England in West Indies

[barmyarmy]

Bottom line is we've lost the series anyway and it's not because of the referral system.

 

[Adarsh]

Stop being an arse. You've made your point, people disagree with you, get over it, no need to act like a **** about it.

Oh dear. Let's not go there.

No Manee, I'm a neutral.

 

[Themer]

But there was sound, and it was after the ball passed the bat.

Yes there was a noise, even if it was after the ball had passed there is no evidence to show that there was no nick hence we keep the original decision

I hope they get rid of the system, I'd rather them gett it wrong than all this debate over the system as I don't see it ever going away.

 

[manee]

Stop being an arse. You've made your point, people disagree with you, get over it, no need to act like a **** about it.

Hinds really is an awful batsman. Should have been out LBW already, then scoops one just short of the fielder, then edges one behind. Rubbish.

No swearing.

manee added 0 Minutes and 11 Seconds later...

Oh dear. Let's not go there.

No Manee, I'm a neutral.

Cool, me too.

 

[Themer]

Bottom line is we've lost the series anyway and it's not because of the referral system.

Its because of flat pitches

 

[Skater]

I put the series defeat down to awful pitches and an underestimation of the West Indies. The referral system does need to go anyway.

 

[manee]

Yes there was a noise, even if it was after the ball had passed there is no evidence to show that there was no nick hence we keep the original decision

I hope they get rid of the system, I'd rather them gett it wrong than all this debate over the system as I don't see it ever going away.

I don't see what you want? There is no sound, no concievable deviation to Harper or the third umpire, therefore no evidence of an edge. If Harper saw deviation, he would not have overturned his own decision. Keep in mind here that the third umpire does not overrule Harper but it is Harper who makes the final decision.

 

[King Pietersen]

I put the series defeat down to 1 session of woeful batting plus 2 good Jerome Taylor deliveries (the Pietersen yorker and the Prior off-cutter). We've been on top for the entirity of the series bar that 1 session where we were skittled out, and the only reason we've not won the series is due to awful pitches. We'll hammer them in England and win the trophy back then though, so it doesn't matter.

 

[barmyarmy]

The referral system does need to go anyway.

I disagree. As I've said elsewhere I'm strongly in favour of it, it's just typical of the ICC that a good idea like this has been implemented in such a half-arsed and incompetent way that it's turned people against it.

 

[King Pietersen]

Hinds is such a shite batsman. He's gone, stumped off Prior. Just need to get Chanders and Powell now.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

Well done Swann , Hinds gone .

 

[Themer]

I don't see what you want? There is no sound, no concievable deviation to Harper or the third umpire, therefore no evidence of an edge. If Harper saw deviation, he would not have overturned his own decision. Keep in mind here that the third umpire does not overrule Harper but it is Harper who makes the final decision.

Was there any evidence that there wasn't an edge? No therefore the decision stays the same thats what I want. All though to be honest as I've said all along we don't need this system.

Gone Any chance of an England win from here? If we get rid of these quickly theres a chance then have a slog for the rest of the day. Don't see it happening but theres always hope.

 

[Adarsh]

Excluding Bangladesh, the last time West Indies won a series was in 2003.

 

[King Pietersen]

There is ZERO chance of an England win. We'd need to knock the rest of the batsmen over in half hour, then smack 200-250 in a session and a half, and then bowl West Indies out in a day, for under 300 on a flat deck. Not going to happen.

 

[barmyarmy]

Keep in mind here that the third umpire does not overrule Harper but it is Harper who makes the final decision.

As I've said elsewhere too I consider that disingenuous on behalf of the ICC. Yes, the onfield umpire decides but he's always going to heed the advice of someone who has TV replays at their disposal.
Maybe the onfield umpire needs to be stronger:
"Do you have a conclusive replay that shows he didn't hit it?"
"No, but I think he didn't."
"Sorry that's not good enough, I'm sticking with my decision".
I don't think so.
If the TV umpire makes a recommendation the onfield umpire follows it.