PDA

View Full Version : a funny thread: Gloves before wicket, Shoulder before wicket and Back before wicket


al-Sagar
March 15, 2010, 09:46 PM
http://www.eprothomalo.com/contents/2010/2010_03_16/content_zoom/2010_03_16_22_2_b.jpg

auntu
March 16, 2010, 08:12 AM
I can still remember Tendulkar's shoulder before wicket. Tendulkar was shocked like anything.

al-Sagar
March 16, 2010, 08:34 AM
I can still remember Tendulkar's shoulder before wicket. Tendulkar was shocked like anything.

in that series indian had a tough time against aussie pacers. laxman played one brilliant counter attacking game in one match.

the funnest was AJit agarkat. he had 4 consecutive GOLDEN ducks. then in the 5th innings he somehow survived the first ball, but was out in the 2nd ball.

DJ Sahastra
March 16, 2010, 09:01 AM
in that series indian had a tough time against aussie pacers backed by the umpires. laxman played one brilliant counter attacking game in one match.

the funnest was AJit agarkat. he had 4 consecutive GOLDEN ducks. then in the 5th innings he somehow survived the first ball, but was out in the 2nd ball.

Corrected. :)

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 09:14 AM
I thought Tendulkar was out though. The ball was going on to hit the stumps and he had his shoulder (or was it his helmet? - been a while, can't remember) in the way. It doesn't matter which part of the body you get hit on as long as it's not the gloves.

BD-Shardul
March 16, 2010, 09:17 AM
I thought Tendulkar was out though. The ball was going on to hit the stumps and he had his shoulder (or was it his helmet? - been a while, can't remember) in the way. It doesn't matter which part of the body you get hit on as long as it's not the gloves.

Yes, I saw that dismissal and that was out without doubt. So what if the ball is blocked by shoulder? You only judge if the ball would have hit the stump if it is not blocked by the willow.

DJ Sahastra
March 16, 2010, 09:49 AM
Yes, I saw that dismissal and that was out without doubt. So what if the ball is blocked by shoulder? You only judge if the ball would have hit the stump if it is not blocked by the willow.

I do not know what you were watching but i am yet to hear anyone say it was "out without doubt", not even the hardcore Aussies i have interacted with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N69NelOYc8c&feature=related

The actual trajectory and point of impact is very clear between 0:20 and 0:21 (unless you mistake the point of impact to be be where the delivery is at 0:21).

BD-Shardul
March 16, 2010, 10:14 AM
I do not know what you were watching but i am yet to hear anyone say it was "out without doubt", not even the hardcore Aussies i have interacted with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N69NelOYc8c&feature=related

The actual trajectory and point of impact is very clear between 0:20 and 0:21 (unless you mistake the point of impact to be be where the delivery is at 0:21).

I watched the same video and that looked out to me.

DJ Sahastra
March 16, 2010, 10:38 AM
I watched the same video and that looked out to me.

No, the question is not whether that looked out to you - we all have our vies and biases and prejudices - but whether that looked out to you beyond a reasonable doubt and if so, how or why. I am sure every decision that we complain about might look right to someone else and that is not the point on contention.

magic boy
March 16, 2010, 10:42 AM
this is one those bizarre cricketing incidents/out....stupid decision

Ashraf-FTP
March 16, 2010, 11:25 AM
I do not know what you were watching but i am yet to hear anyone say it was "out without doubt", not even the hardcore Aussies i have interacted with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N69NelOYc8c&feature=related

The actual trajectory and point of impact is very clear between 0:20 and 0:21 (unless you mistake the point of impact to be be where the delivery is at 0:21).
It looks perfectly out to me, why?

I dont think you would argue about the line, The ball pitched a little bit outside of stump. But because of McGrath's bowling angle it went in and was perfectly middle-off stump line.

The height is where the question comes. The ball was moving down in the arc when it hit him, so if there was nothing infront of the stumps, the ball would have been going lower, therefore hitting the stumps.

AK420
March 16, 2010, 11:30 AM
We dont need field umpires. There are so many arguements for it

Ashraf-FTP
March 16, 2010, 11:34 AM
Talking about bad umpiring, take a look at this, I cant explain it :-p Someone care to explain what happens?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G0Jq08JostM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G0Jq08JostM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

DJ Sahastra
March 16, 2010, 11:53 AM
It looks perfectly out to me, why?

I dont think you would argue about the line, The ball pitched a little bit outside of stump. But because of McGrath's bowling angle it went in and was perfectly middle-off stump line.

