Test greats stunned as Pat Cummins wicket stands despite no ball concerns

You and me both. My mistake, I thought I saw a 'Paul' at the top. Good luck next year.

I wish about the tipping DP. I picked the mighty Dragons a few too many times!!

If I'd been the young fella, I'd have spat a big time dummy at the umpire. Surely he no-balled earlier and if he'd been called he could have adjusted. I blame the laziness of current umpiring in not looking for or calling no-balls. BTW, are congratulations in order for you champ? Did I see your name at the top of the NRL tipping at the end?

If I'd been the young fella I would have spit the dummy big at the umpire. If his earlier no-balls (surely there were some) had been called then he would have had a chance to correct. I blame the laziness of current umpires in not looking for or calling No-Balls. BTW, are congratulations in order for you champ?? Did I see you win the NRL tipping??

Yes it all comes down to a high degree of confidence. I’d say if you were going to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt, as in a courtroom, maybe you could say there was a slight chance the back of the heel was slightly behind the line. On the other hand, if the ump said he had a high degree of confidence nothing was behind, no-one would complain. I think it’s far from clear that the rear would have been behind as you suggest. But while it’s fair to say Azam was a bit unlucky he didn’t get a reprieve, that’s a long way from saying it was a shocker or that he was unlucky in a wider sense. A few millimetres is hardly a significant advantage to the bowler. It was his shot that caused the problem. Unlucky is when a batsmen gets given out to one of those “umpire’s call” lbw decisions that DRS claims is just clipping the stumps, but most other batsmen would get as not out.

As they keep reminding us the Aussie team are very conscious of not "Overstepping The Line"

Ha ha "on-field decision". Good one Cricket. Too funny.

A reversal of the long draggers who exploited the back foot rule.

This is the correct decision.....i cant belive the immaturity of commentstors and ex-players. Read the rule below: "the bowler's front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised … behind the popping crease". "If despite the available technology, the third umpire is unable to decide with a high degree of confidence whether the original on-field decision should be changed, then he/she shall report that the replays are 'inconclusive', and that the on-field decision shall stand. The third umpire shall not give answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities". At the moment of first impact, which is between the 2 photo frames we have available, the rear of his shoe would have been behind the line, in the air, which is fine!!

it's interesting when we can listen to the 3rd umpire talking through the decision making process during the WC,but had nothing to go by in this case. Kudos to the Aussie commentators for calling it as they saw it - a no ball every day of the week and a possible turning point in the game.

and there we go, with all the tech and still we get shockers...

:shocked: :thumbdown:

Chris Rogers suggested that if he can get away with that, bowlers might be attaching all kinds of things to the back of their boots just to get away with cribbing. :happy:

On ABC Radio they said the 3rd umpire may have "different vision available". Can we see it?

Not out. Can't believe the rule clearly states some part of the boot has to be behind the line and then they gave it out?

No ball for me.