Cricket (None Leicestershire County Cricket Club)

[StanSP]

That angle they just showed, not the one used in the review, shows it didn't touch it at all. 

 

Harsh and incorrect dismissal. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

That's unlucky for Santner. Just about nicked his glove/sweatband.

Stone dead, should have been given without the review. 

[Rubbersoul]

So Mitchell’s wicket was bat on pad and that one has hit the arm guard haha. 
 

In this heat though you’ll take what you can get 

[Lionator]

Probably game over this: New Zealand needed at least 600 

[CrispinLA in Texas]

So VAR is analysis is all about which camera angle they use.... beyond ridiculous. They just showed from a proper camera shot now and it hit his arm 🙄.... proper amateurs in crickets VAR studio 

[leicsmac]

And now it does look like it brushed the glove wristband, according to the Sky Sports analysis. 

 

In that case, enough uncertainty that you have to stick with the on field decision?

 

It's not a good look for DRS but it doesn't tend to have many incidents like this. 

Edited Friday at 11:44 by leicsmac

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said:

So VAR is analysis is all about which camera angle they use.... beyond ridiculous. They just showed from a proper camera shot now and it hit his arm 🙄.... proper amateurs in crickets VAR studio 

The umpire should have been a bit more diligent and asked for other angles. 

 

They do it for catches so should have done it for this too. 

[StanSP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

And now it does look like it brushed the glove wristband. 

 

In that case, enough uncertainty that you have to stick with the on field decision?

 

It's not a good look for DRS but it doesn't tend to have many incidents like this. 

On one angle, yes. 

 

But other angles could/should have been used. That left hand picture shows it may have brushed it. I wouldn't say the right hand picture is even that conclusive though. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

On one angle, yes. 

 

But other angles could/should have been used. That left hand picture shows it may have brushed it. I wouldn't say the right hand picture is even that conclusive though. 

Agree with it being inconclusive, so in light of that the original decision should stand, and did. 

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Agree with it being inconclusive, so in light of that the original decision should stand, and did. 

If its inconclusive you look for other angles, no? Just think the third umpire was a bit too hasty, expecially given they'd know other angles exist with clearer pictures... 

[leicsmac]

Just now, StanSP said:

If its inconclusive you look for other angles, no? Just think the third umpire was a bit too hasty, expecially given they'd know other angles exist with clearer pictures... 

You do, but it looks like those angles wouldn't have been conclusive enough to overturn either. 

 

The DRS umpire is definitely guilty of pulling the trigger too hastily but he's not made the incorrect decision as a result, imo.

[STEVIE B]

21 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Probably game over this: New Zealand needed at least 600 

England win ? 

[StanSP]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You do, but it looks like those angles wouldn't have been conclusive enough to overturn either. 

 

The DRS umpire is definitely guilty of pulling the trigger too hastily but he's not made the incorrect decision as a result, imo.

I can only presume you've not seen the quite definitive angle they showed shortly after the final decision was made. That was the most conclusive showing it didn't hit the wristband. 

 

Agree to disagree on the incorrect decision! 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I can only presume you've not seen the quite definitive angle they showed shortly after the final decision was made. That was the most conclusive showing it didn't hit the wristband. 

 

Agree to disagree on the incorrect decision! 

Not conclusive enough by itself to overturn, imo. If it had been given not out it would have been right to stay not out. 

 

But yes, we'll agree to disagree here. 

Edited Friday at 12:12 by leicsmac

[fleshdaddy]

We might as well play with one less man than play Bashir. Offers little with the ball, poor fielder and can't bat.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, fleshdaddy said:

We might as well play with one less man than play Bashir. Offers little with the ball, poor fielder and can't bat.

... top inverse mockers mate. 

Edited Friday at 13:09 by leicsmac

[CosbehFox]

Martin finally got one 

[fleshdaddy]

Just now, leicsmac said:

... top inverse mockers mate. 

[leicsmac]

On 25/06/2026 at 13:08, leicsmac said:

Yeah, this is an absolute road. 

 

I'd lump on the draw.

Shows what I know 

 

This might only actually be a vaguely par total on this pitch for NZ, and there's plenty of time for a result. 

[StanSP]

14 minutes ago, fleshdaddy said:

We might as well play with one less man than play Bashir. Offers little with the ball, poor fielder and can't bat.

Superb timing

 

[fleshdaddy]

Just now, StanSP said:

Superb timing

 

We're definitely going to get skittled on this track and end up following on and losing by an innings...

(Thank me later)

 

[leicsmac]

Archer being a mite sadistic here, targeting the rabbit with stuff that will hit him. 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, STEVIE B said:

England win ? 

Yeah, Root will double up on this, Duckett will get a ton. Unless of course Latham and Conway just made batting looks really easy yesterday. 

[Lionator]

4 minutes ago, fleshdaddy said:

We're definitely going to get skittled on this track and end up following on and losing by an innings...

(Thank me later)

 

England will get 550+

[Ted Maul]

To restrict them to under 450, after going wicketless for 2 sessions, in this heat, on this pitch, and staring down the barrel at 300-odd without loss is a Herculean effort. Fair play.