Australia v England, 1st Test, Brisbane, Nov 25-29, 2010

If Dar had given Trott out ...and the Poms referred it ...would it have been overturned?

Where in the Laws of cricket does it say that more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps for it to be LBW?

Streaky batting from Cook and Trott. Edges going everywhere.

JGK wrote:How grouse is Test cricket.

Cricket with meaning.

Amen to that

40mins in the the woofing, or reverse woofing is getting on my nerves.

People, get a grip.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:What's the pitch like anyone? Is Cook still looking all over the shop technically?

Green tinge, lots of swing for Hilfenhaus but very slow bounce.

One ball went through the top a la Oval 2009 on the first day.

Cook's doing well actually, leaving the ball well, playing it late. All the action has been at Trott's end.

embee wrote:If Dar had given Trott out ...and the Poms referred it ...would it have been overturned?

Where in the Laws of cricket does it say that more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps for it to be LBW?

Looked about an eighth of the ball was hitting the leg stump.

The odd ball is going through the surface on day 1. Hmm.....

embee wrote:If Dar had given Trott out ...and the Poms referred it ...would it have been overturned?

Where in the Laws of cricket does it say that more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps for it to be LBW?

No, it would have been out. The third umps decision was "On field umps call".

Henry wrote:The odd ball is going through the surface on day 1. Hmm.....

Yeah, a few leading edges already.

Great toss to win with Swannie to bowl last.

OK, how much of this do I watch, bearing in mind that I have to be up to walk the ankle biter to school?

Up until England are 400/1, Bas.

JGK wrote:

embee wrote:If Dar had given Trott out ...and the Poms referred it ...would it have been overturned?

Where in the Laws of cricket does it say that more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps for it to be LBW?

No, it would have been out. The third umps decision was "On field umps call".

Of course, we're assuming that hawkeye is 100% accurate. There was doubt there. Benefit of the doubt etc.

embee wrote:If Dar had given Trott out ...and the Poms referred it ...would it have been overturned?

Where in the Laws of cricket does it say that more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps for it to be LBW?

No, wouldn't have been overturned.

Watching real time I thought it was out too.

The rule is new - because the hawkeye system isn't 100% reliable. To overturn the umpire's decision there should be no margin of doubt.

Basil wrote:OK, how much of this do I watch, bearing in mind that I have to be up to walk the ankle biter to school?

Let him call in sick.

The commentators are at pains to explain it's not going through the top but disturbing grass cuttings spread by the groundsman to 'help bind the pitch'.

Henry wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:What's the pitch like anyone? Is Cook still looking all over the shop technically?

He's looking terrible. Likely to get out at any moment. We are so screwed.

Good to hear. Sounds like KP will be exposed to the new ball pretty soon, something he was never great at doing even in his pomp never mind now when he's become this overly - intense, technically-shot spastic.

Spiffing.

England all out for 250-300 with the tail doing most of the work.....again.

Henry wrote:

JGK wrote:

embee wrote:If Dar had given Trott out ...and the Poms referred it ...would it have been overturned?

Where in the Laws of cricket does it say that more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps for it to be LBW?

No, it would have been out. The third umps decision was "On field umps call".

Of course, we're assuming that hawkeye is 100% accurate. There was doubt there. Benefit of the doubt etc.

But if the ump had given it out live, then there is no doubt.

Here comes Midge.

Excellent - Johno on. Had enough of those opening trundlers..

JGK wrote:

embee wrote:If Dar had given Trott out ...and the Poms referred it ...would it have been overturned?

Where in the Laws of cricket does it say that more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps for it to be LBW?

No, it would have been out. The third umps decision was "On field umps call".

As the TV umpire failed to make a decision then the challenge shouldnt be counted as unsuccessful

Hasn't taken long for the first Aussie sooking to start.

If you are referring to me Trev then I am just trying to figure out a way to get the UDRS to work properly and fairly

My first thought on the decision was "going down leg" ...so I am not unhappy with the decision

If you can put a counterpoint to my statements I'd be happy to debate them

embee wrote:If Dar had given Trott out ...and the Poms referred it ...would it have been overturned?

Where in the Laws of cricket does it say that more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the stumps for it to be LBW?

It doesn't. You know that of course. It's just another example of the 'half-pregnant' stance taken by the ICC. Either use the technology fully, or don't. If you're using HawkEye, then you're saying you have faith in it.

Henry wrote:
Of course, we're assuming that hawkeye is 100% accurate. There was doubt there. Benefit of the doubt etc.

Nowhere in the Laws of cricket is there anything written about 'Benefit of the doubt'. Nowhere. Not even once.

It's painful watching Cook bat. He's so far out of form it's beyond a joke.

Jontyh wrote:Excellent - Johno on. Had enough of those opening trundlers..

Woah two boring batsmen and one uber boring bowler. Hurrah.