So Ahmed and Wood out, Bashir and Robinson in, bowling changes after conceding 875 runs in the last,
but the middle order bats need to do more than blow hard. Root bowled 43 overs at Rajkot,
wonder whether all this bowling is affecting his batting. Tactics, catching and referrals were
all rather questionable in the last match too. But you have to admire Indias professionalism
and the way they have adjusted to the loss temporary or otherwise of so many senior players.
Theyr getting better england getting worse, if india bat first england might lose
by an innings this time. They seem spooked by the pitch already.

Rather surprising to see anderson there, he looked pretty knackered on the 4th day.
On another forum it was suggested that his continued presence in the team [ie not retiring]
is blocking the development of other younger england seamers.

India rest Bumrah, so presumably the pitch will be a turner from the start.

England team for fourth Test against India: Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett, Ollie Pope, Joe Root, Jonny Bairstow,
Ben Stokes (captain), Ben Foakes (wicketkeeper), Tom Hartley, Ollie Robinson, James Anderson, Shoaib Bashir.

mike

In message <22d57b0c21ff5243633d0bcb8fb5904f@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>So Ahmed and Wood out, Bashir and Robinson in, bowling changes after
>conceding 875 runs in the last,
>but the middle order bats need to do more than blow hard. Root bowled
>43 overs at Rajkot,
>wonder whether all this bowling is affecting his batting. Tactics,
>catching and referrals were
>all rather questionable in the last match too. But you have to admire
>Indias professionalism
>and the way they have adjusted to the loss temporary or otherwise of so
>many senior players.
>Theyr getting better england getting worse, if india bat first england
>might lose
>by an innings this time. They seem spooked by the pitch already.
>Rather surprising to see anderson there, he looked pretty knackered on
>the 4th day. On another forum it was suggested that his continued
>presence in the team [ie not retiring] is blocking the development of
>other younger england seamers.
>India rest Bumrah, so presumably the pitch will be a turner from the start.
>
>England team for fourth Test against India: Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett,
>Ollie Pope, Joe Root, Jonny Bairstow, Ben Stokes (captain), Ben Foakes
>(wicketkeeper), Tom Hartley, Ollie Robinson, James Anderson, Shoaib
>Bashir.
>
>mike

I see that Rehan Ahmed has now become the latest player to go home for
personal reasons. The number of players on both sides who have had such
issues is remarkable.

England were in Deep (pun intended) shit at lunch, but Root and Foakes
have done very well in the afternoon session. If England can finish with
270+, that could be a competitive score, especially with India having to
bat last.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

John Hall wrote:

> I see that Rehan Ahmed has now become the latest player to go home for
> personal reasons. The number of players on both sides who have had such
> issues is remarkable.

I believe theres a Kohli junior just born in London, hence the absence of
Virat.

> England were in Deep (pun intended) shit at lunch, but Root and Foakes
> have done very well in the afternoon session. If England can finish with
> 270+, that could be a competitive score, especially with India having to
> bat last.

After being 112-5, 302 was a unexpected and unusual recovery for england.
Before the match i think stokes or baz said that 1 could have the
normal root or an even better root. I'm quite happy with a root who makes
100s, and i dont care if he bats like boycott to do it. Unfortunately Foakes
was out almost immediately i started listening when he had batted very
well, and those 2 wkts by Siraj have probably precluded england
getting 400. But it was lucky for them that India had no reviews left
when Von Robbo was probably lbw. Akash had a good debut, despite
taking some stick from creepy especially that ridiculous 6, and had
the last laugh in the end.

I wonder if the reason STokes is eager to bowl is that hes not making
any runs or taking catches, doesnt feel hes contributing etc, but he got
a shooter today.

mike

In message <296547869023b9646d68612daa8deddf@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>John Hall wrote:
>
>> I see that Rehan Ahmed has now become the latest player to go home
>>for personal reasons. The number of players on both sides who have had
>>such issues is remarkable.
>
>I believe theres a Kohli junior just born in London,

Why in London, I wonder.

> hence the absence of
>Virat.

You can understand him wanting to be there for the birth, but that he's
missed the whole series suggests that their might have been a medical
issue for his wife or for the baby.

>> England were in Deep (pun intended) shit at lunch, but Root and
>>Foakes have done very well in the afternoon session. If England can
>>finish with 270+, that could be a competitive score, especially with
>>India having to bat last.
>
>After being 112-5, 302 was a unexpected and unusual recovery for england.
>Before the match i think stokes or baz said that 1 could have the
>normal root or an even better root. I'm quite happy with a root who
>makes 100s, and i dont care if he bats like boycott to do it.

Indeed.

> Unfortunately Foakes
>was out almost immediately i started listening when he had batted very
>well, and those 2 wkts by Siraj have probably precluded england
>getting 400.

Yep. Assuming that India take the new ball first thing tomorrow - and
even given the amou7nt of reverse swing that Siraj and Deep were getting
with the old ball it was still a bit surprising that they haven't
already taken it - then going by what happened wthe the first new ball
England might not make many more.

> But it was lucky for them that India had no reviews left
>when Von Robbo was probably lbw.

It looked like the umpire must have thought he got a thin edge when in
fact he missed it.

