2nd Test: England v Australia at Lord's

[Howsie]

So you lot say that Ponting wasn't plumb LBW but you say Strauss 'clearly' didn't catch it? Hypocrites the lot of you...

When did I say Ponting wasn't out?

I just don't think it would of been as close as Hawkeye says it was.

 

[treva]

I was saying I was unsure on the Hughes dismissal live which is fair - not saying it's caught or not caught because it's far to tough to tell. But to say Pontings LBW was plumb is obviously hawkeye influenced.

On Pontings LBW shout:
1 - you couldn't be sure if he nicked it or not. Theres some doubt which makes it not plumb.
2 - It was swinging down legside and hit him legside so that creates some doubt. Can't be plumb.
3 - To go with the swing he was leaning legside. More doubts.

Couldn't claim that was plumb live when there are 3 huge doubts and factors. To say it's plumb is hawkeye influenced for sure.

I'm not lying to you, Matt. I honestly thought it was out LBW live. It's not a good argument/debate when people start lying. So yeah, I thought it was out live.

 

[OffCutters]

Too high i reckon. Simple decision by ump.

 

[aussie1st]

Oh no beginning of the end for Ponting. Poor leave just like the 1st inns led to his wicket soon after.

 

[Howsie]

I've viewed Howsie as more of an England supporter this series and I've seen most of his posts.

Correct

 

[mattfb]

When did I say Ponting wasn't out?

I just don't think it would of been as close as Hawkeye says it was.

Exactly what I think.

 

[aditya123]

Ponting gets struck on the pads while leaving balls alone quite a lot of times. He does`nt get out LBW to them that very often though.

 

[mattfb]

Ponting gets struck on the pads while leaving balls alone quite a lot of times. He does`nt get out LBW to them that very often though.

He can do it confidently because he gets so far forward. It never hits him on the pad anyway, always just above.

 

[Skater]

Struass clearly didn't catch it. I don't want to get into an argument here, I might get a warning :sarcasm

It wasn't clear at all. Not to the naked eye, and there's no way Strauss could have felt he's grounded it either. I had a look at a replay in HD and yes, the ball was grounded, but it wasn't clear by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Themer]

I fail to understand the whole arguement thats been going on for the last few pages now, Ponting was out LBW might not have been plumb but it was clearly going to hit. Please stop the constant petty disagreements.

 

[Kev]

I haven't seen the catch (or not) as I am listening on the radio. But I am delighted that it wasn't referred. I really don't care if it was a catch or not, It only matters if the Umpires think it's a catch. This is the problem with referrals, you'd have gone upstairs and waited around for a bit, only for the TV umpire to say it was inconclusive. All these referrals are making the onfield umpires absolve themselves from any decision, however easy. We've seen it with runouts for ages now, a player is clearly in or out yet it still goes upstairs. If the umpires think it's out, then it's out, if they are not sure then it should be not out regardless of what TV pictures may or may not show. Stop referring and grow some balls.

 

[Howsie]

It wasn't clear at all. Not to the naked eye, and there's no way Strauss could have felt he's grounded it either. I had a look at a replay in HD and yes, the ball was grounded, but it wasn't clear by any stretch of the imagination.

So if that catch had of gone upstairs it would not of been given then?

 

[aditya123]

He can do it confidently because he gets so far forward. It never hits him on the pad anyway, always just above.

I can remember at least a half a dozen appeals against Ponting in the 2nd innings of the Perth test in 2008 during Ishant Sharma`s spell where he was pretty close to being given out and that was on a WACA wicket. It could get him into trouble on wickets with lesser bounce.

 

[Skater]

So if that catch had of gone upstairs it would not of been given then?

Again, debatable. I have a high definition picture, the third umpire actually gets a grainy picture on a small TV screen. I would have thought the batsman would have got the benefit of the doubt if the third umpire had been called, but it is not England's place to ask for a referral.

 

[Themer]

So if that catch had of gone upstairs it would not of been given then?

Yes I think we've established that it was probably not out.