The height is where the question comes. The ball was moving down in the arc when it hit him, so if there was nothing infront of the stumps, the ball would have been going lower, therefore hitting the stumps.

You mean to say that the ball was actually dipping when it hit Sachin and that's why he should've been out without a reasonable doubt.

Now, to think that the ball's trajectory was going down is a good example of how to get fooled by the optical illusion of a trajectory motion video. The ball is actually still on the rise (if only just) but at a much lower rate than the initial climb, to the effect that the trajectory may look to almost straighten out ( and hence the illusion of dipping due to the slowing rate of ascent). Only in very funny scenarios would you actually see any delivery by a pace bowler start to dip after pitching before it crosses the stumps.

But i have to concede your umpiring video is a Classic whith a capital C. :)

shovon13
March 16, 2010, 11:59 AM
Talking about bad umpiring, take a look at this, I cant explain it :-p Someone care to explain what happens?

<object width="480" height="385">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G0Jq08JostM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>

what? the ball hit the bat right?

auntu
March 16, 2010, 12:00 PM
Talking about bad umpiring, take a look at this, I cant explain it :-p Someone care to explain what happens?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G0Jq08JostM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G0Jq08JostM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
What is this?
The batsman also had no complain...!! Was there any video editing here?

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 12:07 PM
It looks perfectly out to me, why?

I dont think you would argue about the line, The ball pitched a little bit outside of stump. But because of McGrath's bowling angle it went in and was perfectly middle-off stump line.

The height is where the question comes. The ball was moving down in the arc when it hit him, so if there was nothing infront of the stumps, the ball would have been going lower, therefore hitting the stumps.
I see your point, but then again, if the point of impact rule applies horizontally, ideally it should apply vertically too, no?

It looked pretty plumb to me when I saw it live in real-time years ago, but now, looking at the replay, I'm not too sure.

al-Sagar
March 16, 2010, 12:12 PM
Talking about bad umpiring, take a look at this, I cant explain it :-p Someone care to explain what happens?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G0Jq08JostM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G0Jq08JostM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

the only man to appeal or half appeal was the 2nd slip...... in fact he looked damn confident that it was a clean big edge

Ashraf-FTP
March 16, 2010, 12:39 PM
You mean to say that the ball was actually dipping when it hit Sachin and that's why he should've been out without a reasonable doubt.

Now, to think that the ball's trajectory was going down is a good example of how to get fooled by the optical illusion of a trajectory motion video. The ball is actually still on the rise (if only just) but at a much lower rate than the initial climb, to the effect that the trajectory may look to almost straighten out ( and hence the illusion of dipping due to the slowing rate of ascent). Only in very funny scenarios would you actually see any delivery by a pace bowler start to dip after pitching before it crosses the stumps.



Well I wasnt around to see the match live on TV. The quality of this video isnt that great. But from this video, to me it looked like the ball was going down.

But then again, we all have our reasons ;)

I see your point, but then again, if the point of impact rule applies horizontally, ideally it should apply vertically too, no?




I am not sure what you meant, elaborate please? I said he ball was just sluightly moving lower before it hit him.

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 12:49 PM
When the impact happens outside off, it doesn't matter if the ball was going on to hit the stumps - you won't be given out. So I was saying the same rule should ideally apply when the point of impact is above the stumps - it shouldn't matter that the ball was dipping.

Ashraf-FTP
March 16, 2010, 12:59 PM
When the impact happens outside off, it doesn't matter if the ball was going on to hit the stumps - you won't be given out. So I was saying the same rule should ideally apply when the point of impact is above the stumps - it shouldn't matter that the ball was dipping.
From what I saw, the point of impact wasnt over the stumps, to me it looked like it was parallel to the bails. So by what you mean, it should be out then. But in the end, isnt the question about will the ball hit the stumps IF there was nothing there? Thats how LBW is judged AFAIK.

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 01:03 PM
From what I saw, the point of impact wasnt over the stumps, to me it looked like it was parallel to the bails. So by what you mean, it should be out then. But in the end, isnt the question about will the ball hit the stumps IF there was nothing there? Thats how LBW is judged AFAIK.
Yeah the point of impact might have been on or above the stumps, just about in either case.

LBWs aren't judged based only on whether the ball will go on to hit the stumps. Two relevant LBW rules among others:

1. If it pitches outside the leg stump, you can literally cover up the stumps with your legs and if you get hit, it will never be given out no matter how far back you are.

