Tendulkar shoulder before wicket....

[CC1981]

...was definitely out. A video i saw recently just jogged my memory and its suddenly amazing to see that this was ever a 'highly controversial' dismissal, given that slow-mo categorically proves tendulkar to be out lbw. The law states that so long as the ball is not pitching outside leg stump, is in line with the stumps & is not bouncing over it, the ball hitting any part of the body apart from the bat & glove = out lbw. The slow-mo clearly shows that McGrath dropped a short and slow one, Tendy failed to pick it up(that it was short & slow, not short & fast), wanted to duck under it, got hit on the shoulder and was given out correctly by Bucknor, simply because the ball was hit him in line, just a shade lower than the bails and the ball was falling, not rising in its trajectory, therefore making it a certainty to hit the stumps. But i suppose jingoism and hero-worship gets in the way of logic & sense for many because of the whole 'shoulder before wicket' castigation of Bucknor, when infact Bucknor got that one completely, 100.00% right.

[Predator_05]

But i suppose jingoism and hero-worship gets in the way of logic & sense for many because of the whole 'shoulder before wicket' castigation of Bucknor' date=' when infact Bucknor got that one completely, 100.00% right.[/quote'] Daryl Harper was the one who gave it out, not Bucknor. I have this on video, BTW. This is what Gavaskar said while commenting on the replay (right after it happened); "Yes, i think this is a decision which is in the realms of possibility....and from this angle, it does look like the ball would have hit the stumps if it would have been six inches higher."

[Predator_05]

I think it would have gone over the stumps. See for yourself;

[CC1981]

I think it would have gone over the stumps. See for yourself;

Umm no, the ball is falling, not rising. The line is drawn by someone who is a mathematical retard- It is not orthogonal to the stumps and is generating a false image. The video quite clearly shows the ball to be falling- not rising.

[Lurker]

It could have gone either way really. On one hand you would be hard pressed to find a similar instance in 1000 plus old Test history(shoulder before wicket), on the other hand you would be hard pressed to prove the ball wouldnt have hit the wicket. I would probably lean on benefit of doubt to SRT, if only because shoulder before wicket had never happened before. Then again most Indians would say that, wont they?

[CC1981]

if only because shoulder before wicket had never happened before.

And you know this because ?! Can you truely claim each and every lbw and its nature since 1880s in test cricket ? Do you really know whether some #11 in some county in 1902 got 'neck before wicket' or 'love-handles before wicket' !? The bottomline is, Tendy was out. The law clearly states that in the event the batsman is not shoulder-arming the ball(or hiding bat behind pad), if the ball isnt pitching outside leg stump and is going on to hit the stumps, obstructing the ball with any object, except the bat and the glove, in the process of playing a stroke, is out leg before wicket. Given that the ball was falling, not rising and hit Tendy in line with the stumps and given that Tendy's shoulder (the one that is obstructing the ball) is clearly in line with the top of the stumps, Tendy most definitely is out lbw. Can't believe that a correct decision created so much furore, really.

Then again most Indians would say that, wont they?

unfortunately, that is true.

[Anakin]

Again, it was not out, the ball wasn't falling, it just didn't go as high as expected. Even then it had enough bounce to go easily over the stumps. Now I know you'll keep repeating the same stuff, the ball was falling and blah blah blah, but it was not.

[living]

Too tough to say. When I saw the incident live I was screaming "not out" but now it seems more like 50-50.

[fineleg]

there was doubt and benefit of doubt to batsman.

[CC1981]

the ball wasn't falling

In slow motion side-on replay, it most definitely was falling. See it in slow motion and if you still think that the ball is not falling (ie, on the downward curve of the projectile motion) then you either need glasses or a dose of honesty. And if you are relying on that picture with the line in it, it is absolutely incorrect because the line, as i said, is not orthogonal to the stumps and therefore, NOT a head-on perspective.

[CC1981]

there was doubt and benefit of doubt to batsman.

I don't see how there would be. The umpire would no doubt notice that the ball is falling, not rising even if it is not that apparent from 'above eye level' perspective from a field's length away ( read up on the concept of parallax). However, side on slow motion replay confirms this- the ball was most definitely falling when it hit Tendulkar's shoulder, not rising, even if its straight-line speed in respect to the ground was significant.

