healy shut the fuck up you retard ..you are so spastic like,your comments are like those of a retard..cricket commentator my arse...your shit the worst ever
That "thing" the batsman was holding up as he walked off is what he should have used. Anyone who puts the bat away and uses their pads should be given out for just being a boring c##t.
u should search for shane warne best deliveries, u wud find tonnes of similar, in fact better deliveries like this one, those too without that black patch.
I am AMAZED by the fact that the commentators didn't even bother to question the decision - as if it was an obvious one. HORRIBLE commentary , HORRIBLE umpiring. The only thing fantastic was the ball.
what the fuck..? HawkEye said JUST its missing AND WHEN THE BATSMAN DOESN'T OFFER A SHOT THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT GOES TO THE BOWLER. Hardly a bad call. Go learn the laws of cricket mate
i don't think it was a bad call. it looked like it was going to hit the stumps. relative to the turn of the ball and it's trajectory, i don't think the ball actually missed by much. bear in mind where it pitches and how much it moves and use this to divide the distance the ball misses the wicket by and there's nothing in it. not a bad decision. he's not playing a shot so it looked like an ok call.
Friggin Healy. Deadset can't watch the cricket on 9 with sound on anymore. "Where's that come from? We haven't see any turn like that all match." They're called footmarks you parrot. You kept to Warney and others hitting them for years. Awesome turn though, don't trust hawkeye or whatever it's called but to be giving them out when they're turning that much, you'd need to be standing at mid wicket to get an eyeline onto the stumps. Would have been lucky to hit a wheelie bin for stumps.
how on earth billy is still an elite umpire is beyond me. however, i would have wanted to give this out just because this amazing piece of bowling deserved wicket.
@TheOfficialMW2Game That only comes in to play if the batter is playing a shot. Unfortunately for Prince he wasnt playing a shot so can be given out and well, it looked out enough for Billy boy :)
Not the worst umpiring howler by a long way (try that dismissal of Johan Botha "bat before wicket" in last year's South Africa v India ODI series!) but it was bad because BB was basically guessing where that ball was going. How could he be confident it was going on to hit the stumps?
how is this the worst? didn't offer a shot so the only criteria was whether or not it was hitting the stumps, which it only just missed. Wrong decision-yes, OMG WORST EVA DECISION!!!!!11!!- no.
Dumb vid title - the benefit of the doubt reverses in favour of the bowler when he pads up (to a bowler mind you turning towards the left handers stumps)... I am not saying the ump should not aim to give players out if they are not certain it is hitting the stumps - but I am saying the batsmen relinquishes the benefit of the doubt and you have your self to blame.
the cricket rules allow a batsman not to play a shot to a ball that is not pitching in line with the wickets,or would have hit the wickets and hawkeye proved the ball would have missed the stumps by a mile.glad we have the review system these days so bad decisions like these will be ruled out.billy is actually a good umpire,i like him,but he just made a really bad call here,and he aint the first to make a bad call.....at least he aint no darryl hair,man that guy was so crap!
@davey2604 The "Rules Of Cricket" allow for a ball that is pitching outside "OFF STUMP" or inline with the stumps. This pitched outside "Off stump" so in the RULES he can be given out. If the ball had pitched outside LEG STUMP he can't be given out. I know, I have to go by the rules every Saturday. Don't take my word, read the "Rules"
@mollymitch1 yeah,i kno the rules of cricket,still dosn't change the fact its still a bad call,as hawkeye proved.but thats past history,glad the review system is here to eliminate most bad calls.
What gives that graphic some kind of super accuracy? It's just a graphic. It doesn't take spin into account. Shouldering arms, on the crease, to a spinning ball is just asking the umpire to disregard any benefit of the doubt for you. If he'd used his bat he would've safely survived.
if u dont play the ball then the ball only have to hit the stumps, so no matter if the ball hit hi i line or not and i think that was not a bad shout till hawk eye shows that will miss the stumps..
that isnt a bad decision... as a batsman you loose the benefit of the doubt when you leave the ball.. i agree it really shouldnt of been out, however when its that close with benefit of the doubt with the bowler, you can forgive bowden for it...
in recent PAK vs ENG test game.... he gave STRAUSS not out while REHMAN was bowling..... which was clearly out... ENG commentators were sayng its out and BILLY was third umpire, where he was using HOT SPOT and zooming facility..... BILLY must leave umpiring and start getting dances classes
Thats out, everyday. If you dont play a shot to that ball you are idiot, although methinks that it is a prerequisite of being south african, that and not being able to play leg spin at all.
The hawk eye, doesn't take into account that the ball is spinning in the air and can only assume a straight ball line, which any self respecting cricketer knows is crap.
@Mattyhawk1977 I'm not sure what you're talking about? One of the rules that allows Hawkeye in ANY sport, dictates that it must be accurate to within 5mm - Hawkeye technology averages a 3mm margin of error.
That said, I don't agree with the title of the video, and agree wholeheartedly with mollymitch1's comment about armchair umpires.
i think it is harsh to say this is the worst lbw decision ever. hawkeye did say that it wasnt going on to hit the stumps, but prince was not offerimg a shot amd caught on the crease. if he came forward and let it hit him he may have been given not out. remember bowden doesnt have a replay and hindsight is always 20/20
I have zero sympathy for batsman not playing shots and even less for ones that kick the ball away, you have a wooden thing in your hands for a reason, use it.
