Australia v India v Sri Lanka

[McRooster]

David Hussey, we love you, but you should have been given out for interference today.

[McRooster]

....and now you're out for 54 (64).

Aussies need 280, looks like 260 now.

[c4v3m4n]

David Hussey, we love you, but you should have been given out for interference today.

I only just saw the footage, how was he not given out? ???

[bomberboy0618]

David Hussey, we love you, but you should have been given out for interference today.

I only just saw the footage, how was he not given out? ???

Probably thought it was reflex to protect himself.

[CrowsFan]

What do you mean out for interference? My tv is broken so can't watch it...

[bomberboy0618]

Hit the ball with his hand to avoid being run out.

[McRooster]

David Hussey, we love you, but you should have been given out for interference today.

I only just saw the footage, how was he not given out? ???

Probably thought it was reflex to protect himself.

That's a fairly long bow to draw BB, he put his hand out very early and his body language suggested he knew himself he'd done the wrng thing, very lucky.

[McRooster]

....and now you're out for 54 (64).

Aussies need 280, looks like 260 now.

Speaking of long bows, 260 looks a bit far off, 239 after 49.

C'mon DanChristian!

[c4v3m4n]

David Hussey, we love you, but you should have been given out for interference today.

I only just saw the footage, how was he not given out? ???

Probably thought it was reflex to protect himself.

That's a fairly long bow to draw BB, he put his hand out very early and his body language suggested he knew himself he'd done the wrng thing, very lucky.

At first I had also thought that he may have put his hand out to protect himself, but looking at another angle, he put his hand out so so early, like he was always going to swat it away if it came close to save the possibility of a run out.

The strict interpretation of the rule, which states that  "It shall be regarded as obstruction if either batsman wilfully, and without the consent of the fielding side, strikes the ball with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, after the ball has touched a fielder", suggests that he is clearly out yet the 3rd umpire deemed he wasn't. I'd really love to know why...

...but yeah, I agree McRooster, very very lucky.

[McRooster]

X-Factor DOherty, nice  ;D dispatched Sehwag over cow corner.

Great running at the death, this is defendable  8)

[McRooster]

without the consent of the fielding side

That's the mute point of what the 3rd umpire will have to declare post match. The fact that the Indian Team appealed shows that David Hussey did not have the consent of the fielding side, he was out.

[McRooster]

Antiques Roadshow sucks balls, nearly as bad as what USED to happen on a Friday night with Better Homes and Gardens  >:(

[c4v3m4n]

without the consent of the fielding side

That's the mute point of what the 3rd umpire will have to declare post match. The fact that the Indian Team appealed shows that David Hussey did not have the consent of the fielding side, he was out.

It also depends on what India were appealing for too. If in fact they were appealing for "handling the ball", then it's understandable that he was given not out because that rule allows for the batsman to stick his hand out to protect himself from injury... ???

[PowerBug]

Antiques Roadshow sucks balls, nearly as bad as what USED to happen on a Friday night with Better Homes and Gardens  >:(

Don't tell me about Better Homes And Gardens.

[PowerBug]

I seem to want India to win by the bonus point on Tuesday, just to make it even more interesting.