> Akash had a good debut, despite
>taking some stick from creepy especially that ridiculous 6, and had
>the last laugh in the end.
>
>I wonder if the reason STokes is eager to bowl is that hes not making
>any runs or taking catches, doesnt feel hes contributing etc, but he
>got a shooter today.

If he can bowl a few overs, it will certainly give England more
flexibility.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

John Hall wrote:

> In message <296547869023b9646d68612daa8deddf@www.novabbs.com>, miked
> <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>John Hall wrote:
>>
>>> I see that Rehan Ahmed has now become the latest player to go home
>>>for personal reasons. The number of players on both sides who have had
>>>such issues is remarkable.
>>
>>I believe theres a Kohli junior just born in London,

> Why in London, I wonder.

well i might be jumping to conclusions but the daily muck says he was
in london, i dont spose he was here for his health or had left the
family behind so soon after the birth.

>> Unfortunately Foakes
>>was out almost immediately i started listening when he had batted very
>>well, and those 2 wkts by Siraj have probably precluded england
>>getting 400.

> Yep. Assuming that India take the new ball first thing tomorrow - and
> even given the amou7nt of reverse swing that Siraj and Deep were getting
> with the old ball it was still a bit surprising that they haven't
> already taken it - then going by what happened wthe the first new ball
> England might not make many more.

yep and i'm thinking that akash and siraj are probably at least
a yard quicker than our pair, who are going to have to try
and contain mr jazball and his chums.

mike

On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>
> This is what I was talking about that EVEN if ball tracking is
> IMPERFECT, it's still better than Umpires because Umpires still make
> horrendous mistakes while ball tracking makes marginal mistakes.

I don't think anyone is disputing that.

However, I haven't seen either of the wickets below, but from the
descriptions, I'm not convinced that either of those mistakes was
horrendous.

> 21.2 W Ashwin to Bairstow, OUT
>
> big appeal, YJB hit on the back leg sweeping! Not given by Rod Tucker
> but Rohit reviews. Looked pretty adjacent on first glance. Did he hit
> it? No, says UltraEdge. Pitching on leg, straightening enough from round
> the wicket. This is going to be overturned! Thumping into middle and off
> stumps, three reds. Ashwin gets amongst 'em in his second over
> Jonny Bairstow lbw b Ashwin 38 (35b 4x4 1x6) SR: 108.57

Pitching on leg and question whether he hit it.

9.4 W  Akash Deep to Pope, OUT
>
> wider on the crease, Pope steps out of the crease, beaten and hit on the
> pad. Shout for lbw, not given, and the umpire has ruled leg-byes even
> before 15 seconds elapse. So Rohit takes the review. I still think this
> might be too high. No it isn't. What a review. Akash Deep is hitting top
> of leg. What a turnaround in luck. Wide on the crease, some seam in,
> Pope's inside edge is beaten, hits him on the knee roll. Pope gone for a
> duck
> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0

Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.

--
David North

On 23/02/2024 15:33, miked wrote:
> John Hall wrote:
>
>> I see that Rehan Ahmed has now become the latest player to go home for
>> personal reasons. The number of players on both sides who have had
>> such issues is remarkable.
>
> I believe theres a Kohli junior just born in London, hence the absence of
> Virat.

Maybe he'll be playing for England in 20 years, then. ;)

--
David North

David North wrote:

> On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

>> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0

> Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.

Since that 100 in the 1st, popey has had no luck at all, poor chap.
Again he seemed well down the wkt to this 1.

There was another controversy concerning the catch off jaswal that
wasnt. Foakes etc all though it was out, 3rd ump Wilson said it
didnt carry. Didnt help that Foakes was wearing those horrid
green gloves. I dunno how DRS deals with a pitch with such variable
bounce. As I suspected our seamers lacked the pace to really
hit the pitch the way indias did, with robbo looking rather
rusty. Still without his runs england would have never got to
over 300.

i thought the longer the partnership between Jurel and Kuldeep
went on the more stokes was itching to bowl. fortunately it was
so dark, he had to keep the spinners on, but i'm surprised he
didnt try root sooner. when was the last time a test in india
stopped for rain cos the forcast for tomorrow and tuesday
in particular doesnt look so good.

mike

In message <9e3cd810-318b-4cf1-97d8-4f2d37813ac3@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
writes
<snip>
>Besides, IF You look at the BIG PICTURE and analyze the last 14 years,
>there were LOT of horrendous decisions from umpires which were over
>turned.
>
>From those statistics we can reasonably conclude that ball tracking is
>better than umpires but it's NOT perfect.

I think you're right. IMO Kumar Dharmasena and Michael Gough are about
as close to perfect as a human umpire can be, but even they are going to
make a mistake once in a while.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <715177e5feea38fd40ddea89d75004c4@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>David North wrote:
>
>> On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>>> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>>> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0
>
>> Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.
>
>Since that 100 in the 1st, popey has had no luck at all, poor chap.
>Again he seemed well down the wkt to this 1.
>There was another controversy concerning the catch off jaswal that
>wasnt. Foakes etc all though it was out, 3rd ump Wilson said it
>didnt carry.

Having seen the replays that the third umpire saw, I too thought that it
didn't quite carry.