It's funny that every bad decision made by an umpire is branded a case of cheating now. Usually "Aussie Cheating". You fucktards don't know the meaning of sport
@baajwa78 I see many claims that Aussies cheat with umpires. But how can that claim be backed up? England has more history, cash and influence. India has the power. South Africa has more money and has more racist tendencies and therefore more motivation. Hell, even New Zealand piss and moan so much that umpires will likely cave into them before Aussies. So why do people think Aussies cheat? I think it's a sad case of tall poppy syndrome
@Pigroota I think it started with the Lillee and Thompson method of bowling, developed with the under-arm bowling incident against New Zealand and went from there.
@wierdwesterner You know what I found strangest about the Chappel incident (neither Lillee or Thompson ever bowled an underarm delivery FYI) - the dumb NewZealander that was batting merely blocked a delivery that was perfectly legal. He should have tried to smack it. What's more he storms off like it's bad sportsmanship. Don't be angry at the Aussie for displaying gamesmanship. The batsman probably sulked like a fukkn Kiwi for weeks.
@DreddWolff My point exactly, you whinging, pissing and moaning Kiwi. Awwww diddums. 1 Aussie captain and his subordinate does not constitute a trend. An entire culture pissing and moaning about an incident that happened 20 years ago - now there's a trend. Suck it up buttercup.
@Pigroota I'm not moaning about the incident, I'm just commenting on the fact that you thought it was a fully acceptable thing to do, not unsportmanlike, and that you seem to think you can hit a six of a ball that is rolling along the ground. DUMB AUSSIES ARE DUMB.
@DreddWolff If you notice I never once said the incident wasn't unsportsmanlike. I said it was legal. I said it was gamesmanship. I said the Kiwi should have shelved his judgment. But I never said that it was not unsportsmanlike. It's OK. Learn to read at the remedial level sunshine, then maybe get back to me. Who's the dumbshit now eh?
@DreddWolff LoL dunno why you are being such a little douche. That statement does not imply that I don't think it was unsportsmanlike. I cannot argue from his mind. But I can make an analysis from his viewpoint. He thought it was bad sportsmanship so he whinged like a girl instead of innovating like a player. I thought it was not in the spirit, but here's you: "Let's all berate Aussies cause we suck! No worries bros, we can do this for years at the expense of sport!" Hahahaha
@Pigroota I didn't say Lillee or Thompson did, I'm referring to their attitude on the field at the time. The underarm incident involved NZ requiring 6 off the last ball to tie and hitting a grubber for 6 is difficult even for a top batsman. The ICC re-wrote the laws of cricket banning underarm bowling in all forms of the game after the incident, which says all that needs to be said. Richie Benaut described it as "one of the worst things I have ever seen done on a cricket field".
@wierdwesterner Yeah. I dunno about that. I would usually agree with Richie but not in this case. I think it was not in the spirit of the game, but you were right when you state "The ICC re-wrote the laws of cricket banning underarm bowling in all forms of the game after the incident, which says all that needs to be said". The implication of course is that it was a legal delivery. Say no more!!
"An important exception is that, if the impact is outside the off stump, the batsman can be out LBW if he does not make a genuine attempt to play the ball (that is, if he does not "play a stroke"). "
I must say that that looked out with the naked eye. I would add that I have seen some shocking lbw decisions in my time, a hell of a lot worse than this, for instance plenty of times when a guy is given out after almost knocking the cover off the ball.
I can see why he gave it out. If you pad up on a turning deck like that enough you are going to get given eventually... benefit of doubt moves to bowler. We need to see what happened before that, how many times had he padded up?!? Also the technology is not perfect today and certainly was not perfect back then.... looked out to naked eye...
it appeared to hit the stumps from the naked eye and he was back in his crease. But it's not out given the pitch/line of the ball - he would have to be standing on top of his stumps for such a decision.
I'd say Griegs best decision was to leave South Africa and his worst guaranteeing the loan and becoming bankrupt in the 90s
@davey2604 dont have to play a shot outside leg stump yes thats true but outside off you gotta pretend to play a shot ala gordon greenidge, you dont play a shot umpire thinks ok would it have hit, never leave a ball without pretending to play shot, easy to get bat just inside and have it hit pad, its batting 101
@davey2604 Well its idiotic not to play a shot outside off stump, it was not missing by a long way anyway. Its dumb to pad a ball outside off stump and the ball turning like that, absolute stupidity.
@kutcher11 Rubbish. The ball pitched a good way outside off, struck Prince outside off stump so there has to be the element of doubt as to whether it turned too much or not enough to hit the stumps, regardless of whether Prince played a shot or not, which would prevent me from giving it out. I think BB was influenced by the ball hitting Prince's back leg more than anything else, I'm sure he was disappointed with that decision afterwards when he saw it again.
anyone would be disappointed to be giving out LBW in any case, worst way to go in my mind haha. All it comes down to is the main fact here, in the end he was giving out, lets just build a bridge and move on?
@kutcher11 I was referring to Billy Bowden being disappointed with his decision if and when he had another look at it. However, umpires are only human and make mistakes, but we still have a far better record of getting decisions right than any other mainstream sport officials.
