14 Dec 06
Originally posted by howardgeeGood question !!!!!
Collingwood dropped by Warne on 4.
Has he dropped the ashes.....AGAIN?!?!?!?
This game is well and truly on. The Warne factor in the 4th innings can not be ignored.
--
With hindsight my reason for playing Gilo in Brisbane because of bounce looks a bit off the mark with Monty bowling 2 ordinary deliveries but because of bounce he gets them
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by dan182I dont get it, surely then you cant call the first two 'iffy' if they agreed with hawkeye. Yes, they are borderline, but obviously it cannot be complained about, not like they were going to miss by a mile.
Aus all out 244
3 iffy decisions
Ponting lbw - Hawkeye suggests clipping top of middle (looked not out)
Lee lbw - Hawkeye suggests clipping top of middle (looked out)
Mcgrath - Did not hit it
4 for Harmy
5 for Monty
Game on.
3rd decision was bad, but McGrath isnt the best bat in the world, I mean certainly wouldnt have had the effect the same the decision against Strauss had last game.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by welsharnieHawkeye - A brilliant tool which I think is very accurate.
I dont get it, surely then you cant call the first two 'iffy' if they agreed with hawkeye. Yes, they are borderline, but obviously it cannot be complained about, not like they were going to miss by a mile.
3rd decision was bad, but McGrath isnt the best bat in the world, I mean certainly wouldnt have had the effect the same the decision against Strauss had last game.
Ponting - Looked not out
Lee - He got a long long way forward
The letter of the law says benefit of the doubt to the batter. Now hawkeye says clipping the bails then surely there must be some doubt.
I think that 6/10 times those decisions will go the way of the batter and no one would have questioned the ump if he said not out.
The decisions were not wrong the ump thought out so out it is - they just could have gone either way so that is why I say iffy.