England v Australia 4th Test

[dedja]

Junior got it right.

Hill gave it out caught behind.

Rogers referred it, and the 3rd umpire using DRS decided (correctly) that it wasn't caught behind.

DRS showed that Rogers was LBW pending Umpire's Call.

Since Hill didn't give it out LBW, the 3rd umpire correctly gave it not out.

Simple really ...

[valleys07]

Not sure how the laws work but this is common sense with DRS

Clearly the umpire gave it caught behind which it wasn't

I wonder whether once it wasn't caught behind if Cook could of called a review for the lbw considering it was Rogers who asked for the original review

England should just be happy they didnt lose a review because of that. Hill obviously said in his opinion it wasnt LBW because he hit it, so umpires call on LBW was not out.

But on a side note whenever England don't get DRS go their way they are a disgrace the way they hang around arguing with the umpire, its not the 1st time its happened this series

That means he is out caught behind then. Im confused...

[heater31]

Not sure how the laws work but this is common sense with DRS

Clearly the umpire gave it caught behind which it wasn't

I wonder whether once it wasn't caught behind if Cook could of called a review for the lbw considering it was Rogers who asked for the original review

England should just be happy they didnt lose a review because of that. Hill obviously said in his opinion it wasnt LBW because he hit it, so umpires call on LBW was not out.

But on a side note whenever England don't get DRS go their way they are a disgrace the way they hang around arguing with the umpire, its not the 1st time its happened this series

That means he is out caught behind then. Im confused...

But Rogers didn't agree that he hit it..... Therefore not out

[valleys07]

Junior got it right.

Hill gave it out caught behind.

Rogers referred it, and the 3rd umpire using DRS decided (correctly) that it wasn't caught behind.

DRS showed that Rogers was LBW pending Umpire's Call.

Since Hill didn't give it out LBW, the 3rd umpire correctly gave it not out.

Simple really ...

Correct- if the decision was given out LBW- then Rogers was out.

[whufc]

Chris Rogers is extremely lucky to not have been given out.
In normal circumstances, an umpire does not have to give his reason for giving a player out.
As such, Chris Rogers should have been given out, no matter whether it ended up being LBW or caught behind. The umpire's original decision was out, the call was not overturned by DRS, it was given as Umpire's Call. As such, with the rules of DRS, he should have definitely been given out!!
At the very least, England should be given an extra review back. They lost having Rogers out on review, despite him being out on umpire's call.

Cheers

What are you on BP England didnt review it Rogers did, so England lost nothing, Obviously umpires communicated and Hill said his upires call on the LBW was not out.

I know that Rogers reviewed it. However, DRS resulted in a decision going against England despite Rogers being given out and DRS not overturning the decision. Surely they should be entitled to get an extra one for that then, as that review cost them a wicket that was actually out. The Umpire's Call was out, not overturned by DRS, therefore OUT!

Cheers

Ummm this is how it went down I presume

Rogers reviewed the caught behind which was clearly not out

The lbw showed it was 'umpires call' because the ump thought Rogers hit it obviously the umpires call to the lbw was 'not out'

[dedja]

Anyway, back to the action.

Broad is still a wanker ...

[bulldogproud2]

Chris Rogers is extremely lucky to not have been given out.
In normal circumstances, an umpire does not have to give his reason for giving a player out.
As such, Chris Rogers should have been given out, no matter whether it ended up being LBW or caught behind. The umpire's original decision was out, the call was not overturned by DRS, it was given as Umpire's Call. As such, with the rules of DRS, he should have definitely been given out!!
At the very least, England should be given an extra review back. They lost having Rogers out on review, despite him being out on umpire's call.

Cheers

What are you on BP England didnt review it Rogers did, so England lost nothing, Obviously umpires communicated and Hill said his upires call on the LBW was not out.

I know that Rogers reviewed it. However, DRS resulted in a decision going against England despite Rogers being given out and DRS not overturning the decision. Surely they should be entitled to get an extra one for that then, as that review cost them a wicket that was actually out. The Umpire's Call was out, not overturned by DRS, therefore OUT!