@davey2604 If you don't play the shot and it's anywhere near the stumps then you're out. If you knew about cricket you would know that. If he played the shot he wouldn't be out.
While hawk-eye shows the ball was probably going to miss the stumps, as far as I'm concerned that should be given out. The rule about the ball not having to pitch inline with the stumps if a shot is not played derived from trying to stop the batsmen 'padding' the ball away and not offering a shot. That's a well bowled ball that spun along way, and if the batsmen isn't prepared to play a shot for his own safety and the ball turns back towards the stumps or near enough it should be given out.
It didn't need to hit inline because he didn't play a shot at it. Also it only missed by a tiny bit so a bad descision but nowhere near the worst descision ever.
i can see its a bad decision but i know why he gave it, as soon as he left it, it automatcially made bowden think thats hitting, if hed played a shot and hit his pad bowden would never of given that
@nunnylad1 i know im an umpire lol but you dont get what im saying. what i mean is the umpire would of been so sure on him being not out with playing a shot that as soon as he left it, he was like oh shit, not playing a shot with sharp spin gotta be hitting. its all in the mind. as he left it it automatically makes you think its hitting
You can see all three stumps and the feet is about a feet away from the off-stump at the contact, that can not be a LBW. Or we need to redefine the definition of LBW.....Bad umpiring.
@archetype001 Erm... yes it can. If no shot is being played then the ball can hit outside the line of the stumps and it still be given out. Yeah, Bowden got it wrong here, but the rules are the rules.
@nunnylad1 I'm glad u know the rule of test cricket. Having said that the ball landed three/four feet away from the off-stump, it would be mystical for any umpire to predict whether the ball is going to hit the stumps or not, never mind if he offered a shot.
@extracovercricket If you play a shot, you can't be given out if it pitches outside the line of the stumps. Where as is you don't play a shot and it pitches outside the line of the stumps, you can be given out.
@extracovercricket - if he offers a shot and the ball pitches outside the line of stumps, its an automatic "not out". benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. if they don't offer a shot, it doesn't have to pitch on the line of the stumps and the benefit of the doubt goes to the bowler.
@Shifty2ky You know who the worst people who watch cricket are? Armchair Umpires. You stand out in the middle of a cricket ground all afternoon and have to make a decision based on what you see in 5 seconds. I would have given that out too. Billy didn't have the choice of going to the Third Umpire but you have the opportunity to see the replay, something he doesn't have. Until you stand out there and do it get off Umpires backs. And get yourself a copy of the Laws of Cricket and read them.
The way I see it if you refuse to offer a shot and get hit anywhere around the off stump you deserve to be given out, the benefit of the doubt should go to the bowler almost every time. This is why its called batting and not padding... I would have to disagree with the hawkeye on this one as the trajectory out of the footmarks was a lot sharper than that. If you want a bad umpire decision try Dick French vs Danny Morrison...
This actually would b a much harder decision then its looks. The ball is going at 90 kilometers and did turn from almost a wide to just missing the stumps
I remember watching this decision, Ashwell Prince is a good hard working batsmen who I quite like for his grafting abilty, hope he gets back into the SA team soon. Amazing bowling by Warne though, it was never out, but are we gonna take it away considering such technique.
that was very to shane warne's delivery to andrew strauss in te 05 ashes, only that time strauss missed the ball with his pads and the ball hit middle and leg and there was another delivery very similar when warne bowled a beauty very similar to these two to trescothick and the umpire didnt give it out.
not the worse lbw as he did shoulder arms but maybe very unlucky was the batsman
This is a dreadful decision. Pure guess work from Bowden. Not acceptable from an umpire. Not even close either. The comment from the commentator 'It's only missed by about 6 inches' is ridiculous. It's like he's trying to saw oh well quite close that's out. 6 inches is the equivalent of a mile away on an lbw decision..
cheating clean n0t 0ut
kill3r581 15 hours ago
healy shut the fuck up you retard ..you are so spastic like,your comments are like those of a retard..cricket commentator my arse...your shit the worst ever
WILDHERMAN 1 day ago
lol at matty haydens appeal :)
hagary1994 2 days ago 2
Thats what happens when you are not playing at the ball. it was a correct decision, batsmen are there to play and not just look at the ball.
xotoronto 4 days ago
That "thing" the batsman was holding up as he walked off is what he should have used. Anyone who puts the bat away and uses their pads should be given out for just being a boring c##t.
wackydan74 4 days ago 4
Brilliant spin.
Lookatmyfavourites 5 days ago
look at black spot there.the spinning is not all his talent but with some luck
bharathcoolbharath 5 days ago
@bharathcoolbharath
u should search for shane warne best deliveries, u wud find tonnes of similar, in fact better deliveries like this one, those too without that black patch.
zealous4zenith 19 hours ago
PLUM!
joshrobdaddy 5 days ago
I am AMAZED by the fact that the commentators didn't even bother to question the decision - as if it was an obvious one. HORRIBLE commentary , HORRIBLE umpiring. The only thing fantastic was the ball.
