AN Cook (Eng) looks like a MatchFixer, page-118

@Lav

Finally someone with some cricket nouse. You are absolutely spot on!!

"Any catch going upstairs for the third umpire should have an original decision of not out.
That way the batsmen gets the benefit out doubt implied in the rules and there has to be conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. " CORRECT!!

The question the on field umpires should have asked each other was, could we tell if it was a clear catch?
Noone could tell if it was a clear catch! Not even the best of the cameras.

Stiltskin - oh stiltskin give away with the name calling and stick to the topic and try to not follow others antagonistic childish taunts.
@Stiltskin you say, "By all reports, it was a clear catch in the outfield , with no evidence of being grassed. It's out every day of the week at any level of the game.."
(A) You once again are looking at the reverse side of the law. You don't need evidence to show it was grassed, the umpires had to be certain that the ball didn't touch the grass! As per law 31.6 NOT OUT!
And as for being out every day of the week, absolutely not! The onus is to show the catch was taken not to dispute whether it wasn't.

"The DRS system is very clear on this, and nowhere does it say that an original decision has to be NOT OUT ."
(A) This has nothing to do with the DRS, this is to do with the laws of the game NOT the DRS.
LAW 31.6 NOT OUT - you still don't understand the law! It says "SHALL BE GIVEN NOT OUT!!! Repeat - The DRS has nothing to do with the law (that is 8 times)

Debono, give away your snide remarks and stick to the topic, you are actually boring me with your childish rants.
Is the onus on the umpire to ensure he caught the ball Debono before giving him out or you just take the fielders word for it?
As a trained umpire you should know the answer to that!

Stiltskin, you keep repeating the obvious, the decision was out and the review was out!

"The catch isn't even at the wicket and the batsman clearly hit the ball in the air which the fieldsman caught without ANY EVIDENCE both in real time and in review of any evidence of grassing. The decision to give the batsman out was both easy, true and correct."
(A) This is exactly what rule 31.6 is for. It is irrelevant whether the catch was at the wicket!

Having brought this up with a few "real umpires" they too believe the original decision should have been not out and rule 31.6 should have applied!!

The influence of the review system has led the on field umpires in to a false decision!!
Without the review system being in effect if Kawahja had thrown his hands in the air and said I don't know whether I caught it, what would the umpires have adjudicated?

Debono & Stiltskin what would they have adjudicated given the above question?
Without evading that question - answer it as it is clearly written.

Quite clearly They would have adjudicated not out!!

Enough said.