Cheers

Ummm this is how it went down I presume

Rogers reviewed the caught behind which was clearly not out

The lbw showed it was 'umpires call' because the ump thought Rogers hit it obviously the umpires call to the lbw was 'not out'

Yes, but in normal circumstances it does not matter which way you are out, you are out!
The original call was out, DRS review resulted in the verdict as Umpire's Original Call, therefore, as the original call was out, the final decision should be out.
How many times have you appealed for a caught behind and found that the umpire has given him out LBW instead (and vice versa)? This is no different.

Cheers

[dedja]

brain fade by Pup ... FFS

[whufc]

Yeah what's your point

We don't get to review what were out for, not in the pdca anyway!

Obviously there was communication there, Rogers more than likely asked the umpire what he was given out for and when it was the caught behind he reviewed knowing he didn't hit it.

[bulldogproud2]

Yeah what's your point

We don't get to review what were out for, not in the pdca anyway!

Obviously there was communication there, Rogers more than likely asked the umpire what he was given out for and when it was the caught behind he reviewed knowing he didn't hit it.

Yes, but using the actual DRS rules, initial decision was 'out'; result of DRS review was 'accept original decision, umpire's call'; therefore applying the actual laws as they relate to DRS, final decision has to be out.

Anyway, time to move on.
Cheers

[daysofourlives]

Yeah what's your point

We don't get to review what were out for, not in the pdca anyway!

Obviously there was communication there, Rogers more than likely asked the umpire what he was given out for and when it was the caught behind he reviewed knowing he didn't hit it.

Yes, but using the actual DRS rules, initial decision was 'out'; result of DRS review was 'accept original decision, umpire's call'; therefore applying the actual laws as they relate to DRS, final decision has to be out.

Anyway, time to move on.
Cheers

Perhaps after the 3rd umpire said not out on CB that shouldve been the end of it. Then if England wanted to have a review on LBW then they can and they run the risk of losing a referral. There is no way England would have refferred on the basis of LBW. Correct decision arrived at.

[RustyCage]

Yeah what's your point

We don't get to review what were out for, not in the pdca anyway!

Obviously there was communication there, Rogers more than likely asked the umpire what he was given out for and when it was the caught behind he reviewed knowing he didn't hit it.

Yes, but using the actual DRS rules, initial decision was 'out'; result of DRS review was 'accept original decision, umpire's call'; therefore applying the actual laws as they relate to DRS, final decision has to be out.

Anyway, time to move on.
Cheers

The original decision was out cb, not out LBW. The review showed that while the ball was hitting the stumps, it wasn't a howler, and needed the three red lights to overturn the original call

[Jim05]

This is embarassing

[cripple]

Some of you guys need to take off your blinkers. Rogers is lucky because he wasnt given out lbw, i agree with the fact that he remains out there because the original decision was incorrect. After all the whinging and sooking about things not going the aussies way in the first two matches, i think they have definitely had the rub of the green in the last two matches. If that incident had involved Cook, the condemnation on here would have been deafening.

[heater31]

Some of you guys need to take off your blinkers. Rogers is lucky because he wasnt given out lbw, i agree with the fact that he remains out there because the original decision was incorrect. After all the whinging and sooking about things not going the aussies way in the first two matches, i think they have definitely had the rub of the green in the last two matches. If that incident had involved Cook, the condemnation on here would have been deafening.

Still doesn't change the fact that Tony Hill is a shocking umpire!

[dedja]

... and Broad is a dickhead

[bulldogproud2]

... and Broad is a dickhead

but a darn good cricketer!

[Jim05]

Smith gone
Aussies in real strife

[wycbloods]

Yeah what's your point

We don't get to review what were out for, not in the pdca anyway!

Obviously there was communication there, Rogers more than likely asked the umpire what he was given out for and when it was the caught behind he reviewed knowing he didn't hit it.

Yes, but using the actual DRS rules, initial decision was 'out'; result of DRS review was 'accept original decision, umpire's call'; therefore applying the actual laws as they relate to DRS, final decision has to be out.

Anyway, time to move on.
Cheers

The original decision was out cb, not out LBW. The review showed that while the ball was hitting the stumps, it wasn't a howler, and needed the three red lights to overturn the original call

The original decision was out it wasn't out caught behind. I don't believe it's right if he was given out LBW in that fashion but I don't see how it was given not out. There wasn't enough evidence to say it wasn't out for a lbw decision so out should've stood. Since when do you have to specify what you are appealing for?

[valleys07]

Broad is bowling well at the moment. Both Bresnan and Broad are getting a bit of movement.