Stiltskin,
Back to my exact point which you find difficult to comprehend.
The review decision was deemed correct.
As there was insufficient evidence to overturn the decision.
The discretionary powers were used as there was DOUBT about the decision.
This contradicts rule 31.6.
If there was not a review system, under the laws of cricket that decision should have been given not out!
Because there is a back up system which is supposed to support or disprove an umpires decision (which they fall back on) in this instance it didn't do either to support or disprove the original decision.
It was inconclusive!!
The umpires did consult-fact!
There was DOUBT so they referred it to the review.
This isn't an lbw decision which you seemed to think fell under the same scrutiny, it doesn't!
Not is it the same as broads 2013 dismissal which you confused this incident with.
I have no issue with the review and the reviews decision. Or how the review system works which you are now arguing for the sake of.
It was the initial field umpires call which under the laws should have been not out.
Devon, stock to the topic rather than your abusive crap!
Wowog, kawahja claimed the catch when he actually had no idea whether he caught the ball so praise for him is totally unjust.
If he'd put his hands in the air to suggest he was unsure, then he would be praise worthy.
