I hate CSK

[Trichromatic]

Original post with image claiming out: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2331037&postcount=763 Why would you consider the side angle to consider if the bat crossed the line? Seriously?

You can find reasons in this pic Do you think that this picture proves that he was not out, if no then why not. You'll get the answer.

[yoda]

You can find reasons in this pic Do you think that this picture proves that he was not out, if no then why not. You'll get the answer.

It's got to be the closest frame available which gives a clear indication of whether the bat crossed the line when the bails came off. This one is not the closest frame, so it is out. The one you posted earlier is not the right angle so it is out. There is a reason why umps look at various angles. Same is the case for boundary line stops. They don't just look at the frame which is closest to ball crossing the line. They look for the closest frame from which you can make a determination.

[The Outsider]

Original post with image claiming out: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2331037&postcount=763 Why would you consider the side angle to consider if the bat crossed the line? Seriously?

Can you explain the physical phenomenon by which you can see the line of the crease towards the stumps and still satisfy: 1. The bat is across the line and 2. The bat is on the ground. Would love to listen to Madraasi logic for this. :hysterical:

[yoda]

Can you explain the physical phenomenon by which you can see the line of the crease towards the stumps and still satisfy: 1. The bat is across the line and 2. The bat is on the ground. Would love to listen to Madraasi logic for this. :hysterical:

1. is obvious. See the expanded image I posted where multiple posters have acknowledged that some part of the bat has crossed the line. 2. is debatable, hence I give the benefit of doubt to the batsman for effort. :winky:

[Number]

Its okay. They get some unfair advantages and all but here it was one off from umpire. Don't think it deserves so much attention.

[Raghav_12]

Original post with image claiming out: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2331037&postcount=763 Why would you consider the side angle to consider if the bat crossed the line? Seriously?

Dude look at this reasoning below. Two intersecting lines would be seen as the intersecting irrespetive of the angle you see. THe fact that you can see white line completely while bails dislodged is an evidence conclusive enough. If bat was beyond white line, it would impossibe to see line without break. Don't think it's that difficult to understand.

If you can see line completely, uninterrupted, as in this case, it is clear that either bat is in air or bat hasn't crossed line. If bat had crossed the line and was grounded, no optical illusion could have made you see complete line. Blatant.

[yoda]

Dude look at this reasoning below. Two intersecting lines would be seen as the intersecting irrespetive of the angle you see. THe fact that you can see white line completely while bails dislodged is an evidence conclusive enough. If bat was beyond white line' date= it would impossibe to see line without break. Don't think it's that difficult to understand.

That angle is NEVER used to determine if bat crossed the line. Run out replays have always looked at the side angle. It is not difficult to understand I agree cause many a times side angle tells a different story than the one from behind.

[The Outsider]

1. is obvious. See the expanded image I posted where multiple posters have acknowledged that some part of the bat has crossed the line. 2. is debatable, hence I give the benefit of doubt to the batsman for effort. :winky:

I am talking about the image posted by Vibhash. The line of the crease towards the stumps is clearly visible and the bails are off. If Hussey's bat was on the ground and across the line no one would have been able to see an unobstructed view of the crease line - that's elementary Physics. Of course Madraasi logic says something else and has supplicated Lahori logic. At least those guys argue about the predictive power of Hawk Eye not on something as obvious as this. :hysterical:

[Raghav_12]

1. is obvious. See the expanded image I posted where multiple posters have acknowledged that some part of the bat has crossed the line. 2. is debatable, hence I give the benefit of doubt to the batsman for effort. :winky:

Dude.. don't lose your image of being reasonable poster on such petty thing. It is as clear as anything that it was out. You have safe passage to exit by blaming it on umpire which CSK has nothing to do with. But don't say that you see a doubt over there or evidences are inconclusive.

[yoda]

I am talking about the image posted by Vibhash. The line of the crease towards the stumps is clearly visible and the bails are off. If Hussey's bat was on the ground and across the line no one would have been able to see an unobstructed view of the crease line - that's elementary Physics. Of course Madraasi logic says something else and has supplicated Lahori logic. At least those guys argue about the predictive power of Hawk Eye not on something as obvious as this. :hysterical:

Dude.. don't lose your image of being reasonable poster on such petty thing. It is as clear as anything that it was out. You have safe passage to exit by blaming it on umpire which CSK has nothing to do with. But don't say that you see a doubt over there or evidences are inconclusive.

