.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sight Screen

Monday, November 21, 2005

Is ignorance bliss?

There have been comments previously, such as "That writer hasnt played a single game of cricket at any level, then how can he judge me, somebody who has played more than a 100 tests?"
Sambit Bal's comment on the Inzamam run out in Test 2 sums up the knowledge of such ex-cricketers.
For those unaware, Inzamam was judged to be run out while taking evasive action from Harmisson's throw, when the rule states as such

"...a batsman is not out Run out if (a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down"


The focus of the column was rightly on the ignorant umpires on the field. Simon Taufel is considered the best of the lot. So, I am not sure if this is funny or sad But I am curious to know whether the ICC will come out with a statement or the match referee will express his regret to Inzamam. Ater all, players are hauled up to the referee's office for excessive appealing (Veeru, Ganguly), not appealing, pointing fingers (Harbajan), smiling (Irfan Pathan in Australia Vs Damien Martyn) etc. Dont they deserve to get an apology when something like this happens?

And I wonder how many ex or current cricketers other than Ian Botham were in the dark about the finer points of such rules.

PS: Bal writes about the famous Tendulkar run out at Eden Gardens in 1999 when he was impeded by Akhtar, in an accidental collison. I am not sure if this is accurate though. The law implies that the batsman may not be run out if he is outside the crease to avoid injury. But the Tendulkar run out was in different circumstances. It is true that the run out occured only because of the collision with Akhtar but technically, Pakistan was within their rights to appeal for it and I dont think the umpires messed up over there. That Akram could have withdrawn the appeal as sportsmanship is an altogether different issue. Thoughts?

57 Comments:

  • Well.. even the BBC called it incorrect http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4455642.stm

    also read on. Afridi diggin the pitch .:)


    Umpire Darrell Hair referred the decision to the third umpire, who duly gave Inzamam out even though the rules of the game state a batsman cannot be run out when taking evasive action from a throw if he has not left his crease.



    Then as play ended, Shahid Afridi was seen scuffing the wicket with his boots.

    Laws: What is the 'protected area' of the pitch?

    England batsman Kevin Pietersen, at the crease with Bell, immediately asked Afridi what he was doing, apparently concerned about the effect his action might have on the condition of the pitch.

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 09:08  

  • Pakistan was right in appealing at Kolkatta..they couldnt have known that SRT had grounded the bat and then moved out....and Eng was not much wrong today either. They couldn't have known(atleast accurately) that Inzy, when playing the shot, didn't move out of the crease, but infact lifted his foot only to evade the throw. The umpires should have seen...or atleast asked the third umpire. Although I'm not sure if they can ask these questions outside the jurisdiction of 3rd ump? But they are not asking him to pass judgment, just what he sees in the replay.

    To me, without having watched the action this morning, it looks like a simple case of on-field umpires mistaking it to be a simple case of batsman stepping out a bit to play, and not grounding the bat. And their mistake, then, in not asking the third ump. This is what Tresco said about his conversation with Hair about it I spoke to Darrell [Hair] and he said he thought he might just have lifted his foot, but it's the first time I've seen it referred to the third umpire while we've been fielding."

    I don't think the umpire was being ignorant of the rule...just carelessness of not thinking of all possible alternatives immediately. Looks like another one of simple umpiring errors.

    By Blogger worma, at 09:12  

  • Our own game seems to be in danger of being washed out .. Yaga's to Indra may not even help ..
    The first link is more scary ..

    http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/map/INXX0202?from=LAPmaps&name=index_large_animated&day=1

    http://weather.msn.com/local.aspx?wealocations=wc:INXX0075

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 09:13  

  • Toney,

    Absolutely - that was my first reaction when I read the article from Sambit Bal. How can the incident of Tendulkar be treated in the same league as this...? In Sachin's case, it was more of Shoaib and him colliding because of which Sachin couldn't reach the crease in time. It was sad - but nothing illegal or wrong about the decision there.
    In this case, the Umpire is definitely guilty. Which Umpire is guilty is a matter of argument, I guess.

