Get a book & read the definition of an appeal first. The bowler didn't appeal. And umpire didn't reject it. A decision can only be reviewed after a decision is given by umpire. :laughing:
As for engaging you, that was for whole entity . I don't mind calling axe an axe. If you feel compelled not to engage, then don't reply. Doesn't mean no one will refute your story :laughing:
And yes, this things should be called. Otherwise Indians would be asking to play 13 players like the 1st t20. :laughing:
That's a new low for the Aussies. Get the home umpire to give not out to a plumb lbw for a home batsman, and then have the home TV crew immediately replay on big screen to take away any DRS review from the opponent. SMH.
Pretty sure natajaran appealed for it and umpires have given their verdict for such appeals in the past. When only him and the keeper (partially), were shown on screen, not sure how anyone can be certain, no one else appealed .
Only major issue i had with, was correcting the fact virat timer ran out ,which it didn't and if a drs appeal got rejected while the fielding team was deliberating ,i would consider them to be unlucky.
Pretty sure most fans here would felt hard done if such a decision went against them.
Better team won at the end of the day and the match itself was inconsequential to begin with, so nothing to whinge about.Though felt it might be something the umpires might need to look into in the future and that's about it.
As for the whole tangent you felt compelled to go into regarding 'ch-eating' and “sai-nt people”, i am sure there are plenty of other fans ,(of whichever nationality you prefer) who enjoy such banter, so go at it with them,and kindly refrain from trying to engage me in such conversations, as i tend to avoid such people and their posts afterwards.
"They were still contemplating the review when it played on the big screen, at which point the timer didn’t run out. If the timer had ran out, the on field umpires wouldn’t have taken it upstairs, to begin with."
Lol. That's india for you guys. Being fair from point number 21.
Before that law that is mention above becomes effective, an LBW has to be appealed & rejected by umpire to be REVIEWED. None happened.
"I am pretty sure most people here would have the exact opposite opinion, if Australia were denied a review, for a plumb one at that,just cause the dismissal played on the screen sooner than it should have."
Ya, we have seen reaction of the "sai-nt people" when handcomb mistakenly looked at dressing room in that test series in India.
Also i can remember an LBW of bairstow which was plumb in ashes'15 but wasn't appealed.And a run out which was appealed after the replay was shown, & rightly rejected.
Nobody had a different opinion except particular entity living in parallel universe where they are always victim for not being able to ch-eat :laughing:
"They were still contemplating the review when it played on the big screen, at which point the timer didn’t run out. If the timer had ran out, the on field umpires wouldn’t have taken it upstairs, to begin with."
Lol. That's india for you guys. Being fair from point number 21.
Before that law that is mention above becomes effective, an LBW has to be appealed & rejected by umpire to be REVIEWED. None happened.
"I am pretty sure most people here would have the exact opposite opinion, if Australia were denied a review, for a plumb one at that,just cause the dismissal played on the screen sooner than it should have."
Ya, we have seen reaction of the "saint people" when handcomb mistakenly looked at dressing room in that test series in India.
Also i can remember an LBW of bairstow which was plumb in ashes'15 but wasn't appealed.And a run out which was appealed after the replay was shown, & rightly rejected.
Nobody had a different opinion except particular entity living in parallel universe where they are always victim for not being able to cheat :laughing:
Interesting that Kohli of all people would try this stunt after seeing it on the big screen. Considering they way he carried on a few years back when Australia tried to use replays to do the same. Although I was out there last night and he didn't seem his usual brattish self when he didn't get his own way. So I assume he accepted it was too late to challenge.
