creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Bruce Rioja]

Hmmm. Lancs need 195 to beat Notts in the T20. 9.75 an over will require some doing.

EDIT: Great start. Stephen Moore out to the first ball of the innings. Caught & Bowled with one of, if not the poorest shot I've ever seen.

[TANGODANCER]

Test three underway. Aussies' batting first. 11-0.

[mrkint]

big question: what score will watson be on when he is out LBW and reviews it like a mug?

[TANGODANCER]

Knocking the bells off our bowlers right now. Got a feeling this'll be a higher-scoring test all round.

[TANGODANCER]

Watson gone. 76-1.

[Bruce Rioja]

Watson gone. 76-1.

Couldn't have come at a better time - him and Rogers were just beginning to shift through the gears.

[TANGODANCER]

Watson gone. 76-1.

Couldn't have come at a better time - him and Rogers were just beginning to shift through the gears.

Aye, a bit worrying when they start belting your fast bowlers about. Another before lunch would be very nice.

[Bruce Rioja]

They're at it again.

EDIT: I'm really not sure about that!

[TANGODANCER]

Yeaaaah.

[Bruce Rioja]

I really don't know how that's not been overturned. Quite simply - he wasn't out.

[BWFC_Insane]

I really don't know how that's not been overturned. Quite simply - he wasn't out.

Flabbergasted Bruce. I don't know HOW they could give that out after review.

Just unbelieveable. Not one piece of evidence said out.

Not one.

[TANGODANCER]

Only heard it but it seemed iffy in the time it took. Prior and Bell big appeals might have had some effect. Umpire heard something because he asked if the bat had hit the pad which was refuted by the camera. Beyond that?

[thebish]

Only heard it but it seemed iffy in the time it took. Prior and Bell big appeals might have had some effect. Umpire heard something because he asked if the bat had hit the pad which was refuted by the camera. Beyond that?

quite the contrary... BBC reckon that the camera clearly showed bat hitting pad...

also showed daylight between bat and ball, no hotspot and that the sound comes before the ball passes the bat...

baffling! (but at the same time - ace! )

[BWFC_Insane]

Only heard it but it seemed iffy in the time it took. Prior and Bell big appeals might have had some effect. Umpire heard something because he asked if the bat had hit the pad which was refuted by the camera. Beyond that?

The bat hit the pad, was clearly shown on camera and hotspot.

EDIT: As Bish says above. On review it was clear that bat hit pad. As ball went past bat there was no obvious noise. A noise seemed to be well before ball passed bat. Another camera angle showed clear daylight between ball and bat as the ball went through.

[Bruce Rioja]

Only heard it but it seemed iffy in the time it took. Prior and Bell big appeals might have had some effect. Umpire heard something because he asked if the bat had hit the pad which was refuted by the camera. Beyond that?

The bat hit the pad, was clearly shown on camera and hotspot.

EDIT: As Bish says above. On review it was clear that bat hit pad. As ball went past bat there was no obvious noise. A noise seemed to be well before ball passed bat. Another camera angle showed clear daylight between ball and bat as the ball went through.

Which begs the question - why bother with the technology at all if we're not going to overturn incorrect decisions, as was clearly the case here? I don't think the bat got to within an inch of the ball

[BWFC_Insane]

Only heard it but it seemed iffy in the time it took. Prior and Bell big appeals might have had some effect. Umpire heard something because he asked if the bat had hit the pad which was refuted by the camera. Beyond that?

The bat hit the pad, was clearly shown on camera and hotspot.

EDIT: As Bish says above. On review it was clear that bat hit pad. As ball went past bat there was no obvious noise. A noise seemed to be well before ball passed bat. Another camera angle showed clear daylight between ball and bat as the ball went through.

Which begs the question - why bother with the technology at all if we're not going to overturn incorrect decisions, as was clearly the case here? I don't think the bat got to within an inch of the ball

I just don't know. I'm a big fan of using it. But sometimes I just think "what the hell are they doing?".

[TANGODANCER]

All I had was the conversation in the commentary box. I agree that if technology gets it wrong, why bother with it? Thing is, with no technology he's have been given out anyway. Both wrong and it takes the edge off getting the wicket.

[thebish]

All I had was the conversation in the commentary box. I agree that if technology gets it wrong, why bother with it? Thing is, with no technology he's have been given out anyway. Both wrong and it takes the edge off getting the wicket.

indeed! good point!

still - hilarious though!

[Bruce Rioja]

Thing is, with no technology he's have been given out anyway.

True enough, but it's exactly why we do have it - I thought he was out watching it in real time, same as the umpire, and then had that disappointing feeling of 'Oh bollocks - he didn't get anywhere near it' on watching the appeal.

Given that the technology is in place then this decision, and I fully understand that I'm risking a hyperbole call here, is one of, if not the worst decision I've ever seen given in cricket

[thebish]

Thing is, with no technology he's have been given out anyway.

True enough, but it's exactly why we do have it - I thought he was out watching it in real time, same as the umpire, and then had that disappointing feeling of 'Oh bollocks - he didn't get anywhere near it' on watching the appeal.

and then the "oh - fecking ace - he's been given out anyway" feeling??