimately you have to accept that there will always be marginal decisions in most professional sport.
John Dyson was run out by a yard in the 5th Test in Sydney in 1983, given not out, went on to make 70-odd, without which England may well have won the game. so does that mean that Australia didn't legitimately regain the Ashes in 1983 - of course not. |  |
| |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 17:04 - Aug 26 with 682 views | Johnny_Boy |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 15:17 - Aug 26 by factual_blue |
One could say the same of Vaughan using sub fielders for his bowlers in 2005. Just about legitimate, and wound Ponting up no end.
It's a characteristic of 'success' in sport if not all walks of life, to find and exploit legitimate advantage. |
And where exactly would you place the dubious art of sledging into all of this? You can't deny that the Aussies have it down as an art form. | | | |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 17:27 - Aug 26 with 661 views | Ryorry |
| That lbw 'Not Out' on Stokes yesterday on 10:16 - Aug 26 by Guthrum |
They shouldn't have wasted their last review on a desperate punt (which pretty much nobody thought was out) shortly before. Indeed, that probably sowed the thought in the umpires' minds that such a ball was likely to be going down leg. |
Everyone keeps calling that review "desperate", and I suppose it was, but at that exact point, with I think England just needing 8 runs to win, the Aussies probably thought it'd be the last review of the game therefore they might as well use it even if there was only a 1% chance of it going their way, because that would be better than it being unused. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