    By Blogger ravi2206, at 09:15  

  • ravi: SRT reached the crease and came out. The similarity in Inzy and Sachin's dismissal is that its the same rule in question.

    By Blogger worma, at 09:16  

  • Worma: I am not sure about what you said - I still think he didn't reach the crease while completing the third run.

    By Blogger ravi2206, at 09:18  

  • I am 100% sure his bat reached the crease and then he got Shoaib's shoulder in his face....bat lifted as he took a step back. I have the picture in my head...of only I could show it here ;-)

    By Blogger worma, at 09:21  

  • Worma,
    SRT left the crease, not to avoid injury but because of the collision. Inzi was never attempting to take a run in the first place. So, IMO there's no similarity other than the fact that both were given run out.

    And I dont know whether the umpire was being ignorant or careless. If I were in their position, I would prefer to be called ignorant than careless.
    Also, they cannot ask the third umpire about such specifics. The 3rd umpire can only judge whether the batsman is out of the crease or not. And that is his basis for hitting the button. It is upto the impires on the field to decide whether this was a batsman making a genuine attmept to score a single (how hard is it, when the batsman hits it back to the bowler, the bowler tries to hurl down the stumps and the batsman, being in the way, stands a very good chance of being hit?)

    By Blogger Toney, at 09:21  

  • Worma - well if only you (from US) could show that to me (in UK)...;)

    By Blogger ravi2206, at 09:23  

  • ravi, SRT reached the crease, grounded the bat. Then, on the collision, his bat was in the air and with our kind of luck in that game, the ball hit the stumps. I have no problem with that though. Bowlers are within their right to get behind the stumps or go collect the ball, unless something was done on purpose.

    By Blogger Toney, at 09:23  

  • ravi: boss I'm in Finland...so atleast the travel time is less ;-)

    toney: We know Inzy was not trying to run...but it *could* have been a case of batsman taking a step forward while playing the shot...something like when you play to forward shortleg and the fielder flicks on to the stump, remember that is also not actually an attempt to run a single...yet its a genuine way of running him out. Not saying this happened...but this seems to be what the ump was thinking.

    Call it carelessness or whatever, it seems like a simple wrong judgement on part of umpire...same as in giving lbw to a ball pitched outside leg. here also they had only a fraction to watch Inzy's actual stride out(that too from square leg).

    But yes, if the umpires can 'ask' about such details from third ump then the carelessness is bigger.

    By Blogger worma, at 09:27  

  • Toney & Worma - I think I remembered it differently - but if you guys are so sure, I will go by that.

    By Blogger ravi2206, at 09:28  

  • and toney, I think the same rule applies to SRT case also. He was forced out of the crease...or rather went out to avoid injury(yeah Akhtar's elbow on face is serious threat of injury...sort of instintive reaction to it.)

    By Blogger worma, at 09:28  

  • You do not have to be attempting a run to be run out. Example - silly point or short square leg throws down the stumps quickly when the batsman temporarily leaves the crease on playing his shot. If the wicketkeeper effects this dismissal it is a stumping. If any other fielder does so it is a run-out.

    The Harmison stump throw down falls into this category except for one vital detail. The batsman was (just) within his crease until he took evasive action. THAT is why it should have been called not out.

    The question of attempting a run or not is irrelevant.

    By Blogger Ged, at 09:31  

  • ged: yeah..my point, exactly.

    By Blogger worma, at 09:35  

  • Guys, in SRT case, he has completed the run when his bat was inside the crease and he was not attempting another run. His bat was in the air at the time when ball hit the stumps because of collision with Akthar. So, technically the run was complete and batsman was just taking (or forced to) avasive action not to get injured. The umpires screwed up there. No fault with Pakistan fielders and onfield umpire. It was clearly the third umpire. I also remember reading that sachin took the rule book to the match referee and complained. But at that time only person who could have undone it was Wasim and he had no idea about the total picture. So, he would not know unless someone stops the play and show him all replays and let me make the decision. So, only person to blame was Third umpire.

