Australia v New Zealand, 3rd Test, Adelaide, 27 Nov - 1 Dec, 2015

Ton to Maddinson in the Shield today. Surely he's a better choice than S Marsh.

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Not to mention the fact that a hotspot showed up on EVERY angle. Crazy decision.

i think the major problem was that the possible contact was out of frame on the leg side hotspot. Snicko also didn't show anything.

It didn't need snicko. There was an obvious deflection on the mid off super slo mo. In a game like that s, the extra runs these two add could be vital.

The point is that there was to be definitive evidence to overturn the decision. Umpires have been criticized here for overturning on flimsy evidence. My gut feel is that he was out, but there was enough evidence.

Are you watching the game?

Yes. So you don't need snicko. So your argument is that we ignore the evidence that doesn't suit your scenario. Most people also know that a front on picture is only in 2D and also foreshortens. Once again the problem was the leg side hotspot being out of frame. Maybe if you let go of your bias for once.

Everyone in the world but you and Nigel Llong thinks that was out. Three hotspot angles showing a mark, and a CLEAR DEFLECTION on the replay, and you're not convinced. Not enough evidence for you at Mr Llong? Basically you're ruling out four different pieces of evidence, in favour of one (snicko). The problem is Llong's (and apparently your) incompetence, not my bias.

I'm sure your complete neutrality would ensure not a peep from you had it been South Africa bowling.....

Is anyone else slightly worries about how easy batting looks atm?

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Not to mention the fact that a hotspot showed up on EVERY angle. Crazy decision.

i think the major problem was that the possible contact was out of frame on the leg side hotspot. Snicko also didn't show anything.

It didn't need snicko. There was an obvious deflection on the mid off super slo mo. In a game like that s, the extra runs these two add could be vital.

The point is that there was to be definitive evidence to overturn the decision. Umpires have been criticized here for overturning on flimsy evidence. My gut feel is that he was out, but there was enough evidence.

Are you watching the game?

Yes. So you don't need snicko. So your argument is that we ignore the evidence that doesn't suit your scenario. Most people also know that a front on picture is only in 2D and also foreshortens. Once again the problem was the leg side hotspot being out of frame. Maybe if you let go of your bias for once.

Everyone in the world but you and Nigel Llong thinks that was out. Three hotspot angles showing a mark, and a CLEAR DEFLECTION on the replay, and you're not convinced. Not enough evidence for you at Mr Llong? Basically you're ruling out four different pieces of evidence, in favour of one (snicko).  The problem is Llong's (and apparently your) incompetence, not my bias.

I'm sure your complete neutrality would ensure not a peep from you had it been South Africa bowling.....

Do you understand the meaning of definitive?

Decent 50 by Nifty.

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Not to mention the fact that a hotspot showed up on EVERY angle. Crazy decision.

i think the major problem was that the possible contact was out of frame on the leg side hotspot. Snicko also didn't show anything.

It didn't need snicko. There was an obvious deflection on the mid off super slo mo. In a game like that s, the extra runs these two add could be vital.

The point is that there was to be definitive evidence to overturn the decision. Umpires have been criticized here for overturning on flimsy evidence. My gut feel is that he was out, but there was enough evidence.

Are you watching the game?

Yes. So you don't need snicko. So your argument is that we ignore the evidence that doesn't suit your scenario. Most people also know that a front on picture is only in 2D and also foreshortens. Once again the problem was the leg side hotspot being out of frame. Maybe if you let go of your bias for once.

Everyone in the world but you and Nigel Llong thinks that was out. Three hotspot angles showing a mark, and a CLEAR DEFLECTION on the replay, and you're not convinced. Not enough evidence for you at Mr Llong? Basically you're ruling out four different pieces of evidence, in favour of one (snicko).  The problem is Llong's (and apparently your) incompetence, not my bias.

I'm sure your complete neutrality would ensure not a peep from you had it been South Africa bowling.....

Do you understand the meaning of definitive?

Yes I do. I understand that three hotspot marks, all from different cameras, all on the same part of the bat, combined with a slo mo replay that shows the ball deflecting off the top of the bat, combined with the batsman himself starting to walk off because he thought he was out, is definitive.

If you don't think that's definitive then congrats- I'm sure the BCCI will be happy to employ you.

Lyon only walked when he saw hot spot. He may not have known either way if he hit it.

JGK wrote:Lyon only walked when he saw hot spot. He may not have known either way if he hit it.

Because he knew the game was up. The technology had worked and there was no getting away with it. Not even an Aussie batsman will hang around when all evidence shows he's out.............unless (from now on) they know Nigel Llong is in front of the monitor

Lyon now has as many runs as 5 of our useless top 6.

So a potential game changing call by Llong then?

JGK wrote:Lyon only walked when he saw hot spot. He may not have known either way if he hit it.

Llong wasn't aware of Lyon walking off and in any event I don't know whether that is what the umpire is judging on.

I will await Embee's views on this.

Elmer goes. Hard luck, Snoozers.

If a NZ batsman gets clean bowled, he should hang around at the crease on the basis that, you know, that object that crashed into the stumps "could have been anything".

Still, 74 extremely valuable runs for Aus.

Starc limping to the wicket does'nt fill me with a lot of confidence.

Big Dog wrote:Starc limping to the wicket does'nt fill me with a lot of confidence.

I think it's a bad decision.

Out lbw, review.

Looks to be missing leg.

Overturned. Poor old Sheep.

Come on, that computerised line showing the ball missing leg stump by six inches could have been ANYTHING! Give him out.

Shot Koo.

Anywho, all good entertainment.

Woohoo - in front!!!

Handy runs from Koo!!!

Zak!!!!