2. If the point of impact is outside the off stump and the umpire is not Rod Tucker, you won't be given out even if the ball was going on to hit the stumps.

Imtiazk
March 16, 2010, 01:05 PM
When the impact happens outside off, it doesn't matter if the ball was going on to hit the stumps - you won't be given out. So I was saying the same rule should ideally apply when the point of impact is above the stumps - it shouldn't matter that the ball was dipping.

I cannot believe any umpire will give a batsman out if the point of impact is above stump height. Obviously, it must have happened in this case, hence the controversy.

I also agree with DS regarding the trajectory. I cannot think how someone of McGrath's pace could have the ball dipping before reaching the stumps unless , of course, it was a full toss or yorker.

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 01:06 PM
Now in case of height, the rules are slightly different in that the trajectory is taken into account, so your dip theory may actually be right, if the ball was dipping at all, which as DJ has pointed out is debatable.

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 01:08 PM
I cannot believe any umpire will give a batsman out if the point of impact is above stump height.
That too.

Imtiazk
March 16, 2010, 01:12 PM
Yeah the point of impact might have been on or above the stumps, just about in either case.

LBWs aren't judged based only on whether the ball will go on to hit the stumps. Two relevant LBW rules among others:

1. If it pitches outside the leg stump, you can literally cover up the stumps with your legs and if you get hit, it will never be given out no matter how far back you are.

2. If the point of impact is outside the off stump and the umpire is not Rod Tucker, you won't be given out even if the ball was going on to hit the stumps.

There is, of course, a third one where no stroke is offered. In which case, the impact can be outside the off stump and , if in the opinion of the umpire, the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps then the batsman is out.

I do not think the law specifically mentions height of impact . The general words "in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps" are used. So, for example you bowl a loppa full toss and the impact is in line with the stumps but above and "in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps" then the batsman can be out.

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 01:18 PM
There is, of course, a third one where no stroke is offered. In which case, the impact can be outside the off stump and , if in the opinion of the umpire, the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps then the batsman is out.

Indeed indeed. Those ones are usually up to the umpire's discretion, which is why padding can be risky if you're not good at it. That could have done Tendulkar in in this case.


I do not think the law specifically mentions height of impact . The general words "in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps" are used. So, for example you bowl a loppa full toss and the impact is in line with the stumps but above and "in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps" then the batsman can be out.I don't think the height of impact is a factor either. Because if you've left your crease and get hit at a reasonable height (say just above the ankle), it's the trajectory that will determine whether or not you're out.

Ashraf-FTP
March 16, 2010, 01:22 PM
There is, of course, a third one where no stroke is offered. In which case, the impact can be outside the off stump and , if in the opinion of the umpire, the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps then the batsman is out.

I do not think the law specifically mentions height of impact . The general words "in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps" are used. So, for example you bowl a loppa full toss and the impact is in line with the stumps but above and "in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps" then the batsman can be out.
Thats the one I was talking about. Another reason why the umpire might have though the ball dipped because it was a short pitched delivery, but it wasnt a bowncer, it kept low, which made the illusion that the ball was dipping. And therefore, probably, "in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps".

But as ATMR bro pointed out, those 2 rules are just dumb, the main thing should be, ARE YOU BLOCKING THE STUMPS WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE BAT OR THE GLOVES? Would it have hit the stumps if you werent there? YES OR NO. OUT OR NOT.

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 01:32 PM
I don't think the rules are dumb - there's certainly some value to having them around. It prevents negative bowling (i.e. bowlers pitching it outside leg all the time and yet getting away with LBWs) and batsmen don't have to worry about balls coming in to hit the stumps after having pitched outside. Come to think of it - without those rules, LBWs would become so much more common and batting so much more difficult. But of course, one can always thwart that line of thinking with counter arguments.

Ashraf-FTP
March 16, 2010, 02:08 PM
But of course, one can always thwart that line of thinking with counter arguments.
:lol: true.

The way the game is becoming batting friendly, which is kinda ruining the fun (for me atleast). Nowadays, bowlers have to be able to bat well, because a lot of times, the result is depended on them. More often, an above average bowler with atrocious batting gets selected less than an average bowler and poor batsman. So making it a bit more bowling friendly wouldnt be too bad I think.