No controversy in this at all. Review was made after the DRS timer had expired and was only reviewed because they saw it on the big screen. The only controversy would of been if the umpires allowed the review and Wade was given out.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
Get a book & read the definition of an appeal first. The bowler didn't appeal. And umpire didn't reject it. A decision can only be reviewed after a decision is given by umpire. :laughing: As for engaging you, that was for whole entity . I don't mind calling axe an axe. If you feel compelled not to engage, then don't reply. Doesn't mean no one will refute your story :laughing: And yes, this things should be called. Otherwise Indians would be asking to play 13 players like the 1st t20. :laughing:
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
Sure. Teams should be allowing India to play 13 players & give lbws that weren't appealed to avoid new lows :laughing:
RT
Roar Rookie
That's a new low for the Aussies. Get the home umpire to give not out to a plumb lbw for a home batsman, and then have the home TV crew immediately replay on big screen to take away any DRS review from the opponent. SMH.
dat
Roar Rookie
Pretty sure natajaran appealed for it and umpires have given their verdict for such appeals in the past. When only him and the keeper (partially), were shown on screen, not sure how anyone can be certain, no one else appealed . Only major issue i had with, was correcting the fact virat timer ran out ,which it didn't and if a drs appeal got rejected while the fielding team was deliberating ,i would consider them to be unlucky. Pretty sure most fans here would felt hard done if such a decision went against them. Better team won at the end of the day and the match itself was inconsequential to begin with, so nothing to whinge about.Though felt it might be something the umpires might need to look into in the future and that's about it. As for the whole tangent you felt compelled to go into regarding 'ch-eating' and “sai-nt people”, i am sure there are plenty of other fans ,(of whichever nationality you prefer) who enjoy such banter, so go at it with them,and kindly refrain from trying to engage me in such conversations, as i tend to avoid such people and their posts afterwards.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
"They were still contemplating the review when it played on the big screen, at which point the timer didn’t run out. If the timer had ran out, the on field umpires wouldn’t have taken it upstairs, to begin with." Lol. That's india for you guys. Being fair from point number 21. Before that law that is mention above becomes effective, an LBW has to be appealed & rejected by umpire to be REVIEWED. None happened. "I am pretty sure most people here would have the exact opposite opinion, if Australia were denied a review, for a plumb one at that,just cause the dismissal played on the screen sooner than it should have." Ya, we have seen reaction of the "sai-nt people" when handcomb mistakenly looked at dressing room in that test series in India. Also i can remember an LBW of bairstow which was plumb in ashes'15 but wasn't appealed.And a run out which was appealed after the replay was shown, & rightly rejected. Nobody had a different opinion except particular entity living in parallel universe where they are always victim for not being able to ch-eat :laughing:
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
"They were still contemplating the review when it played on the big screen, at which point the timer didn’t run out. If the timer had ran out, the on field umpires wouldn’t have taken it upstairs, to begin with." Lol. That's india for you guys. Being fair from point number 21. Before that law that is mention above becomes effective, an LBW has to be appealed & rejected by umpire to be REVIEWED. None happened. "I am pretty sure most people here would have the exact opposite opinion, if Australia were denied a review, for a plumb one at that,just cause the dismissal played on the screen sooner than it should have." Ya, we have seen reaction of the "saint people" when handcomb mistakenly looked at dressing room in that test series in India. Also i can remember an LBW of bairstow which was plumb in ashes'15 but wasn't appealed.And a run out which was appealed after the replay was shown, & rightly rejected. Nobody had a different opinion except particular entity living in parallel universe where they are always victim for not being able to cheat :laughing:
dat
Roar Rookie
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/30476598/aus-vs-ind-3rd-t20i-virat-kohli-matthew-wade-lbw-review-denial-strange-one-umpire-said-done They were still contemplating the review when it played on the big screen, at which point the timer didn’t run out. If the timer had ran out, the on field umpires wouldn’t have taken it upstairs, to begin with. I am pretty sure most people here would have the exact opposite opinion, if Australia were denied a review, for a plumb one at that,just cause the dismissal played on the screen sooner than it should have.
Simoc
Guest
I doubt that could be called an appeal as he cut it off. Firstly you need to appeal for LBW. India didn't.
Censored Often
Roar Rookie
Interesting that Kohli of all people would try this stunt after seeing it on the big screen. Considering they way he carried on a few years back when Australia tried to use replays to do the same. Although I was out there last night and he didn't seem his usual brattish self when he didn't get his own way. So I assume he accepted it was too late to challenge.
Pete
Guest
No controversy in this at all. Review was made after the DRS timer had expired and was only reviewed because they saw it on the big screen. The only controversy would of been if the umpires allowed the review and Wade was given out.