    By Blogger Yorker, at 09:38  

  • yorker: third ump is to be blamed if its in his jurisdiction to interpret those rules. If he's to make line calls only..then cant blame him, right?

    By Blogger worma, at 09:41  

  • Did you guys read the Ten Most controversial decisions http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/226675.html.
    There are some beauties there

    By Blogger Toney, at 09:48  

  • Worma,
    Is thisinked, that third Umpire only makes Line call.
    In SRT scenario, what if the Regular umpire is not even sure that SRT has completed the run?
    May be he referred this to third umpire to find out the same..
    The Red light given by umpire means the batsmans walks out. He should be aware fo the rules before switching that on.
    If third umpire just has to switch on the R/G lights .. we would very well have an eagle(tech) sitting there .. not a cricketing umpire...

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 09:53  

  • worma, Third umpire had to call if the run was complete when the ball hits the stumps. His job is not just to see a frame where ball hits the stumps and see where bat is. When a call is referred to him, it means he is asked to see if the run is complete before ball hits the stumps.

    By Blogger Yorker, at 09:55  

  • How about the Sarfraz Nawaz appeal of handled the ball against the non-striker. Now, that is plain ridiculous. I don't even know why the non-striker can be given out handled the ball. If he stretches his hand out to protect against a runout? If he can do that, he's going to be close enough to simply ground his bat.

    By Blogger Sahir, at 09:57  

  • Well.. I am not sure what question Third umpire is asked .. but sure the answer he gives means eithr of the two things .
    Either BAtsman is OUT or NOT OUT.
    In that case the Question asked ot him is : IS THE BATSMAN OUT?
    Now i think it is just Logical that he applies the cricketing rules before he glows any light .

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 09:57  

  • pankay, yorker: I repeat, I am not sure if its in third umpire's jurisdiction to decide on the matter of rules to be applied...or whether the 'run was complete' or not. There isn't a rule book about third umpire rights, is there? I think he just makes the line-call...that at the time of dislodging of bails, what was the position of the bat. But I may be wrong on this.

    I am also not sure how much can the field umpire 'ask' unofficially from the third ump, if that was possible it should have been done in both cases. In any case, both these examples are of mis-judgment on the part of on-field umpire (in case of SRT it was actually a lesser mis-judgment since probably the umpire couldnt have imagined it as a possiblity, while today Hair should have taken it into account). But anyway, a simple mistake, like an LBW to a ball pitched outside leg. Nothing more, IMO.

    By Blogger worma, at 10:02  

  • pankaj, yorker,
    I think this is how roloes are defined. For a run out, the on-field umpires decide whether the batsman can be legally given. They consider all the factors, such as attempting to run, ducking or moving away to avoid injury, fielder's role in impeding a batsman and whether this was intentional etc. But, since the actual even of the batsman's position when the bails were removed happens so quickly, they allow the third umpire to rule on this.
    So, by the time the run out is referred to the 3rd umpire, all that is left (in the on-field umpires' minds) is whether the batsman has reached the crease in time. And the 3rd umpire is a dummy, who just decides this.
    As Pankaj said , you dont need an umpire to do this, any tech could, provided they know what to do.

    Tis the case for catches too. The 3rd umpire doesnt judge whether the batsman edged the ball. All he judges on, from the replays is whether th ball was caught fairly.

