Received: by 10.66.73.1 with SMTP id h1mr6950451pav.0.1352696406657;
        Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:00:06 -0800 (PST)
Path: s9ni5518pbb.0!nntp.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.westnet.com.au!news.westnet.com.au.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:00:05 -0600
Reply-To: "dechucka" <dechuc...@hotmail.com>
From: "dechucka" <dechuc...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
References: <fd19e9fe-8894-49f9-9c3e-33ff03b00ae6@googlegroups.com> <agaq5kF6fn9U1@mid.individual.net> <af3c3dad-3e19-4e40-a7f6-58879095b171@googlegroups.com> <agau1uF78ebU1@mid.individual.net> <ab5a5984-5113-44e7-9c73-beb89bf2a1e7@googlegroups.com> <agavgfF7h9aU1@mid.individual.net>
In-Reply-To: <agavgfF7h9aU1@mid.individual.net>
Subject: Re: Morkel No Ball when Cowan gloved the ball
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:59:45 +1100
Organization: V.O.M.I.T
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463
Message-ID: <LI2dnTrtJbbIHz3NnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@westnet.com.au>
Lines: 188
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.169.0.126
X-Trace: sv3-q60xl+IcrkCSlTZo77SzAqCBc2vfWhxMnVWYe8YHx+jcc1pvws7qUq54CbZ1lM0am3qlaPo+1/e5LNE!GKJPuk84nTTDpDqNM7Ce7VXZexBotThss6in5S36SMjiL+1vhQ/vlgtTl27uwowfjiQNcvBAbHQN!WBZibGlJVM5HCc7aNGc0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@westnet.com.au
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5007
X-Original-Bytes: 4946
X-Received-Bytes: 5087
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


"Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote in message 
news:agavgfF7h9aU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "alvey" <qccc.membe...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:ab5a5984-5113-44e7-9c73-beb89bf2a1e7@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:26:39 AM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
>>> "alvey" <qccc.membe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:af3c3dad-3e19-4e40-a7f6-58879095b171@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Monday, November 12, 2012 9:20:23 AM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
>>>
>>> >> "skp" <vikani...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> news:fd19e9fe-8894-49f9-9c3e-33ff03b00ae6@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > I didn't see day 3 but I did read the CI report today.  I gather 
>>> >> > that
>>>
>>> >> > the
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > ball took Cowan's glove, Rauf didn't see it and Smith reviewed it.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > The review showed that the ball did hit the glove but that Morkel 
>>> >> > had
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > overstepped.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > We have a no-ball and Cowan stays on.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > All well and good so far.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > But did RSA lose one of its reviews?  The CI report was silent on 
>>> >> > that
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > point.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > If they did get dinged one of their available reviews, we have an 
>>> >> > odd
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > situation:  The umpire makes two gaffes on one play (and the gaffe 
>>> >> > for
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > which the review is taken is in fact shown to be a gaffe) and yet 
>>> >> > the
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > reviewing team loses a review.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> > Any views on this?
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> Test Match Playing Conditions, as revised on 29 October:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> Appendix 2, 3.5:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> c) If following a Player Review, an umpire upholds a decision of 'Not
>>>
>>> >> Out'
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> on
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> account of the delivery being a no ball for any reason, thereby not
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> requiring
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> any review of the ball's subsequent trajectory, then this will not be
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> counted
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> as an unsuccessful request and not count towards the innings limit.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > My inner lawyer point out that that Playing Condition explicitly 
>>> > states
>>>
>>> > that the Review doesn't count if the umpire "...upholds a decision of 
>>> > 'Not
>>>
>>> > Out'".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I think that was just your outer Alvey.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your inner Lawyer would have done more than just repeating what I quoted
>>>
>>> i.e. given his reason for so doing.
>>
>>
>> Thought it was obvious.
>> What happens if the original decision was 'Out'?
>
> Think about it.
>
> If the original decision was 'out' the only side calling for a review will 
> be the batting side.

Did the Umpire ask for a review before giving Smith out in the SA 1st 
innings or had he made no decision?