[PICTURE/VIDEO] Was Dean Elgar's catch clearly taken?

[TM Riddle]

Looked not out to me.



<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The on-field signal was out<br>The batsman started to walk<br>For the 3rd umpire to overrule the on-field decision there had to be conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was wrong<br>There was no conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was wrong<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvPAK</a> <a href="https://t.co/PDgiB5SskD">pic.twitter.com/PDgiB5SskD</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1078574231636664320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Mamoon]

It was not out. However, the key is the soft signal. 9/10 times, the umpire would not overturn the decision because it was inconclusive.

 

[Jin Chacha]

It may or may not have been clearly taken but the fact that the soft signal was out makes the third umpire's decision dubious. There wasn't enough conclusive evidence either way to reverse the on field umpire's decision.

 

[TM Riddle]

It was not out. However, the key is the soft signal. 9/10 times, the umpire would not overturn the decision because it was inconclusive.

You have a point. Similar situation occurred with Kohli in the last test. I bet if the tables were overturned and it was SA bowling, third umpire would have declared it out because of the already given soft signal.
Hard luck Pakistan.

 

[Madplayer]

It was not out irrespective of the soft signal. The left pinky was clearly underneath the ball which means the ball could not have touched the ground.

 

[Mamoon]

You have a point. Similar situation occurred with Kohli in the last test. I bet if the tables were overturned and it was SA bowling, third umpire would have declared it out because of the already given soft signal.
Hard luck Pakistan.

That was a joke. It was more than conclusive enough to overturn the soft signal. This was pretty tight.

 

[angrypathan]

Daylight robbery

 

[AMSS]

My sympathies with Pakistan here. Consistency in decision making demanded this be given in their favor.

 

[TM Riddle]

That was a joke. It was more than conclusive enough to overturn the soft signal. This was pretty tight.

Disagree with you there Mamoon. Even though it was 80:20 in the favor of not out but the fact that the on field umpire's soft signal was out should have meant the decision in the favor of Pakistan.

Maybe the third ump isn't familiar with the rules.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Clearly out.

 

[Mamoon]

Disagree with you there Mamoon. Even though it was 80:20 in the favor of not out but the fact that the on field umpire's soft signal was out should have meant the decision in the favor of Pakistan.

Maybe the third ump isn't familiar with the rules.

Yes, but the Kohli decision was worse.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Seeing the pic in Saj's tweet I wud say out.

Regardless, ICC needs to stop this ** called umpire's call/soft signal.

 

[TM Riddle]

Yes, but the Kohli decision was worse.

Yeah that was really pathetic.

 

[latecut]

The ball was touching the grass as could be seen in the slow motion replay. so it was not out.

 

[BlackShadow]

One picture doesn't represent all the evidence available to the 3rd umpire. There must be different angles and slow-mo video as well.

 

[Saj]

The key word as per the ICC is conclusive.

In effect the 3rd umpire has to be 100% sure in order to overrule the on-field decision.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Seeing the pic in Saj's tweet I wud say out.

Regardless, ICC needs to stop this ** called umpire's call/soft signal.

wrong bro. you cannot say if it is out by seeing a pic, you need to see the video.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

wrong bro. you cannot say if it is out by seeing a pic, you need to see the video.

Yeah you are right.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

I don't know if it's out and I don't think anyone knows for sure.

The dilemma between "benefit of doubt to batsman" vs "sift signal" is very strange. Imo, the concept of soft signal is nonsense. Even though I feel it is inconsistent, I don't feel this is necessarily out since there's more than enough room for doubt.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

The fielder should have been given the benefit of the doubt, especially since the soft signal was out.

 

[ARK Rafay]

The soft signal was out. So it was out as there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the decision

 

[Big Mac]

I have argued for years with people here about the optical illusions on replays of low catches so I'm glad that the Super Sport folks are going to use the break to demonstrate it. Hope Sky Sports doesn't cut away to some other stuff during the break

 

[Gabbar Singh]

I think it was out.

 

[HydratedTurnip]

It was a clean catch, or let's say there was not enough to overturn the soft out given by the umps. Absolutely no way that should have been overturned

 

[Asif321]

If soft signal was not out then you can understand
But it was given out so you need to have 100% evidence to overturn it
Don’t see any evidence that it was dropped fingers are under ball clearly

 

[Birdman]

He was out. His fingers were under the ball. May be the umpire should have asked Azar a la Pointing. In real-time it looked out.

 

[Big Mac]

I don't know if it's out and I don't think anyone knows for sure.

The dilemma between "benefit of doubt to batsman" vs "sift signal" is very strange. Imo, the concept of soft signal is nonsense. Even though I feel it is inconsistent, I don't feel this is necessarily out since there's more than enough room for doubt.

Soft signal is fine because you can often get a much better idea of whether a catch is taken cleanly when you are on the field than you can from a slow motion TV replay.

What is not fine is the way third umpires make their decisions up as they go along.

 

[Haroon786]

Was absolutely out, most umpires would have given it out of at least have gone ahead with the on-field umpire's call.

 

[Hawkeye]

Fingers beneath the ball = OUT.

No matter what the team.

 

[AAli98]

Not out his literally picking it up from the floor. Umpires have been useless all game soft singnal was another useless decision.

No point whining like bengali/indian fans about it. Game was lost when those azhar asad & sarfraz cost the match yesterday.

 

[Abdullah719]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.305%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/zh772/xzdiyw" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Holding "What we need is consistency by the 3rd umpire. We can't have different conclusions to the same picture by different umpires <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvPAK</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://t.co/jl5NgvWIMc">pic.twitter.com/jl5NgvWIMc</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1078580952350318595?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Holding on commentary bowling a few bouncers at the 3rd umpire "I'm convinced that was out and the 3rd umpire made a mistake. The protocol says you have to be 100% sure that the on-field umpire was wrong to change the decision" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvPAK</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1078583368332333056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Sidilicious]

From the video, does not look out

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.305%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/zh772/xzdiyw" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>.

There's a fraction of a moment where the ball touches the ground with the fingers not underneath.

 

[BlackShadow]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.305%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/zh772/xzdiyw" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>.

I can see the ball touching the ground, so not out.

But the way different 3rd umpires see this differently is a huge flaw in the system. Reminds me of that Kohli dismissal that should have been not-out as well.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">And now Graeme Smith regarding the Elgar catch that was overturned by the 3rd umpire "Pakistan can feel a little hard done by. The catch being overturned was surprising for me. In my opinion it was out" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvPAK</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1078586489662070786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Holding "What we need is consistency by the 3rd umpire. We can't have different conclusions to the same picture by different umpires <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvPAK</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://t.co/jl5NgvWIMc">pic.twitter.com/jl5NgvWIMc</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1078580952350318595?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Holding on commentary bowling a few bouncers at the 3rd umpire "I'm convinced that was out and the 3rd umpire made a mistake. The protocol says you have to be 100% sure that the on-field umpire was wrong to change the decision" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvPAK</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1078583368332333056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The thing is If they can give Kohli out, then this was also out, Kohli decision was a farce.
For me both was not out

 

[aukhan]

Doesn't look out to me.

 

[jagatk]

The photo is misleading for me, the video shows the ball most likely touching the ground.

 

[Napa]

Looked not out to me.

View attachment 86827

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The on-field signal was out<br>The batsman started to walk<br>For the 3rd umpire to overrule the on-field decision there had to be conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was wrong<br>There was no conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was wrong<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvPAK</a> <a href="https://t.co/PDgiB5SskD">pic.twitter.com/PDgiB5SskD</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1078574231636664320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is not a good photo. It is too dark to make out if the ball is touching the ground. The following is a better picture. You can see that none of the five fingers of the left hand are below the ball which seems to be touching the grass.

 

[IMMY69]

Does it even matter what we think?

If the soft signal was out and there was nothing conclusive to overturn it then it should have remained out.
You can never tell if something is conclusive with 2D photos so this exercise is pointless..

 

[BreadPakoda]

He’s grassed it. Standing too far back.

I wouldn’t have been surprised if the umpires still gave it out because of umpire’s call “rules”.

 

[IMMY69]

I have argued for years with people here about the optical illusions on replays of low catches so I'm glad that the Super Sport folks are going to use the break to demonstrate it. Hope Sky Sports doesn't cut away to some other stuff during the break

They did!!!
I was looking forward to it too.

Anyway it was out and a pathetic piece of inconsistent umpiring conspired to give it not out.

 

[Rana]

Dean Elgar was not the one standing around

 

[rollingstoned]

I can't remember the last time during a dubious catch the umpire soft signalled not out tbf. I know it's the rules but it's more like when they're not sure they give it out because they figure that the batsman has nicked it and the only doubt his how clean the catch is which should generally be pretty conclusive on camera.

 

[Big Mac]

They did!!!
I was looking forward to it too.

Anyway it was out and a pathetic piece of inconsistent umpiring conspired to give it not out.

Shame, I put it on record as well

Oh well I'm sure it'll turn up on the internet soon enough, if it isn't up already

 

[Pete Rose]

Slow motion fames tend to blur the borders. We shouldn’t be doing this unless we have super slo mo cameras.
As for the umpire, big call for him to overrrule the on field official

 

[MenInG]

not a happy bunny!

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Bigger debate: in all Pakistan's defeats which inevitably involve a batting collapse, there inevitably follow missed opportunities while bowling - dropped catches, marginal calls by umpires, missed run outs, this and that.

I can't recall a single defeat where a few of these calls would have made a big difference.

However, in any game, there are always some missed opportunities.

Real culprit of the defeat are the batters. This missed catch is just a distraction.

 

[Bilal7]

It looked like the ball was touching the ground just when Azhar got his fingers under half of it so no, it did not look clean and I don't mind that the umpire gave it 'not-out'. It could have gone either way.

 

[MenInG]

Could have changed momentum of the game - but not to be.

 

[Hitman]

The catch was not clean. But this catch was pretty similar to the catch off Kohli's bat during his century in the 2nd Test. How come that was adjudged out? In both the cases the soft signal was out.

