Ian Healey recently wrote in the Melbourne press that the Law of...

Ian Healey recently wrote in the Melbourne press that the Law of Cricket have to be determined according to the naked eye. The only exception to this being in circumstances where the Third Umpire can be called upon to adjudicate.

The Third Umpire cannot be used in support of LBW appeal reviews.

The LBW rule has always been the most controversial in cricket (whether, in first class, in grade, or in district cricket).

Yes, you win some, but then again you lose just as many over time.

Years ago, I used to be dismissed in one of 2 ways - caught, or LBW. Rarely, was I ever bowled. But that's the risk you take in being an aggressive opener (akin in style to Eric Freeman's approach to cricket - attack, always attack, even when being defensive). The point was, no matter how disappointed you got at being dismissed, if the umpire said you were out, then that was it - you walked.

That said, I can understand the disappointment of Vaughan, Langer and Hayden (along with so many others out there).

Particularly, I felt for Vaughan, and only saw Langer's dismissal in replays.

But, even though tomorrow's sporting pages will cover the dismissals in detail, there was simply no excuse for the breaking of the dressing room door /mirror. This is not the type of role model that should be on display.

In AFL football, the charge for this would be "bringing the game into disrepute", and speaking out against the umpire would attract a fine, as well.

It will, therefore, be interesting to see what disciplinary action (if any) is invoked, tomorrow - likely that it was Langer, not Hayden.

That said, I heard that GTG is likely to rise fast in price, tomorrow. Bichel, highest test score, and 49no at stumps, with Australia @3/91, requiring a further 363, in order to win, tomorrow. With Gilchrist and Waugh still to come, the match is not yet, over.