Zelig Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 It is an easy decision honestly. If the shoulder of the bat was not on the ground then the body of the bat would not have been up at that obtuse angle. And, quite clearly the shoulder of the bat is within the line. Hence, NOT OUT. :wizard:
Sachin=GOD Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Common sense decision: There is enough doubt when whole of bat is inside the crease' date=' benifit should have gone to the batsman..Wrong decision IMO.[/quote'] This. Too much doubt to be given out.
velu Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 It is an easy decision honestly. If the shoulder of the bat was not on the ground then the body of the bat would not have been up at that obtuse angle. And, quite clearly the shoulder of the bat is within the line. Hence, NOT OUT. :wizard: it might av bounced a bit
MK55 Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 It is an easy decision honestly. If the shoulder of the bat was not on the ground then the body of the bat would not have been up at that obtuse angle. And, quite clearly the shoulder of the bat is within the line. Hence, NOT OUT. :wizard: The grounded part could have been the handle outside the crease
flamy Posted March 9, 2015 Author Posted March 9, 2015 The grounded part could have been the handle outside the crease Doubt. Benefit to batsman. And so forth.
PBN Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 The (tip of handle where he's holding the bat with the hand) can act as the 'hinge/fulcrum' and the bat can be in the air after it bounced. Though gotta say it was very very close decision and hard to say there was conclusive evidence. Also you gotta be careful regarding the shadows as with floodlights, you can get multiple shadows i.e the wickets have multiple shadows in the pic.
Zelig Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 The grounded part could have been the handle outside the crease The angle of the bat would have been 120 - 130 degrees, if it had been the handle. From the image, it looks like 155° ish.
Cricketics Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 That image which is up there in this thread doesn't even to justice to the decision which was "out". The problem here is that the bails were dislodged. The bail has to be out of place and they weren't. Batsman should have been not out.
Iconoclast Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Utter bakwaas ... enough doubt there to go the batsmans way. Are these TV umpires inventing new rules ?
zep1706 Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 First picture clearly seems to suggest that it was out. You can see the shadow of the bat and there is clearly a gap between shadow of the bat and bat itself. If bat is grounded then shadow and object will merge as it is happening in the area around gloves. However, I would have given it not out myself. There was some amount of doubt and with so much of bat being inside crease, you got to give benefit of doubt to batsman. You need to be 100% certain or close to it to give a batsman out. Following the shadow, which in itself is inconclusive is not that. The shadow could very well be in front of the bat and not under it. No one can be completely sure that a tiny part of the shoulder was not touching the ground. In fact from the picture on the right, it seems to be grounded. It is common sense that in such cases you give it not out. Honestly, I would be furious if it was against India in such a crucial stage.
Guldozer Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 You can't tell if it is out even from the first picture. The other half of the bat was still grounded, but couldn't be seen clearly due to the lighting IMO.
MCGGG Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 well it looks out in this video.. his handle is not touching the ground.. at the time when the bails are broken... his bat, handle are all in the air.. http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/videos/media/id/4522/chris-jordan-wicket-ban-vs-eng i think its a fair decision Now watch it with your eyes open.
bangladeshifan Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 It was not out. I was shocked when it was given out but u need a bit of luck in these crunch games. Nd u make ur own luck. No one is talking abt the brilliant piece of fielding from shakib. He was in cover, sprinted in superb pick up nd even better throw. We got lucky but shakib created the situation
IKnowU Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Umpire has the balls to give it out with some decent evidence and you all whine :headshake: Most umpires would have said not out even if it was out because of the rarity of these types of runouts. But I am glad some third umpires can look beyond that
velu Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 umpires might have access to some data which we dont have :giggle:
Forever Indian Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 The bat came into the crease and then bumped up so it should be Not Out regardless of if bat is up at point of impact with stumps. This rule seems idiotic. Now, what if a batsman reaches with one leg planted inside crease but during running has both feet in the air when the stumps are impacted? This seems to be same situation where the batsman has reached but at point of impact his feet or bat is in air.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now