Cappuccinodude 6 days ago
Tony Greig: " It's only missed by 6 inches". Moron.
oldwestactionful 6 days ago
Wrong decision but not a bad one. I was very tempted to give it out watching live
edisonjsm 6 days ago
what the fuck..? HawkEye said JUST its missing AND WHEN THE BATSMAN DOESN'T OFFER A SHOT THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT GOES TO THE BOWLER. Hardly a bad call. Go learn the laws of cricket mate
andeerocks825 6 days ago
@andeerocks825 Nothing in the laws of cricket state anything about benefit of the doubt...
"Go learn the laws of cricket mate"
Tiimmmx 6 days ago
I don't see why its that bad. Looked pretty good to the naked eye
mitraabhra 1 week ago
Crap title
alibongo786110 1 week ago
it would have hit the stumps no doubt..even if it pitched at short extra cover
wertpollwert 1 week ago
Not one of Billy's best moments. Absurd. Seriously, how could you possibly give that out?
Offdrive3 1 week ago
Can't stand Bowden, attention seeking whore.
stratocaster1986able 1 week ago
omg with this title i thought it would be a decision against India
Kez9d 1 week ago 17
i don't think it was a bad call. it looked like it was going to hit the stumps. relative to the turn of the ball and it's trajectory, i don't think the ball actually missed by much. bear in mind where it pitches and how much it moves and use this to divide the distance the ball misses the wicket by and there's nothing in it. not a bad decision. he's not playing a shot so it looked like an ok call.
bob2000a 1 week ago
well it was missing but its not a shocker.
gmcorvette 1 week ago
Friggin Healy. Deadset can't watch the cricket on 9 with sound on anymore. "Where's that come from? We haven't see any turn like that all match." They're called footmarks you parrot. You kept to Warney and others hitting them for years. Awesome turn though, don't trust hawkeye or whatever it's called but to be giving them out when they're turning that much, you'd need to be standing at mid wicket to get an eyeline onto the stumps. Would have been lucky to hit a wheelie bin for stumps.
Doccaau 1 week ago
@Doccaau your right mate Healy is a tool !!!
cocu777 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Doccaau your right mate Healy is a tool !!!
cocu777 1 week ago
Can turn a ball
tommyi91 1 week ago
More great umpiring by this fool. Billy you are a joke mate.
surfclimbcycle 1 week ago
thank heavens the review system is here...
davey2604 1 week ago
I'm Australian and a big Shane Warne fan, but that is a bad call.
thesupplantor 1 week ago
how on earth billy is still an elite umpire is beyond me. however, i would have wanted to give this out just because this amazing piece of bowling deserved wicket.
lucas198 1 week ago
@den525 get fucked.
robelinda2 1 week ago
Didn't offer a shot apart from the hawkeye looked fair enough to me
soccerstar0001 2 weeks ago
Yes lets all argue about something that happened years ago and see if they will change the decision, yeah ?
BitTheDawgzFace95 2 weeks ago
he wasnt playing a shot, umpires were told to tighten up on players padding it away. i think its a good call
macca414 2 weeks ago
its not cheating, its always the umpires call in the end
dhurd007 2 weeks ago
Only missed by 6 inches-Tony Greg Legend
midaoos 2 weeks ago
Hawkeye is rubbish this ball can miss leg stump but no way miss off stump
LAHFKALHF 2 weeks ago
What's wrong with that decision? The ball turned incredibly, and hawkeye isn't 100% now, and it certainly wasn't then.
Batmanyam 2 weeks ago
@Batmanyam It hit him outside the line of the stump by miles!
TheOfficialMW2Game 2 weeks ago
@TheOfficialMW2Game That only comes in to play if the batter is playing a shot. Unfortunately for Prince he wasnt playing a shot so can be given out and well, it looked out enough for Billy boy :)
boswellwhanau 2 weeks ago 2
@boswellwhanau You cannot predict if the ball would hit the stumps.
Check this perfect example on YouTube - "Can a ball spin anymore?" (Shane Warne ball given NOT OUT by Rudi Koertzen)
TheOfficialMW2Game 2 weeks ago
Not the worst umpiring howler by a long way (try that dismissal of Johan Botha "bat before wicket" in last year's South Africa v India ODI series!) but it was bad because BB was basically guessing where that ball was going. How could he be confident it was going on to hit the stumps?
nobbynobbynoob 2 weeks ago
the review system is such a great invention, so shit like this won't happen again
Binij1 2 weeks ago
it isn't that bad
porterhole155 2 weeks ago
how is this the worst? didn't offer a shot so the only criteria was whether or not it was hitting the stumps, which it only just missed. Wrong decision-yes, OMG WORST EVA DECISION!!!!!11!!- no.
FFFalcon64 2 weeks ago
Naked eye it looked very very close - the ball turned sharply - fair call; batsmen unlikely; maybe but only had himself to blame
The61616112 2 weeks ago
Dumb vid title - the benefit of the doubt reverses in favour of the bowler when he pads up (to a bowler mind you turning towards the left handers stumps)... I am not saying the ump should not aim to give players out if they are not certain it is hitting the stumps - but I am saying the batsmen relinquishes the benefit of the doubt and you have your self to blame.
The61616112 2 weeks ago
Plumb.
