Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
Umpire could have reviewed it before giving out if he was unsure - that's one of the reasons it is there.
As others have said, we shouldn't have wasted our earlier review.He even pulled a face as he raised his finger, shocking decision.
Absolutely. Shouting “you’ve no review dickhead” just about sums them up as a cricketing nation. Vile team - and I actually love every Aussie I’ve met. What is it about their cricket team?Aussie knew he hadn't touched it. Umpire wasn't sure but gave it out anyway. Gamesmanship..
Don’t think he can for thatUmpire could have reviewed it before giving out if he was unsure - that's one of the reasons it is there.
And Roy to be fair. He could have said that’s plum mate don’t reviewBairstow you silly boy.
Umpire could have reviewed it before giving out if he was unsure - that's one of the reasons it is there.
And Roy to be fair. He could have said that’s plum mate don’t review
Absolutely. Still shocked at the way he gave it out, it was clear he had no idea. The Aussies were appealing to try and stop the wide being given by the looks of it.If the umpire isn’t sure, he gives it not out. Benefit of the doubt is in the batsman’s favour.
I agree. Unless it's changed, they can only review for the ball being caught fairly if it was unclear, they can't use ultra edge to check for a nick. It's poor umpiring, plain as that, can't see what sound he could have heard and shouldn't be relying just on sight.Don’t think he can for that