[PICTURE] Do you agree with Aleem Dar's decision regarding India's LBW review on Soumya Sarkar?

[Firebat]

India reviewed an LBW decision on Soumya Sarkar, which was originally given not out. Third umpire Aleem Dar looked at Ultra Edge (see below) and deemed that there was not enough evidence to suggest it was definitely pad first (as conclusive evidence has to be found to overturn the onfield decision), so decided that to stick with the onfield decision without going to ball tracking at all. This meant India lost their review. Ball tracking showed the wickets as umpire's call, so it would have been not out in any case, but India would not have lost their review. Do you agree with what Aleem Dar did?

 

[The cricket enthusiast]

India reviewed an LBW decision on Soumya Sarkar, which was originally given not out. Third umpire Aleem Dar looked at Ultra Edge (see below) and deemed that there was not enough evidence to suggest it was definitely pad first (as conclusive evidence has to be found to overturn the onfield decision), so decided that to stick with the onfield decision without going to ball tracking at all. This meant India lost their review. Ball tracking showed the wickets as umpire's call, so it would have been not out in any case, but India would not have lost their review. Do you agree with wthat Aleem Dar did?

View attachment 93362

yep was umpires call anyway

 

[aloo paratha]

Yes, 100%. Need conclusive evidence, which wasn't there. Why don't they have hotspot?

 

[dildilpak]

Couldnt have ruled it any other way- no evidence to show it hit pad first. Rohit’s one was a big umpire blooper, this one was alright.

 

[Titan24]

It was totally correct as per ICC regulations which state that if you dont have any conclusive evidence to overturn the on field umpires decision you should stick with that decision.

3rd umpire is not supposed to assume things rather use whatever he has at his disposal and Aleem did that perfectly.

 

[Saurav]

Yes.but should not have lost review

 

[jagatk]

It was totally correct as per ICC regulations which state that if you dont have any conclusive evidence to overturn the on field umpires decision you should stick with that decision.

3rd umpire is not supposed to assume things rather use whatever he has at his disposal and Aleem did that perfectly.

Where was this rule when the English idiot gave rohit out? There should be a consistent rule not decision making based on whatever the guy in the 3rd umpire's chair feels like.

 

[Itachi]

It's OK. It's a part and parcel of the game. Fair or unfair doesn't matter. The rules get modified accordingly. Perhaps after world cup, one could point the inconsistent nature and then ICC may modify it. Till then, since it is in the rules, one needs to accept it.

 

[Green Patriot]

According to the rules its perfectly fair.

 

[fitCricFan]

It's OK. It's a part and parcel of the game. Fair or unfair doesn't matter

To the fans it matters and they keep bringing it up in terms of IF's & BUT's at their convenience. Why do you think you have all those threads about someone being given out while not-out in the mind of a few or vice-verca?

 

[Itachi]

To the fans it matters and they keep bringing it up in terms of IF's & BUT's at their convenience. Why do you think you have all those threads about someone being given out while not-out in the mind of a few or vice-verca?

because someone has to question it. And these questions might lead to rule changes where some blind spots of any rule will be weeded out.

going by rule is fair. questioning the rule is also fair. Those two are not exclusive.

 

[Babbar]

Is Dar going to officiate in semis and then Final? Most probably yes. At least there’s one Pakistani player who can make India lose a match:

 

[fitCricFan]

because someone has to question it. And these questions might lead to rule changes where some blind spots of any rule will be weeded out.

going by rule is fair. questioning the rule is also fair. Those two are not exclusive.

Then how is this any different from the DL method where matches have been won or lost witch some of the numbers sounding absolutely absurd such scoring 132 runs in 3 overs after a rain break.

The DL method is always applied by the rules, in a consistent way, to all teams, yet there is always some level of sourness and dissatisfaction from the fans on the loosing side.

In this case though, AD should have continued with the complete review process when he wasn't sure if the ball had hit the pad or the bat first

 

[DeadlyYorker]

Then how is this any different from the DL method where matches have been won or lost witch some of the numbers sounding absolutely absurd such scoring 132 runs in 3 overs after a rain break.

The DL method is always applied by the rules, in a consistent way, to all teams, yet there is always some level of sourness and dissatisfaction from the fans on the loosing side.

In this case though, AD should have continued with the complete review process when he wasn't sure if the ball had hit the pad or the bat first

Who got 132 in 3 overs?

And how is it different? Team got 130 runs in 5 overs because they already spent most of resources (in dls terms wickets) yes its not conpletly fair beacuse it takes in so many complex calculations. Had that team not lost any wickets on even 1 wicket down they might would have got around 50 runs in 30 balls with all wickets remaing to chase.

In case of umpiring decision its not applied equally to all as in this wc we have seen some,off the top of my head ,two very similar bat and pad Edge cases of rohit and tamim(i guess) where one was follwed with conclusive evidence rule and other wasnt. Here one team was at disadvantage even after they had advantage in form of onfield decision.

 

[fitCricFan]

Who got 132 in 3 overs?

And how is it different? Team got 130 runs in 5 overs because they already spent most of resources (in dls terms wickets) yes its not conpletly fair beacuse it takes in so many complex calculations. Had that team not lost any wickets on even 1 wicket down they might would have got around 50 runs in 30 balls with all wickets remaing to chase.

In case of umpiring decision its not applied equally to all as in this wc we have seen some,off the top of my head ,two very similar bat and pad Edge cases of rohit and tamim(i guess) where one was follwed with conclusive evidence rule and other wasnt. Here one team was at disadvantage even after they had advantage in form of onfield decision.

That was just an example but if you insist, in the 1992 Eng-SA SF, SA needed 22 runs off 13 balls when rain intervened and after the 12 min break, they were left with the absurdity of scoring those runs off a single ball

Everyone except the Aussies were questioning the fairness of the DL method but it was applied correctly, as the rules dictated.

For a 3rd umpire, if he is unsure, why not use all the tools available to eliminate the risk of misjudging the decision. In this case, it didn't matter as the Indians prevailed but if it had been a close match, having the option to challenge the umpire could have been critical. Yes, Umpires are humans and make mistakes but when you have the technology to support your decisions then use it to the full extent to eliminate risk and minimize controversy

 

[KI_playa]

Kohli was not arguing about the inconclusive decision. He was asking for the 3rd umpire to also use ball tracking. That way it would clearly show it was Umpire's call and therefore review retained. 3rd Umpire decided to make a decision based on just the snickometer.

 

[HitWicket]

That was just an example but if you insist, in the 1992 Eng-SA SF, SA needed 22 runs off 13 balls when rain intervened and after the 12 min break, they were left with the absurdity of scoring those runs off a single ball

Everyone except the Aussies were questioning the fairness of the DL method but it was applied correctly, as the rules dictated.

For a 3rd umpire, if he is unsure, why not use all the tools available to eliminate the risk of misjudging the decision. In this case, it didn't matter as the Indians prevailed but if it had been a close match, having the option to challenge the umpire could have been critical. Yes, Umpires are humans and make mistakes but when you have the technology to support your decisions then use it to the full extent to eliminate risk and minimize controversy

Duckworth Lewis wasn't used in the 92 World cup.

 

[BaankeJi]

It was totally correct as per ICC regulations which state that if you dont have any conclusive evidence to overturn the on field umpires decision you should stick with that decision.

3rd umpire is not supposed to assume things rather use whatever he has at his disposal and Aleem did that perfectly.

If it there was no conclusive evidence, then they should not have lost the review.

 

[farazaidi]

Kohli was not arguing about the inconclusive decision. He was asking for the 3rd umpire to also use ball tracking. That way it would clearly show it was Umpire's call and therefore review retained. 3rd Umpire decided to make a decision based on just the snickometer.

if the edge is confirmed, they dont proceed to ball tracking. That is how DRS works

 

[sweep_shot]

It was a good decision by legendary Aleem Dar.

 

[RajHeeRaj]

This Aleem Daar is a very overrated umpire. His days as part of the ICC panel should be numbered.