> Didnt help that Foakes was wearing those horrid
>green gloves. I dunno how DRS deals with a pitch with such variable
>bounce.

The ball will usually have bounced long enough before hitting the pad,
that I would hope it could make a pretty accurate prediction of its
future trajectory.

> As I suspected our seamers lacked the pace to really
>hit the pitch the way indias did, with robbo looking rather
>rusty. Still without his runs england would have never got to
>over 300.
>i thought the longer the partnership between Jurel and Kuldeep
>went on the more stokes was itching to bowl. fortunately it was
>so dark, he had to keep the spinners on,

I suspect he would have liked to see if Anderson could get any reverse
swing.

> but i'm surprised he
>didnt try root sooner.

Especially as it would have meant that Bashir didn't have to bowl such
an extremely long spell. He kept going remarkably well, though he did
get cramp at one point, but not being used to such long spells I hope he
won't feel too tired tomorrow or get a sore spinning finger.

> when was the last time a test in india
>stopped for rain cos the forcast for tomorrow and tuesday
>in particular doesnt look so good.
>mike

It would be really frustrating if this match was to finish in a draw
because of the weather. They could afford to lose one whole day to rain
but not two. Rain could also put an end to reverse swing for the
remainder of the match.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 16:29:30 +0000, dmike204@yahoo.co.uk (miked)
wrote:

>David North wrote:
>
>> On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>>> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>>> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0
>
>> Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.
>
>Since that 100 in the 1st, popey has had no luck at all, poor chap.
>Again he seemed well down the wkt to this 1.
>
>There was another controversy concerning the catch off jaswal that
>wasnt. Foakes etc all though it was out, 3rd ump Wilson said it
>didnt carry. Didnt help that Foakes was wearing those horrid
>green gloves.

The photos and footage I've seen I can't see how that ball could have
been taken without hitting the ground first

> I dunno how DRS deals with a pitch with such variable
>bounce.

Because there's almost always enough time after the ball bounces to
judge how the ball has bounced.
If the batsman is hit right on the half-volley then the ball is almost
certainly not going to clear the stumps

> As I suspected our seamers lacked the pace to really
>hit the pitch the way indias did, with robbo looking rather
>rusty. Still without his runs england would have never got to
>over 300.
>
>i thought the longer the partnership between Jurel and Kuldeep
>went on the more stokes was itching to bowl. fortunately it was
>so dark, he had to keep the spinners on, but i'm surprised he
>didnt try root sooner. when was the last time a test in india
>stopped for rain cos the forcast for tomorrow and tuesday
>in particular doesnt look so good.

On 24/02/2024 11:44, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 10:42 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>>> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>>>
>>> This is what I was talking about that EVEN if ball tracking is
>>> IMPERFECT, it's still better than Umpires because Umpires still make
>>> horrendous mistakes while ball tracking makes marginal mistakes.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is disputing that.
>>
>> However, I haven't seen either of the wickets below, but from the
>> descriptions, I'm not convinced that either of those mistakes was
>> horrendous.
>>
>>> 21.2 W Ashwin to Bairstow, OUT
>>>
>>> big appeal, YJB hit on the back leg sweeping! Not given by Rod Tucker
>>> but Rohit reviews. Looked pretty adjacent on first glance. Did he hit
>>> it? No, says UltraEdge. Pitching on leg, straightening enough from
>>> round the wicket. This is going to be overturned! Thumping into
>>> middle and off stumps, three reds. Ashwin gets amongst 'em in his
>>> second over
>>> Jonny Bairstow lbw b Ashwin 38 (35b 4x4 1x6) SR: 108.57
>>
>> Pitching on leg and question whether he hit it.
>
>
> It was very obvious this was out even without a review. There was NO
> reason why umpire declared it not out.
>
>
>
>>
>>   9.4 W  Akash Deep to Pope, OUT
>>>
>>> wider on the crease, Pope steps out of the crease, beaten and hit on
>>> the pad. Shout for lbw, not given, and the umpire has ruled leg-byes
>>> even before 15 seconds elapse. So Rohit takes the review. I still
>>> think this might be too high. No it isn't. What a review. Akash Deep
>>> is hitting top of leg. What a turnaround in luck. Wide on the crease,
>>> some seam in, Pope's inside edge is beaten, hits him on the knee
>>> roll. Pope gone for a duck
>>> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0
>>
>> Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.
>>
>
>
>
> Commentators DON'T have good perception abilities. It's his "OPINION".

.... just as it was your opinion that it was very obvious that Bairstow
was out.

> Besides, IF You look at the BIG PICTURE and analyze the last 14 years,
> there were LOT of horrendous decisions from umpires which were over turned.

I think your threshold for "horrendous" must be a lot lower than mine.

> From those statistics we can reasonably conclude that ball tracking is
> better than umpires

Once again, I don't think anyone is disputing that ball tracking is, on
average, better than umpires ...

> but it's NOT perfect.

.... or that.

--
David North

In message <hMuH3REhml2lFwL7@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In message <715177e5feea38fd40ddea89d75004c4@www.novabbs.com>, miked
><dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>
>> when was the last time a test in india
>>stopped for rain cos the forcast for tomorrow and tuesday
>>in particular doesnt look so good.
>>mike
>
>It would be really frustrating if this match was to finish in a draw
>because of the weather. They could afford to lose one whole day to rain
>but not two. Rain could also put an end to reverse swing for the
>remainder of the match.

