Chade wrote:Nice One Cyril wrote:There was actually zero evidence that he was out though, no hot spot, snicko after the ball passed the bat, even Warny was mystified.
Players can be pretty blase about some of the rules, especially the ones governed by new-fangled technology - evidence: Mark Taylor has no idea about synchronising video and audio, otherwise he wouldn't be claiming that the Snicko blip was sufficient evidence. Do you know the process in evaluating reviews? The level of evidence required for overturning? Because if you do, share it...
According to Warne (who should know I suppose), the third umpire has to have definitive evidence to overturn a decision. The problem is, what other evidence could possibly come to light more than no hot spot and no snicko? There isn't anything else.
Bizarrely, had the umpire given not out and Australia appealed, he would have been not out because there was not a shred of evidence that he
was actually out.
So, what the third umpire is saying is, the field umpires gut feeling, or guess, is better than the technology. That's fine, but then why have the fucking technology at all, might as well dump it and go back to how it used to be, mistakes and all?
However, if you're going to use the technology, then let's trust it and use it all the time and let the umpires hold the bowlers' hat.