 

[Itachi]

That was just an example but if you insist, in the 1992 Eng-SA SF, SA needed 22 runs off 13 balls when rain intervened and after the 12 min break, they were left with the absurdity of scoring those runs off a single ball

Everyone except the Aussies were questioning the fairness of the DL method but it was applied correctly, as the rules dictated.

For a 3rd umpire, if he is unsure, why not use all the tools available to eliminate the risk of misjudging the decision. In this case, it didn't matter as the Indians prevailed but if it had been a close match, having the option to challenge the umpire could have been critical. Yes, Umpires are humans and make mistakes but when you have the technology to support your decisions then use it to the full extent to eliminate risk and minimize controversy

DL came to the picture BECAUSE of that match. As I said, as long as it is in rules, one must accept it (fair or unfair). But in proper forum, one should raise the question. DL came after 1992.

In case of rain interrupted matches, it was raised. And after that the rules were changed where ICC incorporated the DL method.

 

[KI_playa]

if the edge is confirmed, they dont proceed to ball tracking. That is how DRS works

That was the problem. You can clearly hear the umpire saying that he’s not sure about the edge. It was inconclusive.

 

[Titan24]

Where was this rule when the English idiot gave rohit out? There should be a consistent rule not decision making based on whatever the guy in the 3rd umpire's chair feels like.

I havent seen that dismissal but yes there should be consistency but if one umpire makes a mistake doesnt mean Aleem Dar should follow just to justify some other umpires mistake. These things happen in cricket and one has to move on.

Aleem’s decision for Soumya was totally on merit.

 

[Titan24]

Kohli was not arguing about the inconclusive decision. He was asking for the 3rd umpire to also use ball tracking. That way it would clearly show it was Umpire's call and therefore review retained. 3rd Umpire decided to make a decision based on just the snickometer.

Because as per ICC rules (I am not talking about Sanjay Majerker’s and Kohli’s wishes) you can only move to ball tracker if there is no no ball and there is no edge. Regarding edge it was inconclusive evidence that Soumya didn hit it as snickometer showed a spike when ball was close to the bat and pad. So as 3rd umpire couldnt conclude anything regarding edge to overturn the on field umpires decision, he isnt supposed to go onto hawk eye.

 

[Titan24]

That was the problem. You can clearly hear the umpire saying that he’s not sure about the edge. It was inconclusive.

Again when the evidence is inconclusive on field call stays. In this case it was not out so that stayed.

 

[Titan24]

If it there was no conclusive evidence, then they should not have lost the review.

While I think its a valid point but ICC doesnt have any law in place regarding retaining the review if evidence is inconclusive so umpires couldnt have done anything.

 

[Smbhayi]

I'm sure there's no contact in bat but you can't fault umpire here..

 

[Indiafan]

Again when the evidence is inconclusive on field call stays. In this case it was not out so that stayed.

I think Kohli was not protesting about the not out, he was protesting that India should not lose a review when the evidence was inconclusive. But according to current rules, the correct decision was made

 

[Executioner]

I feel that there was no bat involve but it was not conclusive enough and the right decision was made. If onfield umpire gave that out, it would be out to me.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Hopefully there is no Aleem Dar for any more India matches.

 

[Khan12]

Hopefully there is no Aleem Dar for any more India matches.

Just like ravi shouldn't be there in our games.

 

[DeadlyYorker]

That was just an example but if you insist, in the 1992 Eng-SA SF, SA needed 22 runs off 13 balls when rain intervened and after the 12 min break, they were left with the absurdity of scoring those runs off a single ball

Everyone except the Aussies were questioning the fairness of the DL method but it was applied correctly, as the rules dictated.

For a 3rd umpire, if he is unsure, why not use all the tools available to eliminate the risk of misjudging the decision. In this case, it didn't matter as the Indians prevailed but if it had been a close match, having the option to challenge the umpire could have been critical. Yes, Umpires are humans and make mistakes but when you have the technology to support your decisions then use it to the full extent to eliminate risk and minimize controversy

DLS rules have been changed if you done know about that,earlier wickets were not counted as resources thus didnt account that factor at all

 

[Revolution]

Many decisions went against india in this world Cup.