MrCigarman75 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
JMCLost 2 weeks ago
the cricket rules allow a batsman not to play a shot to a ball that is not pitching in line with the wickets,or would have hit the wickets and hawkeye proved the ball would have missed the stumps by a mile.glad we have the review system these days so bad decisions like these will be ruled out.billy is actually a good umpire,i like him,but he just made a really bad call here,and he aint the first to make a bad call.....at least he aint no darryl hair,man that guy was so crap!
davey2604 2 weeks ago
@davey2604 The "Rules Of Cricket" allow for a ball that is pitching outside "OFF STUMP" or inline with the stumps. This pitched outside "Off stump" so in the RULES he can be given out. If the ball had pitched outside LEG STUMP he can't be given out. I know, I have to go by the rules every Saturday. Don't take my word, read the "Rules"
mollymitch1 1 week ago
@mollymitch1 yeah,i kno the rules of cricket,still dosn't change the fact its still a bad call,as hawkeye proved.but thats past history,glad the review system is here to eliminate most bad calls.
davey2604 1 week ago
regardless of the decision, that was some crazy turn!
vvikramraj 2 weeks ago 28
You just can't predict where that's going so you can't ever give it out
AdamDCC 2 weeks ago
love the typical one-eyed comments of the aussie in this.....heals is it?
cupidstunt22 2 weeks ago
its only missing by an inch or so according to hawkeye - hardly the worst ever decision - plus from the naked eye it looks even closer
chrish12345 2 weeks ago
i dont know y Aussies are Appealing for this and how Billy gave such a terrible decision
Khan999698 2 weeks ago
I ask anybody to try and umpire that, if i was umpire i would give it out
albie67 2 weeks ago
More like 2 inches.
jayhawkdave24 3 weeks ago
Haha lol, obvs not the best decision going but i'm not sure i'd even class it as a shocker, never mind the worst ever. Def not even Billy's worst.
VelvetierWakato 3 weeks ago
shouldnt it be Shane Warne and Billy Bowden :p
shabazmohammed786 3 weeks ago
What gives that graphic some kind of super accuracy? It's just a graphic. It doesn't take spin into account. Shouldering arms, on the crease, to a spinning ball is just asking the umpire to disregard any benefit of the doubt for you. If he'd used his bat he would've safely survived.
Pihasanddunes1 3 weeks ago
OMG ITS FRIGIN OUT THE BALL WAS SPINNING ON TO THE STUMPS IT DIDNT NEED TO BE IN LINE!!
prosturbate 3 weeks ago
if u dont play the ball then the ball only have to hit the stumps, so no matter if the ball hit hi i line or not and i think that was not a bad shout till hawk eye shows that will miss the stumps..
razzaqboom 3 weeks ago
@razzaqboom NO. Even if the ball pitches outside Leg Stump and he doesn't play a shot he can't be out.
mollymitch1 1 week ago
nice turn!
Jimmy4444aaa 3 weeks ago
that isnt a bad decision... as a batsman you loose the benefit of the doubt when you leave the ball.. i agree it really shouldnt of been out, however when its that close with benefit of the doubt with the bowler, you can forgive bowden for it...
MrCragles 3 weeks ago
play a shot, i think he got scared. well played Warne!!!
george140772 3 weeks ago
More like 2 inches, at most.
jayhawkdave24 3 weeks ago
in recent PAK vs ENG test game.... he gave STRAUSS not out while REHMAN was bowling..... which was clearly out... ENG commentators were sayng its out and BILLY was third umpire, where he was using HOT SPOT and zooming facility..... BILLY must leave umpiring and start getting dances classes
treeboy323 3 weeks ago
@treeboy323 Billy learn to dance? Yep I'll teach him
mollymitch1 1 week ago
Comment removed
treeboy323 3 weeks ago
Thats out, everyday. If you dont play a shot to that ball you are idiot, although methinks that it is a prerequisite of being south african, that and not being able to play leg spin at all.
The hawk eye, doesn't take into account that the ball is spinning in the air and can only assume a straight ball line, which any self respecting cricketer knows is crap.
That is why India wont use DRS
Mattyhawk1977 3 weeks ago
@Mattyhawk1977 I'm not sure what you're talking about? One of the rules that allows Hawkeye in ANY sport, dictates that it must be accurate to within 5mm - Hawkeye technology averages a 3mm margin of error.
That said, I don't agree with the title of the video, and agree wholeheartedly with mollymitch1's comment about armchair umpires.
Lightscribe721 3 weeks ago
@Lightscribe721 Thank you
mollymitch1 1 week ago
i think it is harsh to say this is the worst lbw decision ever. hawkeye did say that it wasnt going on to hit the stumps, but prince was not offerimg a shot amd caught on the crease. if he came forward and let it hit him he may have been given not out. remember bowden doesnt have a replay and hindsight is always 20/20
tonybosse1 3 weeks ago
Should of used the piece of willow in his hands!
greggriff1980 3 weeks ago
how are australians the cheats for this? we didnt make the fucking decision
connorgraham16 3 weeks ago
How could this be given out, it struck him way outside of the line of off-stump, he was practically standing at least 2 stumps outside off.
hazarewal 3 weeks ago
I have zero sympathy for batsman not playing shots and even less for ones that kick the ball away, you have a wooden thing in your hands for a reason, use it.
ac6murray 3 weeks ago
@ac6murray precisely, couldn't agree more - if u dont offer a shot don't complain.
