I know it's a batsman's game and all but that seems an odd directive. Surely an umpire needs to be sure in their own mind before giving something out?
I know it's a batsman's game and all but that seems an odd directive. Surely an umpire needs to be sure in their own mind before giving something out?
Well that's exactly what they're saying. You should only give things out 'beyond reasonable doubt' as opposed to 'on the balance of probabilities'.
They even went through a whole load of Hawkeye replays where the ball is barrelling into the top of middle, umps has given it out and then barking CORRECT DECISION, BUT A BAD DECISION.
Ah, so lbw is only the bottom half of middle? Gotcha. Batsman's charter as ever.
Think we probably need some sort of 'certainty' that doesn't evoke the two legal standards, seeing as there is a massive margin between the balance of probabilities [51%] and beyond reasonable doubt [90%+?].
Shame we don't have appointed umpires for the 3s then, we need all the help we can get. We were bowled out for under 50 4 times last season.
Deadly's done for.
I'm sure there would have been ECB directives aimed at countering him were he playing today.
This seems like the worst form of affirmative action.
All a part of the grand scheme to reduce the number of LBWs given against Bairstow. Top work. That'll keep him in the team for a few years more.
I've full faith he'll overcome and just revert to getting his stumps spattered insteadOriginally Posted by Gray Fox
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote