Print

[Vic Nicholas]

Is that Vic being sympathetic to the English???

He must have had sun stroke.

I am first and foremost a fair minded cricket fan.

I only responded to the "Australia will be below Bangladesh for the next 20 years" clap trap that was peddled around here a couple years ago.

I do have English players that I do want to see well. Root is one of them.

[Manormanic]

Trott has hit that. Shambles again

The Agar decision might have been a poor one, but England can't gripe about Trott.  Watching live I thought he'd got a little feather on it but the replays were pretty conclusive that it had gone straight on to pad.

[Vic Nicholas]

Pretty sure Trott got a bit of bat on that. Why didn't they use hotspot from side on?

The snicko revealed only one sound...that of ball hitting pad.

[IQ]

The Agar decision might have been a poor one, but England can't gripe about Trott.  Watching live I thought he'd got a little feather on it but the replays were pretty conclusive that it had gone straight on to pad.

thank god some1 else sees the same as me. no bat!

[rp27]

Are you lot blind? The front on replay clearly shows a deviation in the path of the ball as it passed the bat.

[cricketbadger]

so none of you saw the ball deviate?

[tim2000s]

Anyone put a bet on Australia to win this one yet - odds have got soooo much better...!

[Manormanic]

Are you lot blind? The front on replay clearly shows a deviation in the path of the ball as it passed the bat.

it doesn't - it shows the bat hitting the foot and the relative position of the pad to the ball moving as a result.

though my nephew has just made an interesting point querying whether there was some element of umpires call to it, I would still have given it myself.

[rp27]

it doesn't - it shows the bat hitting the foot and the relative position of the pad to the ball moving as a result.

though my nephew has just made an interesting point querying whether there was some element of umpires call to it, I would still have given it myself.

The angle at which the ball hits the pad clearly shows that it has deviated off the bat.

[tim2000s]

The angle at which the ball hits the pad clearly shows that it has deviated off the bat.

From the hotspot they just replayed it looked like there was a mark on the side of the bat...

And the trajectory of the ball hitting the pad was not consistent with the trajectory before reaching the bat.

[cricketbadger]

it doesn't - it shows the bat hitting the foot and the relative position of the pad to the ball moving as a result.

though my nephew has just made an interesting point querying whether there was some element of umpires call to it, I would still have given it myself.

the bat was a good inch or so above the foot, so he hasn't hit his foot with bat
 as has been said already, the angle of the ball changes after he's smashed the case off of it

[tim2000s]

As the Indians have always said (and we've become used to poo-pooing) DRS is not 100%.

[The_Bird]

The snicko revealed only one sound...that of ball hitting pad.

Snicko is inconclusive, hence why it isn't used. Can't grumble what's done is done, the stumping was the biggest error as his foot was CLEARLY in the air. Nasser's point about clear evidence is spot on.

[cricketbadger]

the more and more I watch it, the more the deviation becomes obvious
that combined with the Agar stumping that was turned down, not a great day for 3rd umpire Erasmus, over ruled Dar for the trot decision, but not for the stumping, when neither had conclusive evidence, no consistency

[tim2000s]

Also snicko is done by matching sound and motion frames. Due to the time period between ball striking bat and pad, snicko would be unlikely to provide a conclusive response in this kind of situation.

It's a bad decision. They happen. I expect Trott is going to come out and score a double century in the next match, he is so miffed at that decision.