Besides, it looked like it was hitting to me and i dont think flight path was the best back then.
jashwood007 3 weeks ago
It's funny that every bad decision made by an umpire is branded a case of cheating now. Usually "Aussie Cheating". You fucktards don't know the meaning of sport
Pigroota 3 weeks ago
Australia cheating with umpires help as usual
baajwa78 3 weeks ago
@baajwa78 I see many claims that Aussies cheat with umpires. But how can that claim be backed up? England has more history, cash and influence. India has the power. South Africa has more money and has more racist tendencies and therefore more motivation. Hell, even New Zealand piss and moan so much that umpires will likely cave into them before Aussies. So why do people think Aussies cheat? I think it's a sad case of tall poppy syndrome
Pigroota 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota I think it started with the Lillee and Thompson method of bowling, developed with the under-arm bowling incident against New Zealand and went from there.
wierdwesterner 3 weeks ago
@wierdwesterner You know what I found strangest about the Chappel incident (neither Lillee or Thompson ever bowled an underarm delivery FYI) - the dumb NewZealander that was batting merely blocked a delivery that was perfectly legal. He should have tried to smack it. What's more he storms off like it's bad sportsmanship. Don't be angry at the Aussie for displaying gamesmanship. The batsman probably sulked like a fukkn Kiwi for weeks.
Pigroota 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota Spoken like a true Aussie chump.
DreddWolff 3 weeks ago
@DreddWolff My point exactly, you whinging, pissing and moaning Kiwi. Awwww diddums. 1 Aussie captain and his subordinate does not constitute a trend. An entire culture pissing and moaning about an incident that happened 20 years ago - now there's a trend. Suck it up buttercup.
Pigroota 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota I'm not moaning about the incident, I'm just commenting on the fact that you thought it was a fully acceptable thing to do, not unsportmanlike, and that you seem to think you can hit a six of a ball that is rolling along the ground. DUMB AUSSIES ARE DUMB.
DreddWolff 3 weeks ago
@DreddWolff If you notice I never once said the incident wasn't unsportsmanlike. I said it was legal. I said it was gamesmanship. I said the Kiwi should have shelved his judgment. But I never said that it was not unsportsmanlike. It's OK. Learn to read at the remedial level sunshine, then maybe get back to me. Who's the dumbshit now eh?
Pigroota 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota I quote 'What's more he storms off like it's bad sportsmanship'. IGNORANT AUSSIES ARE IGNORANT.
DreddWolff 3 weeks ago
@DreddWolff LoL dunno why you are being such a little douche. That statement does not imply that I don't think it was unsportsmanlike. I cannot argue from his mind. But I can make an analysis from his viewpoint. He thought it was bad sportsmanship so he whinged like a girl instead of innovating like a player. I thought it was not in the spirit, but here's you: "Let's all berate Aussies cause we suck! No worries bros, we can do this for years at the expense of sport!" Hahahaha
Pigroota 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota Ha, the double standards of your argument is hilarious. SMART KIWI DON'T ARGUE WITH DUMB KANGAROO.
DreddWolff 3 weeks ago
@DreddWolff smart kiwi? you kiddin me? haha
mikko0414 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota I didn't say Lillee or Thompson did, I'm referring to their attitude on the field at the time. The underarm incident involved NZ requiring 6 off the last ball to tie and hitting a grubber for 6 is difficult even for a top batsman. The ICC re-wrote the laws of cricket banning underarm bowling in all forms of the game after the incident, which says all that needs to be said. Richie Benaut described it as "one of the worst things I have ever seen done on a cricket field".
wierdwesterner 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wierdwesterner Yeah. I dunno about that. I would usually agree with Richie but not in this case. I think it was not in the spirit of the game, but you were right when you state "The ICC re-wrote the laws of cricket banning underarm bowling in all forms of the game after the incident, which says all that needs to be said". The implication of course is that it was a legal delivery. Say no more!!
Pigroota 3 weeks ago
wtf it wasnt him spinning the ball, he just hit that patch in the pitch dumb aussie commentary
ITZMESNITCHEZ2009 3 weeks ago
"An important exception is that, if the impact is outside the off stump, the batsman can be out LBW if he does not make a genuine attempt to play the ball (that is, if he does not "play a stroke"). "
rob18767 4 weeks ago
@rob18767 That's right, outside OFF STUMP not LEG
mollymitch1 1 week ago
I must say that that looked out with the naked eye. I would add that I have seen some shocking lbw decisions in my time, a hell of a lot worse than this, for instance plenty of times when a guy is given out after almost knocking the cover off the ball.
brianofoz 4 weeks ago 2
i am australian i say it is not out
beybladeperseus 1 month ago
@beybladeperseus Bull shit enough, I'm american it was out
heaysman123 4 weeks ago 5
@heaysman123 Im american too
DaCoolestNerdXD1 1 week ago
I can see why he gave it out. If you pad up on a turning deck like that enough you are going to get given eventually... benefit of doubt moves to bowler. We need to see what happened before that, how many times had he padded up?!? Also the technology is not perfect today and certainly was not perfect back then.... looked out to naked eye...
GodraModra 1 month ago
It's a bad decision, I've seen worse tho.
truckcompany 1 month ago
it appeared to hit the stumps from the naked eye and he was back in his crease. But it's not out given the pitch/line of the ball - he would have to be standing on top of his stumps for such a decision.