    By Blogger Toney, at 10:05  

  • Speaking of what question the third umpire is asked-- do you guys remember the third umpire decision during the 2nd Test during our last tour of the WI? Nichols, I believe, was asked by on-field umpire about whether the ball had carried and been caught cleanly by Ratra. De Silva's view was blocked by Ratra rolling over and having his back turned towards him. There was zero doubt about the legitimacy of the catch-- it was a good foot above the ground. But, replays indicated that Chanderpaul never nicked the ball-- the sound was from the bat hitting the ground. Green light was the verdict. Later Nichols actually had the nerve to say he gave it not out because he could not conclusively tell whether the catch had been taken cleanly.

    By Blogger Sahir, at 10:06  

  • sahir,
    I was going to state that exact incident !!! And IMO, the 3rd umpire judged on the edge rather than the legality of the catch (although officially he gave a diff version). And that is not the right decision. I remember the commentators also correctly analyzing the situation.

    By Blogger Toney, at 10:08  

  • worma,toney,

    I think all this upto how the umpire sitting in front of TV interprets it. In SRT situation, umpire would definitely know that the run was completed. In that case he should have turned on his walkie-talkie and let the onfield umpires know that this is the situation instead of turning RED/Green. As far as I am concerened, If he chose not to do that he is undermining his own capabilities of being an international umpire.

    By Blogger Yorker, at 10:12  

  • yorker, dude...its not as simple as that. If his brief is strictly defined to answer the question asked by onfield ump, and if on-field ump's brief is defined to ask only certain questions...then what can you do?

    btw...is there anywhere a rule book (or some such) which defines the whole 'scope' of third ump?

    By Blogger worma, at 10:14  


  • Third Umpire/TV Replays
    2.1 General

    The Home Authority will ensure a seperate room is provided for the third umpire and that he has access to a television monitor and direct sound link with the television control unit director to faciliate as many replays as is necessary to assist him in making a decision.
    The third umpire shall call for as many replays from any camera angle as is necessary to reach a decision. As a guide, a decision should be made within 30 seconds wherever possible, but the third umpire shall have discretion to take more time in order to finalise a decision.
    The on-field umpire has the discretion whether to call for a TV replay or not and should take a common-sense approach. Players may not appeal to the umpire to use the replay system - breach of this provision would be constitute dissent and the player could be liable for discipline under the Code of Conduct.
    2.2 Run-out, Stumping, Caught and Hit Wicket Decisions

    In all Test and One Day International matches, the on-field umpire shall be entitled to call for a TV replay to assist him in making a decision about a run-out, stumping, caught or hit wicket appeal.
    An on-field umpire wishing the assistance of a TV replay shall signal to the third umpire by making the shape of a TV screen with his hands.
    If the third umpire decides the batsman is out a red light is displayed; a green light means not-out. Should the third umpire be temporarily unable to respond, a white light (where available) will remain illuminated throughout the period of interruption to signify to the on-field umpires that the TV replay system is temporarily unavailable, in which case the decision will be taken by the the on-field umpire.
    When reviewing the TV replay, if the third umpire finds the batsman has been bowled rather than hit wicket or stumped, he shall display the red light to show the batsman was dismissed.
    2.3 Caught Decisions

    Should the bowler's end umpire be unable to decide whether or not a catch was taken cleanly, he shall first consult with the square leg umpire.
    Should both umpires be unable to make a decision, the bowler's end umpire may then call for the third umpire to review a TV replay of the catch as in 2.2 (b).
    The third umpire has to determine whether the batsmen has been caught, not whether or not he hit the ball.

    The third umpire shall communicate his decision by the red/green light system as in 2.2 (c).
    2.4 Boundary Decisions

    In all Test and One Day International matches, the on-field umpire shall be entitled to call for a TV replay to assist in him in making a decision about whether the fieldsman had any part of his person in contact with the ball when he touched or crossed the boundary line or whether a four or six had been scored. A decision is to be made immediately and cannot be changed thereafter.
    An on-field umpire wishing the assistance of a TV replay shall signal to the third umpire by use of a two way radio - the third umpire will convey his decision to the on-field umpire by this method.
    The third umpire may initiate contact with the on-field umpire by two way radio if TV coverage shows a boundary line infringement.
    2.5 Batsmen Running to the Same End

    In the event of both batsmen running to the same end and the umpires are uncertain over which batsmen made his ground first, the on-field umpire may call for a TV replay to assist him in making a decision.
    The procedure in 2.2 (c) shall apply.

