Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2021 (excluding Ashes)
Comments
-
Well it didn't take long to make that decision did it?0
-
Did that clearly bounce?!?I’ve seen those given.
We don’t deserve to win but this series is farcical.0 -
We are playing our dim the lights card.0
-
Another shocking decision from the 3rd umpire.
Ridiculous0 -
The soft signal was 'out' and Stokes' fingers were under the ball. That's a very, very, very poor decision by the third umpire.
1 -
The commentator said Stokes looked confident but I don't think he did. Unfortunately it was NOT OUTLaddick01 said:Did that clearly bounce?!?I’ve seen those given.0 -
that Decision given far too quickly. Skidded across the ground whilst he held the top.0
-
A four-man pace attack - Anderson, Broad, Archer and StokesChizz said:
In my view, England got the selection right. A three-man pace attack is likely to take more wickets than one with Bess as a second spinner.soapboxsam said:Chizz said:
I know. It was a joke.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
You're right. Without him, our batting would look really fragile.Addick Addict said:Indian spinners:
24.2-6-52-6
Good job we have Leach
The point I was trying to make is that we have totally misread this pitch and gone in with just one frontline spinner and four seamers whereas India have three spinner and just two seamers
We shall see if that's correct.
If Anderson, Broad and Archer bring their A game then in a day night game ?0 -
I don’t think you can prove that hit the ground though.PrincessFiona said:
The commentator said Stokes looked confident but I don't think he did. Unfortunately it was NOT OUTLaddick01 said:Did that clearly bounce?!?I’ve seen those given.
Laws of the game state that call should stand.1 -
I think the 3rd umpire got that right.
Unfortunately.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I suspect that Stokes is going to be in trouble though for the ironic applause0
-
I don’t think they were. He pinched the ball up off the ground.Chizz said:The soft signal was 'out' and Stokes' fingers were under the ball. That's a very, very, very poor decision by the third umpire.0 -
The 3rd umpire decided a bit quickly, but to me that clearly hit the ground3
-
Yeah, was a very quick decision but I'd say they got it right. Bunker mentality from England v understandable though0
-
Did you see his fingers underneath the ball on the replay? I didn't.North Lower Neil said:I think the 3rd umpire got that right.
Unfortunately.
If you could see them and you could see the ball on the ground, then you can overturn the decision. If you can't see his fingers, then you have to agree with the on-field umpire's decision that it's out.0 -
We’d have been very unhappy if an England batsman had been caught like that.3
-
All the BBC pundits thought it hit the ground0
-
From the hoo-hah I was expecting something much more dubious on the replay but yeah, fairly clear-cut. It didn't look like a catch0
-
You could tell by his reaction in real time he hadn’t caught it.1
-
Chizz said:The soft signal was 'out' and Stokes' fingers were under the ball. That's a very, very, very poor decision by the third umpire.
Did you really think that was a very very very poor decision ?
Soft signal or not.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Eh?Chizz said:
Did you see his fingers underneath the ball on the replay? I didn't.North Lower Neil said:I think the 3rd umpire got that right.
Unfortunately.
If you could see them and you could see the ball on the ground, then you can overturn the decision. If you can't see his fingers, then you have to agree with the on-field umpire's decision that it's out.0 -
Channel The anger in the right way.
Top class bowling and fielding0 -
*whispers* Welcome to ChizzAshBurton said:
Eh?Chizz said:
Did you see his fingers underneath the ball on the replay? I didn't.North Lower Neil said:I think the 3rd umpire got that right.
Unfortunately.
If you could see them and you could see the ball on the ground, then you can overturn the decision. If you can't see his fingers, then you have to agree with the on-field umpire's decision that it's out.4 -
I was initially outraged but that looked pretty clear to me. Right call. I've argued the foreshortening point on slow mo replays before but this is far more than could be attributed to that.0
-
How are people even criticising that decision and questioning the 3rd umpire?killerandflash said:0 -
Just watching the replay of Bairstow's dismissal again, so ridiculous that he reviewed it and then asked Crawley what he thought.
What can Crawley say? "You were f***ing plum mate but too late now."3 -
Just got my vaccination invite for Sunday!
Somehow I don't think I'll be missing any of the Test match Day 5...4 -
Yes.soapboxsam said:Chizz said:The soft signal was 'out' and Stokes' fingers were under the ball. That's a very, very, very poor decision by the third umpire.
Did you really think that was a very very very poor decision ?
Soft signal or not.
According to the ICC Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix D, section 2.2.3, '...if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman is (...) Not out by any mode of dismissal (excluding LBW), he/she shall notify thebowler’s end umpire'.
The umpire gave the soft signal 'Out', which means that the third umpire must clearly see (the word 'clear' is in the Conditions) that it is Not Out. The soft signal indicates that the on-field umpires (plural) were satisfied that Stokes took the catch, that is, his fingers were under the ball.
If the third umpire could see, clearly, that the batsman had missed the ball or that the ball had bounced before reaching the fielder, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. This wasn't the case.
And if he could see, clearly, that the fielder's fingers were other than underneath the ball, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. I don't think Stokes' fingers could be seen on the single camera angle used by the third umpire. Therefore I think it was the wrong call.
If you could see Stokes' fingers, then it would be reasonable to overturn the on-field umpires. They weren't visible.2 -
I agree. I think they come to a different conclusion if an Indian fielder is taking that catch.Chizz said:
Yes.soapboxsam said:Chizz said:The soft signal was 'out' and Stokes' fingers were under the ball. That's a very, very, very poor decision by the third umpire.
Did you really think that was a very very very poor decision ?
Soft signal or not.
According to the ICC Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix D, section 2.2.3, '...if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman is (...) Not out by any mode of dismissal (excluding LBW), he/she shall notify thebowler’s end umpire'.
The umpire gave the soft signal 'Out', which means that the third umpire must clearly see (the word 'clear' is in the Conditions) that it is Not Out. The soft signal indicates that the on-field umpires (plural) were satisfied that Stokes took the catch, that is, his fingers were under the ball.
If the third umpire could see, clearly, that the batsman had missed the ball or that the ball had bounced before reaching the fielder, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. This wasn't the case.
And if he could see, clearly, that the fielder's fingers were other than underneath the ball, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. I don't think Stokes' fingers could be seen on the single camera angle used by the third umpire. Therefore I think it was the wrong call.
If you could see Stokes' fingers, then it would be reasonable to overturn the on-field umpires. They weren't visible.
Looking at the zoomed in versions above there is definitely a case for that not carrying, however, I'm not sure how they could've been certain from a quick replay from one angle.
I have no problem with it being given not out, I just think the umpiring was very poor.1