A draw to the weather now doesn't look likely. I'm posting in the
interval between innings, and it's looking as if this Test could be
going the same way as the last one, where England had a decent position
after two days (more than decent this time) but let it slip on day 3.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

John Hall wrote:

> In message <hMuH3REhml2lFwL7@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>In message <715177e5feea38fd40ddea89d75004c4@www.novabbs.com>, miked
>><dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> <snip>
>>
>>> when was the last time a test in india
>>>stopped for rain cos the forcast for tomorrow and tuesday
>>>in particular doesnt look so good.
>>>mike
>>
>>It would be really frustrating if this match was to finish in a draw
>>because of the weather. They could afford to lose one whole day to rain
>>but not two. Rain could also put an end to reverse swing for the
>>remainder of the match.

> A draw to the weather now doesn't look likely. I'm posting in the
> interval between innings, and it's looking as if this Test could be
> going the same way as the last one, where England had a decent position
> after two days (more than decent this time) but let it slip on day 3.

yeah its not gonna be a problem, will probably be all over pretty
quick tomorrow morning at this rate. bizarre that root opened the
bowling with hartley, just easy runs. perhaps it was becos he was
the only 1 who wasnt knackered. like at Rajkot, our bowlers
just bowled 103 overs, then a few hours later have to start
bowling again. i believe robbo missed jurel when it 265-8, and
well done to him kuldeep and akash, but gotta ask how the
last 3 managed to score 130 on this wkt. the 3rd day really
seems to be englands weak point, when they run out of puff.
India raised their game and the pressure was too much for them.

when i saw roots dismissal i was surprised, looked outside leg
and missing, which shows how wrong the 'naked eye' can be.

mike

On 25/02/2024 11:01, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 1:53 AM, David North wrote:
>> On 24/02/2024 11:44, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 10:42 PM, David North wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what I was talking about that EVEN if ball tracking is
>>>>> IMPERFECT, it's still better than Umpires because Umpires still
>>>>> make horrendous mistakes while ball tracking makes marginal mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone is disputing that.
>>>>
>>>> However, I haven't seen either of the wickets below, but from the
>>>> descriptions, I'm not convinced that either of those mistakes was
>>>> horrendous.
>>>>
>>>>> 21.2 W Ashwin to Bairstow, OUT
>>>>>
>>>>> big appeal, YJB hit on the back leg sweeping! Not given by Rod
>>>>> Tucker but Rohit reviews. Looked pretty adjacent on first glance.
>>>>> Did he hit it? No, says UltraEdge. Pitching on leg, straightening
>>>>> enough from round the wicket. This is going to be overturned!
>>>>> Thumping into middle and off stumps, three reds. Ashwin gets
>>>>> amongst 'em in his second over
>>>>> Jonny Bairstow lbw b Ashwin 38 (35b 4x4 1x6) SR: 108.57
>>>>
>>>> Pitching on leg and question whether he hit it.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was very obvious this was out even without a review. There was NO
>>> reason why umpire declared it not out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   9.4 W  Akash Deep to Pope, OUT
>>>>>
>>>>> wider on the crease, Pope steps out of the crease, beaten and hit
>>>>> on the pad. Shout for lbw, not given, and the umpire has ruled
>>>>> leg-byes even before 15 seconds elapse. So Rohit takes the review.
>>>>> I still think this might be too high. No it isn't. What a review.
>>>>> Akash Deep is hitting top of leg. What a turnaround in luck. Wide
>>>>> on the crease, some seam in, Pope's inside edge is beaten, hits him
>>>>> on the knee roll. Pope gone for a duck
>>>>> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0
>>>>
>>>> Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Commentators DON'T have good perception abilities. It's his "OPINION".
>>
>> ... just as it was your opinion that it was very obvious that Bairstow
>> was out.
>
>
>
>
> My perception abilities are WAY SUPERIOR to the rest of the human species.

In that case, it's a bit harsh to criticise the umpire for giving it Not
out just because it's obviously out to you, isn't it?

--snip OT stuff--

> I can go on and on and on and on

Yes, I noticed.

--
David North

In message <ypeT+NBiix2lFwKN@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In message <hMuH3REhml2lFwL7@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>In message <715177e5feea38fd40ddea89d75004c4@www.novabbs.com>, miked
>><dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
><snip>
>>
>>> when was the last time a test in india
>>>stopped for rain cos the forcast for tomorrow and tuesday
>>>in particular doesnt look so good.
>>>mike
>>
>>It would be really frustrating if this match was to finish in a draw
>>because of the weather. They could afford to lose one whole day to
>>rain but not two. Rain could also put an end to reverse swing for the
>>remainder of the match.
>
>A draw to the weather now doesn't look likely. I'm posting in the
>interval between innings, and it's looking as if this Test could be
>going the same way as the last one, where England had a decent position
>after two days (more than decent this time) but let it slip on day 3.

At the end of the day I'd say the odds were at least 80-20 in India's
favour, whereas at the start of the day I'd say they were at least 80-20
in England's. In three out of the four Tests there have now been a
tremendous change in fortunes from the position at the end of day 2, in
the first Test in England's favour but in the third and fourth Tests in
favour of India.