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:20  

  • i think the 3rd ump role is not clearly defined and there is a grey area. the ump on the field talks to the 3rd ump only when there is a disputable catch or when it is not clear if the ball has gone beyond the boundary line. i dont beleive i've seen them talk about a run out decision. i dont have a clue if thats allowed too
    ur thoughts..

    By Blogger JD, at 10:22  


  • if the third umpire finds the batsman has been bowled rather than hit wicket or stumped, he shall display the red light to show the batsman was dismissed.

    This makes me feel he is given some intelligence...

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:22  

  • pankaj: thx for that rule guide. And yes it does show some intelligence is given to third ump. But otherwise the rule is surprisingly unclear on run-out. Unlike for catch where it clearly says what the third ump shall *not* adjudicate on.

    By Blogger worma, at 10:24  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:24  

  • pankaj,
    Your post about the 3rd umpiring conditions makes it clear that he has no powers as such and can only deliver the decision based on spicif events, such as batsman not making his ground, catch not taken fairly, fielder stepping over the boundary ropes etc

    By Blogger Toney, at 10:25  

  • pankaj, is there more stuff on 3rd umpire? I am sure MCC/ICC has something written up to define roles

    By Blogger Toney, at 10:25  

  • I realsie Toney that there is a lot of other stuff existign ..
    But I still feel that TU is there to assist the right decision ..


    In all Test and One Day International matches, the on-field umpire shall be entitled to call for a TV replay to assist him in making a decision about a run-out, stumping, caught or hit wicket appeal

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:29  

  • pankaj,
    Oh, I agree about the :right decision" part. But rules are rules. Also, there is this debate on how much poers to hand over to the 3rd umpire. And the role for 3rd umpire was restricted mainly to stop the purists from revolting

    By Blogger Toney, at 10:30  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:31  

  • basically the same stuff.. but Sholay link sounds like a dharmendra fan link :)

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:33  

  • does it address the fact that if the 3rd ump is called on to adjudicate on a dismissal and if he notices something else that is pertinent to that, can he do anything about it and pass on that info to the on field ump.

    there was a trend few years back, atleast in the matches played in india. there have been times when the ball had been stopped very close to the boundary line and the ump did not bother with the replay and the game carried on. on replay it was clear that the ball was not stopped cleanly, the 3rd ump had then gone foreward and revised the decision made by the on field ump. is that still the practice. in this case i'm not sure if the on field ump was notified of this but the scoreboard was updated

    By Blogger JD, at 10:37  

  • jd,
    I think the match referee decides on that, not the 3rd umpire. ANd I am sure there are conditions for those clearly defined too

    By Blogger Toney, at 10:51  

  • I think the confusion stems from the fact that the rules are quite ambiguous --for example,

    the third umpire can give the batsman out when the original referral was for a stumped or hit wicket decision even though the replays show the batsman was bowled.
    yet,

    can only adjudicate on the legality of the catch even if replays determine that there was no nick.

    Along the same lines, the 3rd umpire can only say if the ball pitched outside leg stump for an lbw decision (this was tried out in The ICC-Aus series) rather than make a call on whether the ball was strking too high or vice versa. That is, if the on field umpire is asking for a line decision, you cannot give the decision on the basis of height and if the on field umpire is asking for a height decision, you cannot determine on the basis of whther the ball pitched outside the leg stump, even if replays show otherwise.

    ICC definitely needs to rethink the issue and have clearer guidelines.

    The logical step forward will be to allow the third umpire to bring other issues that crop up to the on field umpires notice and have him make the decision.

