Hats off Mohmmad Amir!!

[zen]

It would not have been a bad decision if umpire had given it out.

It would hv been as only 10%-20% of the ball was hitting the bails. Accounting of error in hawkeye, the bounce in the pitch, where the batsman was standing, etc., it was not out

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by rett

[rkt.india]

It would hv been as only 10%-20% of the ball was hitting the bails. Accounting of error in hawkeye, the bounce in the pitch, where the batsman was standing, etc., it was not out

 

you are saying it based on hawkeye projection. It was hitting top of middle stump as plumb as it gets according to the projection. and error in hawkeye can be on both sides . For me, 10-20-50% doesnt matter, it is hitting the stumps, so, it is out.

[rkt.india]

It would hv been as only 10%-20% of the ball was hitting the bails. Accounting of error in hawkeye, the bounce in the pitch, where the batsman was standing, etc., it was not out

 

you are saying it based on hawkeye projection. It was hitting top of middle stump as plumb as it gets according to the projection. and error in hawkeye can be on both sides . For me, 10-20-50% doesnt matter, it is hitting the stumps, so, it is out.

[zen]

you are saying it based on hawkeye projection. It was hitting top of middle stump as plumb as it gets according to the projection. and error in hawkeye can be on both sides . For me, 10-20-50% doesnt matter, it is hitting the stumps, so, it is out.

One that I saw had the 10% to 20% of the ball hitting the bails, so it is not out - benefit to batman

Note - if there are chances of error, benefit goes to batsmen so errors being on both sides point is irrelevant

May be we are talking about different appeals. You can post the video. For me at least 50% or more of the ball should be hitting the stumps / bails 

[express bowling]

The umpire did not have the benefit of hawk-eye while making the decision.  Just using  naked eyes....it  was not possible for the umpire to be sure that the ball would have hit the stumps.  It may have hit or may not have hit.....there was sufficient doubt.

So, it was not out as the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman.

Edited March 1, 2016 by express bowling

[moniker]

If  it  is  50:50 decision then a doubt is certainly there. 

Classically, the only decision in that case should be not out....as the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman.

Many umpires these days don't seem to follow this age old adage though.

50:50 was through the predictive Hawk eye technology, the 2D images broadcasted to the general public and those in the stadium watching from afar from various angles with different points of view.

The on field umpire is best placed to take the decision. He watches in three dimensions and is standing in precise alignment with the stumps. Just because it looks 50:50 for us through the cameras and through fancy predictive technology it doesn't mean that the on field umpire would find it to be 50:50 too. If he's certain that the ball would've gone on to hit the stumps and technology is not conclusive enough to call it a howler then I'd trust the umpire's decision. If the on field umpire is hesitant and thinks it is 50:50 then I agree that he should give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, which is what happened in Kohli's case.

[express bowling]

 

 

50:50 was through the Hawk eye technology, the 2D images broadcasted to the general public and those in the stadium watching from afar from various angles with different points of view.

 

The on field umpire is best placed to take the decision. He watches in three dimensions and is standing in precise alignment with the stumps. Just because it looks 50:50 for us through the cameras it doesn't mean that the on field umpire would find it to be 50:50 too. If he's certain that the ball would've gone on to hit the stumps and technology is not conclusive enough to call it a howler then I'd trust the umpire's decision. If the on field umpire is hesitant and thinks it is 50:50 then I agree that he should give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, which is what happened in Kohli's case.

 

 

I  agree with the first part.

One thing I would like to point out though is that the point of impact on the pad was such that in most cases the umpires would  have reasonable doubts in their minds.

Another issue is ...these umpires have shown that they are prone to a lot of mistakes...so i don't t have as much trust in their decisions as you do.

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by express bowling

[Asim]

so many times even much less closer than Kohli one are Given OUT and still be called Good-decision. Yes, when ball is hitting less than 50%, mostly it goes with batsman but since its an on-field-call, its never a Wrong decision even if its Given... and u know It stays out if there is DRS and was Given out even when ball was hitting just 0.1% and yes stays N.O if originally was not given...

[Dil Dil India]

Pakistan had the best of the umpiring decisions in that game:

 

1)Khurram Manzoor - clear caught behind, not given.

2)Shoaib Malik - ball was crashing into leg stump but not given. There were two reds and one umpire's call but it was a technicality.

3)Kohli - atrocious lbw given despite inside edge

 

so with DRS, 2 decisions would have been overturned for India and 0 for Pakistan. The first ball that Rohit faced had two umpire's call and just one red. Kohli had an lbw shout where the ball was shown to be grazing the bails. That would have stayed not out too.