what a pathetic DRS review by umpires, Ballance not given out, there was no bat contact with ball but ball was hitting full-on leg and middle still given not out citing 'long stride'.
Currently Eng 65/3
The forward stride saved Ballance (he was more than 2.5 metres down the pitch) and he was playing a shot (sweep), so could not be given out under the present laws, even though Yasir delivered from round the wicket. If he had stayed in his crease he would have been out.
do you fully understand the LBW law under DRSW? and if you do, do you actually believe that law was not fully followed in balance case and he shd have been given out? or is it your feeling that a whitiee got the upper hand in that decision?
And PD see all sides struggle under pressure. Look at England here and at Lord's. Yasir who took only 4 wickets in the last two tests is suddenly a different proposition owing to scoreboard pressure
And while Pak players do have a tendency to fold under pressure esp. in the 4th innings, it is not exclusive to our players. No side is immune from pressure-induced collapses.
Australian players are mentally tougher than others but look at their hashar nashar in Sri Lanka!!
LBW rules are not different whether you are bowling over or round the wicket.
The rule says that:
1- ball should pitch in line of the wicket or outside the line of off-stump, (not outside the line of leg stump, hence you often see batsmen simply padding up to spinners when ball is pitched outside the line of leg stump)
2- impact should be in line with the stumps & finally
3- ball should be hitting the stumps.
If a bowler is bowling round the wicket to a batsman of opposite hand (for example Yasir (right arm spinner) to Ballance (left handed batsman), even if the ball is pitched outside off, impact is not always in front of the stumps. The big forward stride saved Ballance even though impact was probably in line with the off stump.
And it is impossible to get an lbw if the ball is pitched outside the line of leg stump.
(During a DRS review more than half of the ball needs to hit at least one of the stumps)
The DRS decision was surprising to me as this 2.5 m thing was new to me. But if it is a rule known to all than I think the decision is fair....
Third umpire shud first check this point before going to the hawk eye coz hawk eye become void if the 2.5 m distance is present. ( same as they first check the no ball )
lead is vanishing in thin air... do something bowlers... tis is fitness test for sohail and wahab... they need to be fit enough to bowl with bending their backs...
lead is vanishing in thin air... do something bowlers... tis is fitness test for sohail and wahab... they need to be fit enough to bowl with bending their backs...