India must take a lot of credit for turning things round. Assuming that
India go on to win, I'd give the match award to Jurel. Without his
innings, India would probably have been 150 behind on first innings, and
there would have been no way back from there.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <f291f5dc6eb38bc4c2cce49c7057e46d@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>bizarre that root opened the
>bowling with hartley, just easy runs. perhaps it was becos he was the
>only 1 who wasnt knackered.

Perhaps. Hartley was the one who was really expensive though, clearly
having trouble in gripping the new ball. That being the case, I'd have
been tempted to whip him off after one over and give Anderson a go.

> like at Rajkot, our bowlers
>just bowled 103 overs, then a few hours later have to start
>bowling again. i believe robbo missed jurel when it 265-8,

Yes, that may have been crucial.

> and
>well done to him kuldeep and akash, but gotta ask how the last 3
>managed to score 130 on this wkt.

The wicket didn't seem to be doing quite so much then, but maybe thew
batsmen just made it look that way.

> the 3rd day really seems to be englands weak point, when they run out
>of puff.
>India raised their game and the pressure was too much for them.

Yep. Foakes seemed to have a sounder defence than anyone, but
unfortunately doesn't have the game to pierce defensive fields so that
he and Bashir only added 12 runs in the 12 overs they were together. I
wonder if he should have trusted Bashir a little more and, when the
field was brought in towards the end of the over to try to prevent him
retaining the strike, have tried to loft the ball over the in-fieldfor
four. As it was, England were going nowhere and a wicket was bound to
fall eventually.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

John Hall wrote:

> In message <f291f5dc6eb38bc4c2cce49c7057e46d@www.novabbs.com>, miked
> <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> <snip>
>>bizarre that root opened the
>>bowling with hartley, just easy runs. perhaps it was becos he was the
>>only 1 who wasnt knackered.

> Perhaps. Hartley was the one who was really expensive though, clearly
> having trouble in gripping the new ball. That being the case, I'd have
> been tempted to whip him off after one over and give Anderson a go.

you'd think jimmy be telling this to stokes, let me get my 700 etc!
hartley was terrible its true.

>> like at Rajkot, our bowlers
>>just bowled 103 overs, then a few hours later have to start
>>bowling again. i believe robbo missed jurel when it 265-8,

> Yes, that may have been crucial.

i agree that Jurel innings was the key.

>> and
>>well done to him kuldeep and akash, but gotta ask how the last 3
>>managed to score 130 on this wkt.

> The wicket didn't seem to be doing quite so much then, but maybe thew
> batsmen just made it look that way.

well they blocked everything straightish and smashed anything wide or
short, or full, but the indian spinners were more on the money, or
cracks/rough than ours. plus they all really give it a tweak.
i didnt enjoy england collapse, but it was interesting to watch
cooldip [as 1 of the commentators kept saying] bowl. very useful
3rd spinner to have.

>> the 3rd day really seems to be englands weak point, when they run out
>>of puff.
>>India raised their game and the pressure was too much for them.

> Yep. Foakes seemed to have a sounder defence than anyone, but
> unfortunately doesn't have the game to pierce defensive fields so that
> he and Bashir only added 12 runs in the 12 overs they were together. I
> wonder if he should have trusted Bashir a little more and, when the
> field was brought in towards the end of the over to try to prevent him
> retaining the strike, have tried to loft the ball over the in-fieldfor
> four. As it was, England were going nowhere and a wicket was bound to
> fall eventually.

I think robbo and hartley both perished trying to do that, but i wonder
if foakes and bairstow should swap positions in the order.

mike

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:36:15 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>> --snip OT stuff--
>>
>>> I can go on and on and on and on
>>
>> Yes, I noticed.
>>
>
>
>
>This is the PROBLEM with human species in GENERAL and westerners in
>PARTICULAR.
>
>
>I am talking about an "EXTREMELY SERIOUS ISSUE" of human species being
>REMOTELY OPERATED by AI turning us into biological drones and zombies
>with NO PRIVACY, NO FREEDOMS and NO FREE WILL with Neuroweapons by the
>EVIL US UK Govts and here you are showing off with STUPID SARCASM taking
>OUT OF CONTEXT of what I said.
>

That's just facebook for fucksake and nobody is being operated they
use facebook because humans are nosy,lazy, greedy, conceited and like
to show off their possessions, even fancy meals that wouldn't fill a
hole in your tooth leave alone an empty belly are displayed like a
badge of honour..In the meantime, 800 million bellies will be empty
today.

>You really NEED to "INTROSPECT".
>
The most powerful neuroweapon on the planet is right between your own
ears. If you aren't fit to use it then someone else will play Russian
roulette with your life in order to get what they want in their life.
In the couple of hundred thousand years that humans have been on the
planet, nothing has changed, humans behave in the same way that they
always have done.