I'd say Griegs best decision was to leave South Africa and his worst guaranteeing the loan and becoming bankrupt in the 90s
pufdadie 1 month ago
good nut
kakapomax 1 month ago
beautiful ball straight onto middle
MrElad44 1 month ago
Warnie you champion!!
muzwazi 1 month ago
some days it's hard to be a kiwi. what a shocker.
mylongwhitecloud 1 month ago
Gee i miss gilly's appeals.
38Sport2002 1 month ago
terrible decision,missing by a long way.and you dont have to play a shot to a ball that is missing the stumps.
davey2604 1 month ago
@davey2604 Damn right man, damn right.
robelinda2 1 month ago
@robelinda2 Not enough *typical australia cheating* in the title lol
atomicR4GER 1 month ago
@atomicR4GER true!!! LOL!
robelinda2 1 month ago
@robelinda2 Its not the Aussies cheating the umpire gave it out so how did Australia cheat Shane Warne thought it was close
EmpzJayTee 1 month ago 28
@EmpzJayTee J O K E
robelinda2 1 month ago 3
@robelinda2 please point out to me how Australia cheated at all?
rhynokav 3 weeks ago
@EmpzJayTee he's taking the piss out of indians, pakistanis and sri lankans
theuglyhairmonster2 2 weeks ago
@EmpzJayTee read the title of the video mate....it doesnt mention the word cheating once...just a bad decision thats all...cheers
MrRonsmagic 2 weeks ago
@atomicR4GER nope fuck you
jedwards63 3 weeks ago
@davey2604 dont have to play a shot outside leg stump yes thats true but outside off you gotta pretend to play a shot ala gordon greenidge, you dont play a shot umpire thinks ok would it have hit, never leave a ball without pretending to play shot, easy to get bat just inside and have it hit pad, its batting 101
markgregamy 1 month ago
@davey2604 Well its idiotic not to play a shot outside off stump, it was not missing by a long way anyway. Its dumb to pad a ball outside off stump and the ball turning like that, absolute stupidity.
patorr69 1 month ago
@davey2604
If you were the umpire in that situation, you would have to give out, he didnt play a shot and the spin was huge, so much so it looked gone live.
kutcher11 4 weeks ago
@kutcher11 Rubbish. The ball pitched a good way outside off, struck Prince outside off stump so there has to be the element of doubt as to whether it turned too much or not enough to hit the stumps, regardless of whether Prince played a shot or not, which would prevent me from giving it out. I think BB was influenced by the ball hitting Prince's back leg more than anything else, I'm sure he was disappointed with that decision afterwards when he saw it again.
wierdwesterner 3 weeks ago
@wierdwesterner
anyone would be disappointed to be giving out LBW in any case, worst way to go in my mind haha. All it comes down to is the main fact here, in the end he was giving out, lets just build a bridge and move on?
kutcher11 3 weeks ago
@kutcher11 I was referring to Billy Bowden being disappointed with his decision if and when he had another look at it. However, umpires are only human and make mistakes, but we still have a far better record of getting decisions right than any other mainstream sport officials.
wierdwesterner 3 weeks ago
@davey2604 If you don't play the shot and it's anywhere near the stumps then you're out. If you knew about cricket you would know that. If he played the shot he wouldn't be out.
Booya9272 3 weeks ago
So many people that don't know/ understand the LBW law...
MrBoyze52 1 month ago
you've gotta play a shot...he deserved to go
knottyboy20 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
While hawk-eye shows the ball was probably going to miss the stumps, as far as I'm concerned that should be given out. The rule about the ball not having to pitch inline with the stumps if a shot is not played derived from trying to stop the batsmen 'padding' the ball away and not offering a shot. That's a well bowled ball that spun along way, and if the batsmen isn't prepared to play a shot for his own safety and the ball turns back towards the stumps or near enough it should be given out.
Shaundy90 1 month ago
Comment removed
Shaundy90 1 month ago
It didn't need to hit inline because he didn't play a shot at it. Also it only missed by a tiny bit so a bad descision but nowhere near the worst descision ever.
nickprobball 1 month ago
hit him outside the line and also missed. stupid call
rodeo179 1 month ago
@rodeo179
It doesn't matter that it hit him outside the line of off when he's not playing a shot. What matters is if it's going on to hit the stumps!
jumpnjza2 1 month ago
i can see its a bad decision but i know why he gave it, as soon as he left it, it automatcially made bowden think thats hitting, if hed played a shot and hit his pad bowden would never of given that
DMCD1992 1 month ago
@DMCD1992 Well duh as you cannot be out LBW if youre playing a shot and it hits outside the line of the stumps.
nunnylad1 1 month ago
@nunnylad1 i know im an umpire lol but you dont get what im saying. what i mean is the umpire would of been so sure on him being not out with playing a shot that as soon as he left it, he was like oh shit, not playing a shot with sharp spin gotta be hitting. its all in the mind. as he left it it automatically makes you think its hitting
DMCD1992 1 month ago
Plumb.
davidmclo 1 month ago
You can see all three stumps and the feet is about a feet away from the off-stump at the contact, that can not be a LBW. Or we need to redefine the definition of LBW.....Bad umpiring.
archetype001 1 month ago
@archetype001 Erm... yes it can. If no shot is being played then the ball can hit outside the line of the stumps and it still be given out. Yeah, Bowden got it wrong here, but the rules are the rules.
nunnylad1 1 month ago
@nunnylad1 I'm glad u know the rule of test cricket. Having said that the ball landed three/four feet away from the off-stump, it would be mystical for any umpire to predict whether the ball is going to hit the stumps or not, never mind if he offered a shot.
archetype001 1 month ago
Australia really needs a person who can genuinely spin the ball like this. Brilliance.
