Why not out?

[lesblue]

When Australia had eight wickets down, Graeme Swann "clean bowled" Peter Siddle, but the bails didn't come off. Why is this not given as "out"?
Yes, I know that the bails are supposed to come off, but in these days of reviews and referrals, surely the verdict should have been in favour of the bowler??

[DTCwordfan]

the law here is unequivocal - the bails have to come off. There have been quite a few instances where balls have rolled onto the stumps and the bails have not dislodged - therefore Not Out.

Must remember to put the super-glue in my kitbag for next season....

[factor-fiction]

Because it's not out 'bowled 'unless the bails come off. It's the same with a run out.

[lesblue]

OK thanks............it just seems strange that they seem to waste so much time (for example) in referring to the third umpire to decide if three runs or four are scored when a fielder may or may not have touched the rope in the fielding manouevre, when something as obvious as this is overlooked as "one of those things".
Perhaps thats one of the reasons cricket is so wonderfully "quirky".