Your thoughts are your own and the devil dosen't make you do it.
If you can understand that you will know everything that you need to
know.

max.it

On 26/02/2024 06:36, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 4:56 AM, David North wrote:
>> On 25/02/2024 11:01, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 2/25/2024 1:53 AM, David North wrote:
>>>> On 24/02/2024 11:44, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:42 PM, David North wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what I was talking about that EVEN if ball tracking is
>>>>>>> IMPERFECT, it's still better than Umpires because Umpires still
>>>>>>> make horrendous mistakes while ball tracking makes marginal
>>>>>>> mistakes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think anyone is disputing that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I haven't seen either of the wickets below, but from the
>>>>>> descriptions, I'm not convinced that either of those mistakes was
>>>>>> horrendous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 21.2 W Ashwin to Bairstow, OUT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> big appeal, YJB hit on the back leg sweeping! Not given by Rod
>>>>>>> Tucker but Rohit reviews. Looked pretty adjacent on first glance.
>>>>>>> Did he hit it? No, says UltraEdge. Pitching on leg, straightening
>>>>>>> enough from round the wicket. This is going to be overturned!
>>>>>>> Thumping into middle and off stumps, three reds. Ashwin gets
>>>>>>> amongst 'em in his second over
>>>>>>> Jonny Bairstow lbw b Ashwin 38 (35b 4x4 1x6) SR: 108.57
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pitching on leg and question whether he hit it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was very obvious this was out even without a review. There was
>>>>> NO reason why umpire declared it not out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   9.4 W  Akash Deep to Pope, OUT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wider on the crease, Pope steps out of the crease, beaten and hit
>>>>>>> on the pad. Shout for lbw, not given, and the umpire has ruled
>>>>>>> leg-byes even before 15 seconds elapse. So Rohit takes the
>>>>>>> review. I still think this might be too high. No it isn't. What a
>>>>>>> review. Akash Deep is hitting top of leg. What a turnaround in
>>>>>>> luck. Wide on the crease, some seam in, Pope's inside edge is
>>>>>>> beaten, hits him on the knee roll. Pope gone for a duck
>>>>>>> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Commentators DON'T have good perception abilities. It's his "OPINION".
>>>>
>>>> ... just as it was your opinion that it was very obvious that
>>>> Bairstow was out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My perception abilities are WAY SUPERIOR to the rest of the human
>>> species.
>>
>> In that case, it's a bit harsh to criticise the umpire for giving it
>> Not out just because it's obviously out to you, isn't it?
>>
>
>
> Umpire had YEARS of EXPERIENCE and hence he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was OUT.
>
> There is a DIFFERENCE between UMPIRES and COMMENTATORS

Yes, but they are both part of "the rest of the human species."

--
David North

On 28/02/2024 09:40, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/26/2024 12:03 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 26/02/2024 06:36, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 2/25/2024 4:56 AM, David North wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2024 11:01, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/2024 1:53 AM, David North wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/02/2024 11:44, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:42 PM, David North wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is what I was talking about that EVEN if ball tracking is
>>>>>>>>> IMPERFECT, it's still better than Umpires because Umpires still
>>>>>>>>> make horrendous mistakes while ball tracking makes marginal
>>>>>>>>> mistakes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is disputing that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I haven't seen either of the wickets below, but from
>>>>>>>> the descriptions, I'm not convinced that either of those
>>>>>>>> mistakes was horrendous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 21.2 W Ashwin to Bairstow, OUT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> big appeal, YJB hit on the back leg sweeping! Not given by Rod
>>>>>>>>> Tucker but Rohit reviews. Looked pretty adjacent on first
>>>>>>>>> glance. Did he hit it? No, says UltraEdge. Pitching on leg,
>>>>>>>>> straightening enough from round the wicket. This is going to be
>>>>>>>>> overturned! Thumping into middle and off stumps, three reds.
>>>>>>>>> Ashwin gets amongst 'em in his second over
>>>>>>>>> Jonny Bairstow lbw b Ashwin 38 (35b 4x4 1x6) SR: 108.57
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pitching on leg and question whether he hit it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was very obvious this was out even without a review. There was
>>>>>>> NO reason why umpire declared it not out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   9.4 W  Akash Deep to Pope, OUT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wider on the crease, Pope steps out of the crease, beaten and
>>>>>>>>> hit on the pad. Shout for lbw, not given, and the umpire has
>>>>>>>>> ruled leg-byes even before 15 seconds elapse. So Rohit takes
>>>>>>>>> the review. I still think this might be too high. No it isn't.
>>>>>>>>> What a review. Akash Deep is hitting top of leg. What a
>>>>>>>>> turnaround in luck. Wide on the crease, some seam in, Pope's
>>>>>>>>> inside edge is beaten, hits him on the knee roll. Pope gone for
>>>>>>>>> a duck
>>>>>>>>> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Commentators DON'T have good perception abilities. It's his
>>>>>>> "OPINION".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... just as it was your opinion that it was very obvious that
>>>>>> Bairstow was out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My perception abilities are WAY SUPERIOR to the rest of the human
>>>>> species.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, it's a bit harsh to criticise the umpire for giving it
>>>> Not out just because it's obviously out to you, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Umpire had YEARS of EXPERIENCE and hence he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was
>>> OUT.
>>>
>>> There is a DIFFERENCE between UMPIRES and COMMENTATORS
>>
>> Yes, but they are both part of "the rest of the human species."
>>
>
>
>
> These are the type of ERRORS I am talking about that DRS is way better
> than Umpires but NOT perfect.