So to think of it, for example-

A ball pitches half volley on the off-middle stumps, it then swings away from the right handed batsman. The point of impact is within the line of the stumps, but its also clear that by the amount of swing, the ball would have missed the stumps. So is that out or not?

Rabz
March 16, 2010, 02:20 PM
That was a very well written article.
Wish the English dailies like The Daily Star would publish a translated version of the article so that
Mr Hill, Tucker et all could read it.

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 02:54 PM
A ball pitches half volley on the off-middle stumps, it then swings away from the right handed batsman. The point of impact is within the line of the stumps, but its also clear that by the amount of swing, the ball would have missed the stumps. So is that out or not?
Not out according to the current rules. That's why, for example, the case where the point of impact is in line with the stumps but the batsman is safe because the ball is going down the leg side is so common.

Ashraf-FTP
March 16, 2010, 03:04 PM
Not out according to the current rules. That's why, for example, the case where the point of impact is in line with the stumps but the batsman is safe because the ball is going down the leg side is so common.
But still, there are a lot of outs that were given like that. And a lot of times, umpires bend the rules about these kind of things.

And going back to the tendulkar dismissal, I think thats exactly what happened. The ball could have hit the stumps, or maybe it couldnt have. So probably the umpire judged it on the point of impact, which is very close too.

He should have consulted the square-leg umpire. Maybe he could have clarified about the height. But the bowling umpire looked confident. Maybe he saw something we missed? :-p

DJ Sahastra
March 16, 2010, 03:18 PM
If recall those times, trajectory, height and all were not the reasons for the particular decision to be contentious. We got sidetracked into discussing trajectories and height etc. and that is what usually videos do.

It was contentious for many reasons. There were some very poor decisions leading into this one and in general, the mood in the Indian camp was that of being victimised (something akin to BD at the moment). Then this happened.

Until then, no batsman had been given out this way in the international cricket. This was, in memory of the most, the first time a player had been given out when a ball had hit his shoulders while ducking a delivery. And mind you, he is not the first batsman to have been hit that way nor will be the last. But he was the first, and probably the last to have been given out that way. That itself made the decision a strange one. Add other contentious decisions leading into it, and it seems the umpires are out to get you. Many of you may already be going through that feeling even as i type.

Now, that no batsman had been given out in the particular manner (shoulder before wicket) was not without it's reasons. Lets consider the scenario that the impact was at the height of the stump (give or take an inch, if you may). From side view and through frame-by-frame replay analysis, you can somewhat convince yourself that maybe there is a chance that the ball trajectory may have taken it to hit the stumps. But that is not what the umpire saw. He saw a short-pitched delivery rising not as much as the batsman expected and hit the batsman at a height where the upper-edge of the flaps of his pad would've been if we were struck on his pads instead of his shoulders. An umpire is used to judging the height of the impact by the batsman's pads. At best, he had no estimate of what height it would've translated into. That itself is a reason to cast doubts. At worst, he could've opined that the height was in the line of top couple of inches of the stump. Then again, there is the thing about being stuck by a rising delivery. He wouldn't see an almost flat trajectory at the time of the impact - none of us can. And that is precisely why no one gives a batsman out when he is hit above the knee roll unless he was caught on the backfoot right in front of the stumps on a backfoot. And that's why no umpires generally give a batsman out when a delivery hits at the height of the stump bails, which would translate roughly into the upper part of the flaps.

Whatever the umpire saw should've had "doubt", "doubt" "doubt" written over it unless he wanted to see what he saw. That there were no such precedences for such a dismissal should have in itself made him atleast take longer than what he took to decide.

The rules regarding LBWs haven't changed much and still i have never seen a decision like that again, nor do i expect to see one. Maybe hawkeye may rule someone unfortunate out like that someday, but it is highly unlikely that any umpire may. What they see is a ball that is on a rising trajectory and hitting at a height that is too high to not call for reasonable doubt.

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2010, 03:18 PM
But still, there are a lot of outs that were given like that.

It's an umpiring mistake. You can't get an LBW if the ball is doing too much and going on to miss the stumps.

Ashraf-FTP
March 16, 2010, 09:47 PM
Yup guys. Really true. As I said before, the umpire was decieved because the so called "bouncer" came in low.

al-Sagar
March 16, 2010, 11:36 PM
That was a very well written article.
Wish the English dailies like The Daily Star would publish a translated version of the article so that
Mr Hill, Tucker et all could read it.

prothom-alo and daily star are almost sister concerns.

why dont we have a english version of utpal shuvro who can publish these in daily star ?