South Africa in Australia (3 T20I's, 5 ODI's)

The appeal was for caught, would have been a disgrace if he was given out LBW. That wasn't what was being reviewed.
They changed the rule on that. It used to be they could only review what was being asked for. Now you can go for anything.
 

ptrg

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 19, 2008
13,173
11,845
Space Mountain
AFL Club
Melbourne
The appeal was for caught, would have been a disgrace if he was given out LBW. That wasn't what was being reviewed.

Don't agree, but it does raise the point of the umpires adjudication of the LBW.. It seemed as though Long gave it out for the catch, and never considered the LBW outcome.

So if hawkeye had of shown 1 or 2 "umpires call", it would have been given out. But he never made that judgement. But you can't also ask him what he thought of the lbw judgement after he already knows it's "umpires call"..

Given all that, there is no way in hell 0% of the ball was not going to hit the stumps- would have already been close to its highest point at smiths bowling speed! Was a bit dodgy we didn't see the side on of hawkeye- must have been close (again considering it was given "out" originally)
 
Think the commentators were very unfair to Billy. Chances are Long said to him that he didn't think the ball would have been out LBW, so when it showed it was missing the stumps Bowden rightly said stick with your not out LBW call. If it had been umpire's call the batsman would have stayed at the crease.
 
Back