[PICTURE/VIDEO] The Mayank Agarwal LBW decision in the 1st South Africa v India Test

[MenInG]

Ngidi to Mayank, out Lbw!! South Africa review for LBW: It hasn't been given. This one seams back in sharply from a back of a length on off, Mayank hops and tries to work it away, misses the inside edge, struck on the pads and that looks like it's going down leg-side. NO, it's been given out! Ball tracking shows that it's crashing into the top of leg-stump, but it certainly looked like umpire's call to the naked eye (on ball tracking, IYKWIM). India aren't too happy about this, but Mayank has to go! Mayank lbw b Ngidi 60(123) [4s-9]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/d2f65t" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

==

Looked odd?

 

[Ab Fan]

It didn't looked out to naked eyes.

 

[Devadwal]

No way that was out ,at best umpire call

 

[Devadwal]

Remember the game where AB deVilliers was clean bowled and the Hawkeye showed ball going above the stumps.

 

[MenInG]

Video also added to Post #1

 

[Amjid Javed]

indian fans crying about hawkeye, should we go back to the way it showed the ball missing stumps when Ajmal had sachin out plumb during a world cup semi final.

I guess back then hawkeye wasnt an issue but it is today.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I guess back then hawkeye wasnt an issue but it is today.

I guess back then Hawkeye was an issue for Pakistani fans but it isn't today.

 

[Amjid Javed]

I guess back then Hawkeye was an issue for Pakistani fans but it isn't today.

Honestly in both instances the technology looks off, so i can see why fans were angry on both occasions. Things like this shouldnt be happening and if they do common sense should prevail with 3rd umpire stating it doesnt look right.

 

[Local.Dada]

indian fans crying about hawkeye, should we go back to the way it showed the ball missing stumps when Ajmal had sachin out plumb during a world cup semi final.

I guess back then hawkeye wasnt an issue but it is today.

We had MS paint available then. I don’t think it came handy today.

 

[Amjid Javed]

We had MS paint available then. I don’t think it came handy today.

)

i wonder if 3rd umpires even look at things sometimes and think the projector doesn't look right or they just "trust" the technology.

 

[MenInG]

Mayank Agarwal refused to comment on his dismissal following a DRS call for LBW.

“I am not allowed to give my opinion and so I want to leave it at that. Otherwise, I will be in bad books and my money (match fee) could be docked."

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/...balls-as-possible-mayank-agarwal-4595042.html

 

[Major]

Its out.

The confusion is that the simulation of hawk eye stops at the point it hits the wicket. Here the hawk eye is allowed to move forward abit more creating an illusion that it was maybe only edging

 

[shaaik]

When I first saw it in slow motion it looked missing the leg stump comfortably.

It took them so much time to load the Hawkeye and it’s so strange that every time the Hawkeye takes time to load up, it invariably turns out to be a controversial decision.

 

[James]

I must admit that I thought it would be umpire’s call, I was surprised to see three reds. But three reds it was, so move on.

 

[Mahee]

Third umpire needs to be punished for this

 

[Thanos]

Third umpire needs to be punished for this

Third umpire wasn't at fault here. He asked for technical inputs from TV team and gave decision based on available evidences.
If technology saying 3 reds, he has to give out decision.
Yes, it looks bit dodgy but can't do anything about it.
Move on.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

There was no doubt this review was bizarre, the impact point was different while snicko and while hawkeye, whether it was manual error or technology just coming up short (after all it's not been claimed to be 100%) we will never know.



Sucks for Mayank, cuz he was looking solid for a big one.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Its out.

The confusion is that the simulation of hawk eye stops at the point it hits the wicket. Here the hawk eye is allowed to move forward abit more creating an illusion that it was maybe only edging

This is probably the correct interpretation.

Here is the screen shot from the above video before the camera angle arrives at the leg umpire’s view.

Notice the top left edge of the leg stump that meets the northern edge of ball’s path fully covering the impact. They are almost meeting.
It’s probably the bad simulation when the camera view arrives at the leg umpire’s close up view.

But either way, the ball was comfortably hitting more than 50%, so it’s out from whatever angle you look at it. The stumps would’ve shattered regardless of umpire’s decision.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

The simulation is causing the confusion. To the naked eye, I was watching it live as well and it looked not out. But, I trust the technology and so many variables would have gone into the calculation.
Let's stick to technology, which can be improved off-course.

 

[HitWicket]

There was no doubt this review was bizarre, the impact point was different while snicko and while hawkeye, whether it was manual error or technology just coming up short (after all it's not been claimed to be 100%) we will never know.

View attachment 113904

Sucks for Mayank, cuz he was looking solid for a big one.

The visual frame on the right is different from the one of the left. You can clearly see he jumps up from his crouched position on the right resulting in the impact point appearing lower down on the pad on the left side. There's no obvious issues with this projection, just like there was no obvious issue with the Ajmal projection in 2011.