    By Blogger kban1, at 10:57  

  • http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/test_playing_conditions.pdf

    3.2 Third Umpire/TV Replays
    The following shall apply in addition to Clause 3.1:

    3.2.1 General

    e In the circumstances detailed in Clauses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4 and 3.2.5
    hereunder, the on-field umpire has the discretion whether to refer the appeal to the third umpire for a decision or not and should take a common sense approach. Players may not appeal to the umpire to use the replay system - breach of this provision would constitute dissent and the player could be liable for discipline under the ICC
    Code of Conduct.


    So, in Inzy's case the on-field umpire has the freedom of asking the 3rd umpire if Inzy is run-out or not.



    3.2.2 Run Out, Stumping and HitWicket Decisions

    c If the third umpire decides the batsman is out a red light is displayed; a green light means not-out. Should the third umpire be temporarily unable to respond, a white light (where available) will remain illuminated throughout the period of interruption to signify to the on-field umpires that the TV replay system is temporarily
    unavailable, in which case the decision will be taken by the on-field umpire. (As an alternative to the red/green light system and where available, the big replay screen may be used for the purpose of conveying the third umpire’s decision.)


    This rules does not define that the 3rd umpire has to ONLY rule on what the on-field umpire has asked of him. The rule say that 3rd umpire has to decide if the batsman is out or not. Period. If the third umpire decides the batsman is out. That means ICC is giving the 3rd umpire freedom to apply whatever rules are neccessary to be applied in order to reach a decision whether the player is out or not. Eg.) The appeal may have been for caught-behind and 3rd umpire is asked, if the 3rd umpire finds that ball did not hit the bat but the batsman was LBW then he can very well give his judgement as LBW out. He is not just required to give a YES / NO decision. He is required to give HIS BEST decision after applying all the rules that may be neccessary to be applied. In Inzy's case, the 3rd umpire could have judged whether he was going for a run or trying to avoid injury. Since he rules Inzy out, it is a mistake on his part.

    That is what I think the rule book says....

    By Blogger Ruchir Joshi, at 11:01  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:06  

  • sorry . ruchir ..
    The LBW example .. is the one I don't subscribe .. to .. I missed that first..

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:12  

  • Ruchir:

    Your point about the third umpire’s discretion is only valid for certain decisions. As you can see from Pankaj’s post (thanks pankaj for looking the rules up and posting them), there is considerable amount of ambiguity about the third umpire’s role –he is expected to use discretion in some cases (I suppose the stumped, hit wicket, bowled decisions could be confusing to the naked eye in some scenarios) while in others the third umpire is strictly bound by the scope of the question referred to him by the on-field umpire/ s.

    From pankaj’s post**********************
    2.2 Run-out, Stumping, Caught and Hit Wicket Decisions

    When reviewing the TV replay, if the third umpire finds the batsman has been bowled rather than hit wicket or stumped, he shall display the red light to show the batsman was dismissed.
    2.3 Caught Decisions

    Should the bowler's end umpire be unable to decide whether or not a catch was taken cleanly, he shall first consult with the square leg umpire.
    Should both umpires be unable to make a decision, the bowler's end umpire may then call for the third umpire to review a TV replay of the catch as in 2.2 (b).
    The third umpire has to determine whether the batsmen has been caught, not whether or not he hit the ball.

    The third umpire shall communicate his decision by the red/green light system as in 2.2 (c).

    By Blogger kban1, at 11:13  

  • I wont rate LBW with CBehind ..

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:13  

  • I do not think 3rd umpires have the any jurisdiction over the LBW decisions currently. ICC tried this on an experimental basis in the ICC-WorldXI Johhny Walker Series.

    By Blogger kban1, at 11:17  

  • Yes Kb .. agreed.. mine was intended for Ruchir.

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:22  

  • pankaj, kban1:

    True, 3rd umpire does not rule in LBW. I should have used a different mode of dismissal.