Once again you repeat a line that no-one seems to be disagreeing with ...

> This is just DAY one of the last Ashes in the first test.
>
> So, IF you add up ALL the WRONG decisions given by umpires, it's a NO
> BRAINER that DRS is way better than Umpires.

.... and again ...

> DRS saves Umpires' blushes
>
> The umpires had a day to forget with three major errors which DRS had to
> sort out.

.... although I notice that your line has changed from ball-tracking
being better than umpires to DRS being better than umpires, as only one
of the three umpiring errors mentioned below involved ball-tracking. The
other two involved umpires missing contact between ball and glove.

> MAJOR ERRORS
>
>
> ASHES NOTEBOOK: DRS spares umpires' blushes after THREE major errors...
> while Mitchell Marsh's pre-Test decoy run sparks theories of funky team
> selection from the Aussies

"Major errors" seems to be typical tabloid hype (good luck finding a
Daily Mail report that describes an incorrect appeal decision as a minor
error). From the descriptions, none of them sound like particularly bad
errors.

>     The Umpires had a poor first day, with three incorrect decisions at
> Edgbaston
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12204487/ASHES-NOTEBOOK-Australias-Leeds-born-sub-fielder-Josh-Inglis-stays-true-roots.html

--
David North

On 01/03/2024 05:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 10:35 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 09:40, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

>>> MAJOR ERRORS
>>>
>>>
>>> ASHES NOTEBOOK: DRS spares umpires' blushes after THREE major
>>> errors... while Mitchell Marsh's pre-Test decoy run sparks theories
>>> of funky team selection from the Aussies
>>
>> "Major errors" seems to be typical tabloid hype (good luck finding a
>> Daily Mail report that describes an incorrect appeal decision as a
>> minor error). From the descriptions, none of them sound like
>> particularly bad errors.
>>
>>>      The Umpires had a poor first day, with three incorrect decisions
>>> at Edgbaston
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12204487/ASHES-NOTEBOOK-Australias-Leeds-born-sub-fielder-Josh-Inglis-stays-true-roots.html
>>
>
>
> 17.6 overs Ollie Pope misses a Nathan Lyon delivery. It looks a close
> lbw but umpire Ahsan Raza says no. Pat Cummins reviews and it’s hitting
> leg stump.
>
>
> The ball was hitting leg stump.

.... according to ball-tracking. That's leg stump, not middle, not middle
and leg, and from the description we don't know how much of the ball was
shown to be hitting leg stump, except that it was at least half.

> It is a major error.

What would be a minor error?

> 26.4 A snorter from Scott Boland clips Zak Crawley’s glove and the
> Aussies go up, but Marais Erasmus is unmoved. Review shows clear contact.
>
>
> CLEAR CONTACT.
REVIEW. Yes, the contact was clear when shown on a slow-motion replay
using a zoom lens accompanied by a snickometer, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that it was clear when viewed live at full speed from
20-odd yards away.