[The Outsider]

Two points : 1. The delivery was not a slow bouncer. It was a regular McGrath delivery which kept low. 2. There is no way the umpire could have been certain of the height of the delivery from a front on view at regular speed.

[CC1981]

1. The delivery was not a slow bouncer. It was a regular McGrath delivery which kept low.

It may not be as short a genuine bouncer, but it most definitely was not a 'McGrath length' delivery- he most definitely pitched it very short, Tendulkar went down into the crouch too fast, not noticing that the ball was bowled slow and would not rise, instead of a fast one that would've been shoulder-height for him if McGrath had given speed to the delivery (considering where it landed).

2. There is no way the umpire could have been certain of the height of the delivery from a front on view at regular speed.

If that is so, then lbws from fast bowlers wouldn't occur, except in the case of toe-cruncing yorkers. The judgement of the height of the delivery and its rising/falling aspect from a front-on view at regular speed is integral part of the decision making process for an lbw.

[Anakin]

Saw it before and I know what I saw. The ball was not falling. Obviously it didn't go the way it was supposed to, but it didn't fall. It looks like falling because you probably are comparing it to the likely path it'd normally take.

[The Outsider]

t may not be as short a genuine bouncer, but it most definitely was not a 'McGrath length' delivery- he most definitely pitched it very short, Tendulkar went down into the crouch too fast, not noticing that the ball was bowled slow and would not rise, instead of a fast one that would've been shoulder-height for him if McGrath had given speed to the delivery (considering where it landed).

Watch the video again. There is a speed gun measurement of 129.x kmph which is more or less McGrath's regular speed. By regular McGrath delivery I was not referring to length but speed.

If that is so, then lbws from fast bowlers wouldn't occur, except in the case of toe-cruncing yorkers. The judgement of the height of the delivery fom a front-on view at regular speed is integral part of the decision making process for an lbw.

Umpires judge height from these three factors : 1. Height of the batsman 2. Point of impact on the pads. 3. Point of impact with respect to the crease. A hit on the shoulder provides no reference like a hit on the pads does.

[CC1981]

It looks like falling because you probably are comparing it to the likely path it'd normally take.

No, it looks like falling because it is. I saw it over a dozen times in slow motion during my lunch break today..and it is most definitely falling.

[Anakin]

No' date=' it looks like falling because it is. I saw it over a dozen times in slow motion during my lunch break today..and it is most definitely falling.[/quote'] Watch it few more times and may be without beer :giggle: kidding

[CC1981]

Watch the video again. There is a speed gun measurement of 129.x kmph which is more or less McGrath's regular speed. By regular McGrath delivery I was not referring to length but speed.

1. Speed gun measurement is not very accurate. Take them with a pinch of salt 2. Balls that are pitched short (ie, in your half of the pitch as it was in McGrath's that delivery's case) register atleast 5-10 kph faster (on average) than fuller-balls. Yes, that is a glitch in the speed guaging technology but thats how it goes.(I am not exactly inclined to explain to you how a speed gun works because of its tedious nature but lets just say, it happens to be a topic in my field of expertese, so you can take my word for it). So even if your speed reading is right, the real speed of the delivery would be 120-125kph, which is a VERY SLOW ball for one that is bowled short.McGrath bowls usually in the 130kph range and a short ball isnt normally going to be slower than his average speed.

Umpires judge height from these three factors :

Those are not the ONLY three factors- whether the ball is rising or falling is also something the umpire uses or else they would NOT be able to compensate for the height difference between an Ambrose bowling to hayden or bowling to lilliput Tendy.

A hit on the shoulder provides no reference like a hit on the pads does.

Sure it does. Shoulder that is hit on is same level as the stumps (give or take a cm), the ball is in line with the stumps, not pitched outside legstump, tendy not offering a shot, Tendy not deep in the crease and the ball is falling. Conclusion : out, leg before wicket.

[CC1981]

Watch it few more times and may be without beer

I suggest you do not go down that road. You are either mistaken or simply denying a phenomena because it suits your purpose. Take your pick. But i can assure you, the ball was falling and not rising. That is exactly what a slow bouncer/short pitched one would do and that is exactly what it did. Tendy was most definitely lbw there.

[Rajiv]

It was one of those, benefit of doubt, Give me that side view video cut and I can make a real slow mo gif out if it. I remember gavaskars words as well, he said it was height as well.