AN Cook (Eng) looks like a MatchFixer, page-103

"Nobody has confused it with Broad's 2013 dismissal... yet another misinterpretation by yourself"

(A) you raised this in a previous post, which is totally IRRELEVANT to this decision! So yes to compare the two shows a lack of understanding on your behalf!

"You keep bringing up this law 31.6 but the DRS Review system is patently clear:"
(A) Go and read and UNDERSTAND rule 31.6 and if there was DOUBT the decision should have been NOT OUT.
It is written in the rule!!!! Why cant you recognize the rule? The law!

"Nowhere does it say, that the initial call by an umpire on the field has to be ruled as NOT OUT, otherwise every close catch in the outfield would be ruled NOT OUT by every umpire and this doesn't happen."
(A) ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! not every catch is contentious or in dispute! It is a rarity not the norm which is what you are trying to infer. Your logic and comprehension is impaired!
It says IF THERE IS DOUBT (do you understand English) then the decision SHALL (do you understand what SHALL means) be given NOT OUT!! So yes that MEANS that it HAS TO BE GIVEN NOT OUT!! Stitskin, understand English!!!
The umpires have contravened law 31.6
The initial decision should have been given NOT OUT and then referred and the decision would have stood as evidence could not be substantiated either way!
Your writings conclude only two types of evidence under the review system. Either for or against! Well this evidence offered neither as it was inconclusive!!!!


"The 2 umpires concurred on the field that the catch was taken and then referred it at their discretion and the on field decision was proven to be correct as there was no evidence from the technology available to prove otherwise.
(A)I understand I am repeating, as you are not comprehending!! But here goes.
INCONCLUSIVE - not correct!
There was DOUBT so they reviewed!!

The review is a back up system to the LAWS. the review system does not OVERRIDE the laws of the game.

The umpires are to act according to the laws of the game. So upon consultation law 31.6 comes in to play.
DOUBT means NOT OUT as per law 31.6.

You don't refer to review laws until you have exhausted the RULES of the game!! So to list the review system is just a diversion on your part!

I keep telling you I agree with the reviews decision however you keep disputing it.

Its the onfield umpires that did not follow the LAWS of the game. Rule 31.6 DOUBT is NOT OUT!!!!!

The review is irrelevant if they followed the laws!!! They didn't! It is written, NOT OUT!!!