--
David North

On 01/03/2024 05:44, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 10:35 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 09:40, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2024 12:03 PM, David North wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2024 06:36, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/2024 4:56 AM, David North wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/02/2024 11:01, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/2024 1:53 AM, David North wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2024 11:44, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:42 PM, David North wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/2024 07:15, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TWO Umpiring mistakes in less than 2 hours in Ranchi Test.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I was talking about that EVEN if ball tracking
>>>>>>>>>>> is IMPERFECT, it's still better than Umpires because Umpires
>>>>>>>>>>> still make horrendous mistakes while ball tracking makes
>>>>>>>>>>> marginal mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is disputing that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, I haven't seen either of the wickets below, but from
>>>>>>>>>> the descriptions, I'm not convinced that either of those
>>>>>>>>>> mistakes was horrendous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 21.2 W Ashwin to Bairstow, OUT
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> big appeal, YJB hit on the back leg sweeping! Not given by
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Tucker but Rohit reviews. Looked pretty adjacent on first
>>>>>>>>>>> glance. Did he hit it? No, says UltraEdge. Pitching on leg,
>>>>>>>>>>> straightening enough from round the wicket. This is going to
>>>>>>>>>>> be overturned! Thumping into middle and off stumps, three
>>>>>>>>>>> reds. Ashwin gets amongst 'em in his second over
>>>>>>>>>>> Jonny Bairstow lbw b Ashwin 38 (35b 4x4 1x6) SR: 108.57
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pitching on leg and question whether he hit it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was very obvious this was out even without a review. There
>>>>>>>>> was NO reason why umpire declared it not out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   9.4 W  Akash Deep to Pope, OUT
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wider on the crease, Pope steps out of the crease, beaten and
>>>>>>>>>>> hit on the pad. Shout for lbw, not given, and the umpire has
>>>>>>>>>>> ruled leg-byes even before 15 seconds elapse. So Rohit takes
>>>>>>>>>>> the review. I still think this might be too high. No it
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't. What a review. Akash Deep is hitting top of leg. What
>>>>>>>>>>> a turnaround in luck. Wide on the crease, some seam in,
>>>>>>>>>>> Pope's inside edge is beaten, hits him on the knee roll. Pope
>>>>>>>>>>> gone for a duck
>>>>>>>>>>> Ollie Pope lbw b Akash Deep 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hitting top of leg, commentator thought it might be too high.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Commentators DON'T have good perception abilities. It's his
>>>>>>>>> "OPINION".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... just as it was your opinion that it was very obvious that
>>>>>>>> Bairstow was out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My perception abilities are WAY SUPERIOR to the rest of the human
>>>>>>> species.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case, it's a bit harsh to criticise the umpire for giving
>>>>>> it Not out just because it's obviously out to you, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Umpire had YEARS of EXPERIENCE and hence he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it
>>>>> was OUT.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a DIFFERENCE between UMPIRES and COMMENTATORS
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but they are both part of "the rest of the human species."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These are the type of ERRORS I am talking about that DRS is way
>>> better than Umpires but NOT perfect.
>>
>> Once again you repeat a line that no-one seems to be disagreeing with ...
>>
>>> This is just DAY one of the last Ashes in the first test.
>>>
>>> So, IF you add up ALL the WRONG decisions given by umpires, it's a NO
>>> BRAINER that DRS is way better than Umpires.
>>
>> ... and again ...
>>
>>> DRS saves Umpires' blushes
>>>
>>> The umpires had a day to forget with three major errors which DRS had
>>> to sort out.
>>
>> ... although I notice that your line has changed from ball-tracking
>> being better than umpires to DRS being better than umpires, as only
>> one of the three umpiring errors mentioned below involved
>> ball-tracking. The other two involved umpires missing contact between
>> ball and glove.
>>
>>> MAJOR ERRORS
>>>
>>>
>>> ASHES NOTEBOOK: DRS spares umpires' blushes after THREE major
>>> errors... while Mitchell Marsh's pre-Test decoy run sparks theories
>>> of funky team selection from the Aussies
>>
>> "Major errors" seems to be typical tabloid hype (good luck finding a
>> Daily Mail report that describes an incorrect appeal decision as a
>> minor error). From the descriptions, none of them sound like
>> particularly bad errors.
>>
>>>      The Umpires had a poor first day, with three incorrect decisions
>>> at Edgbaston
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12204487/ASHES-NOTEBOOK-Australias-Leeds-born-sub-fielder-Josh-Inglis-stays-true-roots.html
>>
>
>
>
>
> Is this yahoo sports reporter ALSO a tabloid type for calling ashes test
> umpire errors, "SHOCKING"?

The word 'shocking' does not appear anywhere in the report. It's in the
headline, which I'm guessing was probably not written by the reporter
himself, and it's in quotation marks, so the headline writer was not
calling the errors 'shocking' either, just quoting what someone else
said, in this case apparently someone on Twitter (as I think it still
was then) calling themself OriginalHalfSuomi.

> Ashes umpires under scrutiny after 'shocking' missed calls
> Australia needed two DRS referrals to go their way after getting no love
> from the on-field umpires on day one of the first Ashes Test.
> https://au.sports.yahoo.com/cricket-ashes-umpires-under-scrutiny-after-shocking-missed-calls-031345227.html

--
David North

I've only just noticed that i wrote '3rd test' not 4th! Doh

mike

On 01/03/2024 08:58, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 10:34 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 01/03/2024 05:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 10:35 PM, David North wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/2024 09:40, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>>>>> MAJOR ERRORS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ASHES NOTEBOOK: DRS spares umpires' blushes after THREE major
>>>>> errors... while Mitchell Marsh's pre-Test decoy run sparks theories
>>>>> of funky team selection from the Aussies
>>>>
>>>> "Major errors" seems to be typical tabloid hype (good luck finding a
>>>> Daily Mail report that describes an incorrect appeal decision as a
>>>> minor error). From the descriptions, none of them sound like
>>>> particularly bad errors.
>>>>
>>>>>      The Umpires had a poor first day, with three incorrect
>>>>> decisions at Edgbaston
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12204487/ASHES-NOTEBOOK-Australias-Leeds-born-sub-fielder-Josh-Inglis-stays-true-roots.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 17.6 overs Ollie Pope misses a Nathan Lyon delivery. It looks a close
>>> lbw but umpire Ahsan Raza says no. Pat Cummins reviews and it’s
>>> hitting leg stump.
>>>
>>>
>>> The ball was hitting leg stump.
>>
>> ... according to ball-tracking. That's leg stump, not middle, not
>> middle and leg, and from the description we don't know how much of the
>> ball was shown to be hitting leg stump, except that it was at least half.
>>
>>> It is a major error.
>>
>> What would be a minor error?

I notice that you haven't answered that question.

> This video clip should of that LBW dismissal should put your argument to
> rest. It was obvious even for naked eye in fast motion. The entire ball
> was hitting INSIDE the leg stump and middle stump.
>
>
> From 2:36 - 3:16
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kOV0vBsaoE

Yes, but it pitched with little more than half the ball in line
(according to ball-tracking), so it was very marginal in that regard.
That seems to be the most likely reason why the umpire gave it not out,
as reflected by the commentary: "Ooh, that's close. Has it pitched
outside? Well, obviously the umpire thinks so." Remember that the umpire
needs to be fairly sure that the ball did not pitch outside the line of
leg stump to give it out. Maybe he was giving Pope the benefit of the
doubt.

--
David North