The English commentators showing their slip...

[Peter R]

Condemned the 3rd umpire for overturning Chanders' referral...it was clear to me that the ball had passed the bat before the sound was heard.

They're saying the 3rd ump can only decide whether there is conclusive evidence that the onfield decision was wrong. They're talking about "howlers"...but as far as I'm concerned that if there is evidence that the decision was wrong, whether a blatantly wrong or marginal one, it should be overruled. The commentators say they think he played it...but dem have on English glasses.

[Peter R]

Mek wi hear wha Cozier an dem haffi seh!

[Peter R]

Cozier is a suck up!

[Peter R]

Now the commentator reading Chanders' mind...

[Willi]

Actually, based on the last fiasco, we found ou that the 3rd ump cant overrule anything.

He merely gives his finding to the on-field ump who makes the final decision. The onfiled ump gives him the basis for his initial decision and tells him what to look for.

[Peter R]

Nasser Hussain chattin rubbish... he makes this point to back his argument that the onfield ump's decision should not have been overturned; if you are NOT certain that there was a snick, then the onfield decision should stand; Ok, but shouldn't the referral process seek to correct incorrect decisions? that's my opinion, so, if you can't tell if he touched it or not with all the technology, then the benefit of the doubt is the batter's...

[Peter R]

Thanks for that clarification. Did you see what just happened with Shiv?

[Willi]

No, I was at work.

Am at home now, but dem kick mi off the HD broadcast., LoL

[Peter R]

Nasser Hussain fi shet im mout, why is he questioning the 3rd umpire so much? Dar says he saw daylight between the bat and ball and so that is evidence enough to say the onfield umpire erred...Nasser would never get on so if it was it were an Englishman batting.

[Willi]

Dem tief wi 2 wickets already...Gayle LBW was plumb and the new pacer should have gotten the catch out!

[Gamma]

there was an VERY interesting article about racism in barbodos last week in the advocate. it was an eye opener! it spoke of the HUGE rift between black balans and white bajans and it was brought to bear by a rich white bajan who married a black woman.

cozier now and then used to make me wonder....

[Bricktop]

Nasser Hussain chattin rubbish... he makes this point to back his argument that the onfield ump's decision should not have been overturned; if you are NOT certain that there was a snick, then the onfield decision should stand; Ok, but shouldn't the referral process seek to correct incorrect decisions? that's my opinion, so, if you can't tell if he touched it or not with all the technology, then the benefit of the doubt is the batter's...

Not too sure I agree. If the technology cannot conclusively say if there was a nick or not the umpire should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Gamma]

so then why refer?

[Bricktop]

The way I see it is that the umpire made the call as he saw it. If technology is unable to definitively overturn the call on the field the umpire should be given the benefit of the doubt. I'm not even talking about the Chiv incident because i didn't see it but it seems to me that if the umpire made the call he had justification in his mind for making the call and if the technology cannot definitively say he was wrong the initial call should be upheld. It seems kinda unfair to the umpire. That's just my thinking though

[Gamma]

i hear you and i think i agree with you...to a point ..if the technology is not foolproof then leave it as it was in the hands of the standing umpire and use the 3rd umpire for catches and run outs.....that was far less controversial

why introduce less than foolproof technology to complicate matters?