    My point was that rule book says that 3rd umpire has to decide whether the batsman is out or not. His role is not limited to giving a YES / NO answer. His role is to give judgement on whether the batsman is out or not.

    In Inzy's case, the 3rd umpire was "probably" asked to rule on the run out and he simply gave a YES / NO decision that YES Inzy is out.

    What he should have done was to see the situation a few seconds before ball hitting the stumps and applied ICC rules book and decided if Inzy was going for the run or was he avoiding being hit by the ball. In it was the latter then he was not-out.

    That is why I say that 3rd umpire made a mistake in giving Inzy out.

    By Blogger Ruchir Joshi, at 11:26  

  • Yes Ruchir,
    This is the post I would subscribe to :)

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 11:30  

  • Ruchir:

    I agree with you about the third umpire missing the boat on that one.

    I also think that some of the umpires are ignorant about the rules -- it is not as cut and dried as just an error in judgment. A classic case happened in Johhny Walker Series on a run out decision (Darn, I cannot remember who the batsman was, probably Kallis --I shall have to check the tape again) but an aussie fielder made a direct hit.

    Replays showed that the batsman was short of the crease when the left edge of the bail was a little above the stumps, but by the time the entire bail was dislodged, the batsman had made his ground.

    Michael Holding made a pointed reference to this on air and read from the rule book which defined a run out or a stumping as when the batsman was out of his ground with the bails being "permanently" dislodged, and therefore by definition, the batsman was not out as by the time the bail had been dislodged, Kallis (or whoever) had made his ground. Mark Nicholas, who was Holding's co commentator disagreed with Holding, but I found Holding's point of view very much on the mark.

    By Blogger kban1, at 11:40  

  • kban: This law seems to be leading to confusion at the moment - the Butt "run out" hinged on this point, albeit slightly different circumstances.

    I think the laws would benefit from a clarification of wording.

    By Blogger Ged, at 12:41  

  • wow.. that's been a good discussion going on in this comment's section.
    Full marks to worma... right SRT reached the crease and then due to the impact of collision, the bat had risen into air from the ground. So, the same misuse of the law occurred in both these instances.
    Good comments from worma all through

    By Blogger ______, at 12:53  

  • BIG DIFFERENCE between SRT case and this case of Inzy is that SRT case (arguably) affected result of the match... and the series.

    By Blogger LinkLover, at 17:56  

  • Folks,
    What abt this news?
    http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2005/nov/21gang.htm
    Ganguly set for test return
    Isn't this CRAZY? to say the least???Just becos we are scared of Kolkata crowd? We will bring ganguly back????
    Whats happening folks?
    Either control the Calcutta crowd, or screw them and dont play a single match there...They will come to their senses.
    Why be scared and put SG in the team squad???

    By Blogger Glorious Uncertainty(GU), at 18:15  

  • Prem, actually I think SRT incident was even more horrible than this Inzy one.

    In SRT's case umpire could easily see that he had grounded his bat at some point, he did not need third umpire to confirm that. And it was also easily obvious that bat lost contact with ground while SRT adjusted his upper body to avoid injury (or else why would a batter do that, knowing the risk of getting run out?). So why should have umpire referred it to third umpire? Third umpire could only decide/judge if bat was in the air at time ball hit stumps, but if you know run was completed, asking third umpire is useless, isn't it?

    Now in Inzy's case, let us say (and I believe so) that umpires were not sure that Inzy was out of his crease even before Harmy threw the ball (remember that it was a close decision). If he was out of crease before throw, nobody would have had problem with this decision right? So how do you blame umpires on ground for referring to third umpire? And then when it is time for third umpire to judge, and all he can do is say out or not out, as per the rules, what would he do? He had to give him out.

    Prem, you still have not shared why you think "umpires did not mess up there". Please come clean :-)

    By Blogger LinkLover, at 18:32  

Post a Comment

<< Home