That image to me is useless. I have never seen run outs determined wrt bat crossing line from that angle. It is always the side angle which seals the deal. The only issue for me is whether any part of the bat was grounded AND crossed the line. So may be the ump did mess it up, but my responses are mainly to claim that it was indeed a close call and not some BS kaanspiracy. BTW before the call was made, the replays which was shown repeatedly on TV were the side angle ones.

[Raghav_12]

That angle is NEVER used to determine if bat crossed the line. Run out replays have always looked at the side angle. It is not difficult to understand I agree cause many a times side angle tells a different story than the one from behind.

Forget about whether it is used or not. Just answer basic physics, is it even possible to have an unobstructed view of line when it is being intersected by another line? That's what Outy is also referring to.

[The Outsider]

That image to me is useless. I have never seen run outs determined wrt bat crossing line from that angle. It is always the side angle which seals the deal.

Then why do third umpires ask to look at that angle. To fap? :alienbooty:

[Trichromatic]

It's got to be the closest frame available which gives a clear indication of whether the bat crossed the line when the bails came off. This one is not the closest frame' date=' so it is out. The one you posted earlier is not the right angle so it is out. There is a reason why umps look at various angles. Same is the case for boundary line stops. They don't just look at the frame which is closest to ball crossing the line. They look for the closest frame from which you can make a determination.[/quote'] Angle 1 :

1. Frame 1 : Ball hits stump, batsman is out of his crease.
2. Frame 2 : Bails are just off and batsman is still not in crease.

Angle 2 :

1. Frame 1 : Ball hits stump, batsman is out of his crease.
2. Frame 2 : Bails are halfway to the ground and batsman is probably just in the crease.

I guess that would be not out only CSK fans. For rest of the world first one would be enough to notice that batsman is out.

[yoda]

Then why do third umpires ask to look at that angle. To fap? :alienbooty:

How do you know he asked for it? Did he make a call to you? :hysterical: Even if he did, why did he then ask for the side angle since your holy grail angle supposedly seals the deal. :winky:

[The Outsider]

How do you know he asked for it? Did he make a call to you? :hysterical:

No, but commentators repeatedly mention on air in multiple matches that the replays shown on screen are the same ones visible to the third umpire without the audio and are played/replayed on his request to enable him to make the correct decision. Were you under the impression that TV producers show the third umpire whatever they wish for on their whims and fancies? It's time you quit before you embarrass yourself further in the name of defending Madraaas. :hysterical:

Even if he did, why did he then ask for the side angle since your holy grail angle supposedly seals the deal. :winky:

The same reason why Symonds was not given out stumped twice at Sydney in '08.

[yoda]

No' date=' but commentators repeatedly mention on air in multiple matches that the replays shown on screen are the same ones visible to the third umpire without the audio and are played/replayed on his request to enable him to make the correct decision. Were you under the impression that TV producers show the third umpire whatever they wish for on their whims and fancies? It's time you quit before you embarrass yourself further in the name of defending Madraaas. :hysterical:[/quote'] Yes replays are same for us and umps and yes they can ask for specific angles if they want and no every angle shown doesn't have to be only what they asked for in a specific case. All relevant frames are shown, some are more applicable for certain situations, and 3rd umps will repeatedly look at certain angles to make a specific call which in this case is the side angle. :winky:

[Trichromatic]

Yes replays are same for us and umps and yes they can ask for specific angles if they want and no every angle shown doesn't have to be only what they asked for in a specific case. All relevant frames are shown' date=' some are more applicable for certain situations, and 3rd umps will repeatedly look at certain angles to make a specific call which in this case is the side angle. :winky:[/quote'] What's the harm in using front angle when it's conclusive and side angle isn't? Haven't you seen any instance in cricket where front angle was used when side angle was inconclusive?

[yoda]

What's the harm in using front angle when it's conclusive and side angle isn't?

It can be conclusive only if the bat is well short, not when it is on the line and we are trying to see if any part of the bat may have crossed the line.

Haven't you seen any instance in cricket where front angle was used when side angle was inconclusive?

Not for close run out calls to see if bat crossed the line.

[Trichromatic]

It can be conclusive only if the bat is well short' date=' [b']not when it is on the line and we are trying to see if any part of the bat may have crossed the line. Not for close run out calls to see if bat crossed the line.

and why? As you said that we are trying to see that if any part of bat may have crossed the line, then can you tell why front angle can't be conclusive? How can there be a situation where bat has crossed the line but won't be clear front angle for ex in this case?

[yoda]

and why?

To see if bat is grounded beyond the line or not for one. Not all angles are the same for obvious reasons. You can get better closeup with just the bat and the line from the side. From the front, as you get closer, you will be focusing on the tip of the bat and not the entire bat.