1Camilleri 1 month ago
@1Camilleri bwahahahahah........after that how 'bout you ask for the second coming of christ?
mcnesta80 1 month ago
no shot offered.. prolly hitting,, you're out..
EdgeStormcrow 1 month ago
Actually a lot closer than hawkeye predicted, no sympathy for batsmen who don't use their bat.
Guvnor7777 1 month ago 2
this look out to me, i think Hawk eye was mistaken here
AnasAhmadMalik 1 month ago
When the batsmen doesn't offer a shot umpires usually give benefit of the doubt to the bowler... Although it did miss by a fair bit.
SirSquashedBeetle 1 month ago
Fucking dumb cunt Healy "i bet its cleaning the stumps up". All the channel 9 commentators need to be shot in the head. Twice
The88Guru 1 month ago 2
"its only missed by about......6 inches"
NewcastleJets13 1 month ago
It's not the worst I've seen. If you pad up like that you're running a risk because it always looks worse than it is for the batsman
GurgMaster 1 month ago
not that bad, ive seen far worse decisions than that
MeAgain998 1 month ago
Sarcasm is ugly, Tony Greig.
MrBiggestEggs 1 month ago
I've seen FAR worse decisions than this, you have to give this one out because he didn't play a shot.
Coldacre 1 month ago
@Coldacre i dont get it, how does it make a difference if he offers a shot or not?
extracovercricket 1 month ago
@extracovercricket If you play a shot, you can't be given out if it pitches outside the line of the stumps. Where as is you don't play a shot and it pitches outside the line of the stumps, you can be given out.
blahsta7 1 month ago
@extracovercricket - if he offers a shot and the ball pitches outside the line of stumps, its an automatic "not out". benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. if they don't offer a shot, it doesn't have to pitch on the line of the stumps and the benefit of the doubt goes to the bowler.
Coldacre 1 month ago
its only missed by 6 inchs YOU FUCK WHIT TONY GRIEG
Shifty2ky 1 month ago 33
@Shifty2ky You know who the worst people who watch cricket are? Armchair Umpires. You stand out in the middle of a cricket ground all afternoon and have to make a decision based on what you see in 5 seconds. I would have given that out too. Billy didn't have the choice of going to the Third Umpire but you have the opportunity to see the replay, something he doesn't have. Until you stand out there and do it get off Umpires backs. And get yourself a copy of the Laws of Cricket and read them.
mollymitch1 1 month ago 13
@mollymitch1 mate im not have a dig at billy , i just hate tony grieg ..
Shifty2ky 1 week ago
@Shifty2ky this is something we call sarcasm !
mehadi1000 1 month ago
@Shifty2ky he was being sarcastic you retard
9753zing 1 month ago 2
The way I see it if you refuse to offer a shot and get hit anywhere around the off stump you deserve to be given out, the benefit of the doubt should go to the bowler almost every time. This is why its called batting and not padding... I would have to disagree with the hawkeye on this one as the trajectory out of the footmarks was a lot sharper than that. If you want a bad umpire decision try Dick French vs Danny Morrison...
FunnyFunFunTime 1 month ago
This actually would b a much harder decision then its looks. The ball is going at 90 kilometers and did turn from almost a wide to just missing the stumps
FootyAndCricket 1 month ago
It's out... He didn't play a shot so it doesn't matter where it hits, as long as it's going on to the stumps... In which case it looked like it was
jonnodean 1 month ago
I remember watching this decision, Ashwell Prince is a good hard working batsmen who I quite like for his grafting abilty, hope he gets back into the SA team soon. Amazing bowling by Warne though, it was never out, but are we gonna take it away considering such technique.
merryberry21 1 month ago
that was very to shane warne's delivery to andrew strauss in te 05 ashes, only that time strauss missed the ball with his pads and the ball hit middle and leg and there was another delivery very similar when warne bowled a beauty very similar to these two to trescothick and the umpire didnt give it out.
not the worse lbw as he did shoulder arms but maybe very unlucky was the batsman
dj6ful 1 month ago
guys.. its a new rule.. you can give that out :P
sharathsunil 1 month ago
u guys forget one thing... the batter didn't play a shot... if he played a shot he wouldn't be out
hellokittylolfuckshi 1 month ago
This is a dreadful decision. Pure guess work from Bowden. Not acceptable from an umpire. Not even close either. The comment from the commentator 'It's only missed by about 6 inches' is ridiculous. It's like he's trying to saw oh well quite close that's out. 6 inches is the equivalent of a mile away on an lbw decision..
1savetonight 1 month ago
The worst I've seen is Daryl Harper giving out Dilshan for padding up against Harbajan Singh. Type 'mr daryl harper' and look at the hawkeye!
ashliski 1 month ago