R
ronnyd
QCup Player
- Mar 14, 2008
- 697
- 0
Coxy said:Wasn't their reasoning that the original decision was out, and so there had to be conclusive evidence that it wasn't out to overturn it. Because Rauf (?) couldn't see clearly that the ball missed the bat he didn't have enough evidence to overturn the decision. He'd basically need to see daylight between bat and ball, or the ball hitting pad or something.
seems like the only way to get conclusive evidence would be using snicko. I wonder why they didn't??