 

[Khwaja78]

Catch was'nt clean and Azhar was in a lousy position [too far back]
Fakhar dropping Amla off Hasan Ali was more crucial.

 

[IMMY69]

It looked like the ball was touching the ground just when Azhar got his fingers under half of it so no, it did not look clean and I don't mind that the umpire gave it 'not-out'. It could have gone either way.

I think the debate should be on the consistency of the decisions and thinking process behind it.
If all the decisions are consistent then that’s fine.

 

[IMMY69]

The catch was not clean. But this catch was pretty similar to the catch off Kohli's bat during his century in the 2nd Test. How come that was adjudged out? In both the cases the soft signal was out.

This the point.
When there is no consistency it gives far too much authority to the third umpire and we end up having different decisions for the same ball...

 

[Sidilicious]

This the point.
When there is no consistency it gives far too much authority to the third umpire and we end up having different decisions for the same ball...

Thing is the correct decision was made in the end. But yeah, I agree that there needs to be a more consistent basis for making decisions. Especially removal of soft signals for catches and going back to benefit of doubt for the batsman. Its only out, if there are no doubts.

 

[Buffet]

Similar catch to when Kohli was given out.

Soft signal should be ignored. There is no way live action can have more weight than camera going is slow motion from many angles.

 

[Big Mac]

Similar catch to when Kohli was given out.

Soft signal should be ignored. There is no way live action can have more weight than camera going is slow motion from many angles.

Slow motion replays making clean catches look like they hit the ground is a well known phenomenon. It's why batsmen always hang around for low catches, they know the replay will save them even if the ball never touched a single blade of grass.

 

[princeuk]

The umpire on the ground gave it out therefore it should have stood, I have seen worse catches been given out.

 

[Abid Z]

It was not out. I know the fingers seemed to be under the ball but not fully under it (the right hand) the ball appeared to graze the turf after landing in the hands.

More to the point is this. If the situation was reversed and we were chasing 150 to win, 9/10 times we would collapse. The way Amla and Elgar put this behind them and carried on was professionalism personified yet it seemed to rattle our bowlers so much that that they started bowling all over the place.

Is Shan Masood really a better bowler than Yasir? I’m so annoyed with him not bowling sooner

 

[Abdullah719]

Sarfaraz's comments at the presser:

"For me, Azhar Ali took a clear catch and I dont know (why) the 3rd umpire thinks the ball hit the ground first"

"If you talk about other matches and look at the Virat Kohli catch - if the onfield umpire decision is out - for me its a clear catch"

"The umpires said they had more clear videos that's why they gave not out decision"

 

[happydavy]

As most people have stated, he should have been given out as there wasn't anything to overturn the decision. But consideringly how comprehensively SA won, it's difficult to claim that one wrong decision ruined the match for them.

 

[ManFan]

As most people have stated, he should have been given out as there wasn't anything to overturn the decision. But consideringly how comprehensively SA won, it's difficult to claim that one wrong decision ruined the match for them.

But “what if’s” left now.

 

[Banter]

3rd umpire favored SA. How shocking that they favored the home team. Just like the 3rd Umpire did the same thing with Virat's decision.

 

[gazza619]

That was out in my opinion

 

[Hasan123]

Looked out.

 

[rhony]

Happened with Kohli as well. The soft signal should be upheld unless there is a conclusive evidence. 3rd umpires have been bottling up in the last few games.

 

[leg-side-flick]

This thread reminds me of Rohit Sharma dismissal of a No ball in 2015 WC against BD, and the constant whining after that.....

 

[Pete Rose]

That was out in my opinion

At the very least the umpire had to ask for the side on view to see if Azhar fingers were under the ball. And if he didn’t have that view, he should have upheld the field umpires decision

 

[KingKhanWC]

Sky Sports did a great video with Nasser Husain and Bumble showing how photos or videos are not accurate in such sitatuations. You cannot tell on 2D if the ball is under the fingers. So posters on here giving their views are merely guessing.

The umpire's initial signal has to be accepted unless the video replay shows the ball bouncing, not just looking to be touching the grass.

 

[Mr.Q]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.305%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/zh772/xzdiyw" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>.

That’s not out imo.

People are drawing conclusions based on that last frame. The umpire probably overturned the decision based on what he saw just before the completion of the catch. Usually catches at the slip are taken in such a way that you can see the ball smoothly landing in the fielder’s hands. It’s more like collecting the ball than catching it. In this particular example, you can clearly see the ball hitting his fingers and going down. You can also see that his fingers are pointing downwards (ie. not parellel to the ground). From that position it’s very very difficult to catch that ball without some ‘help’ from the grass underneath. He probably had his fingers wrapped around the ball including its sides, which can confuse the casual observer but the umpire was smart enough to not consider it as evidence. Just my opinion.

So if I was the third umpire, I’d have given it not out as well.

 

[KingKhanWC]

That’s not out imo.

People are drawing conclusions based on that last frame. The umpire probably overturned the decision based on what he saw just before the completion of the catch. Usually catches at the slip are taken in such a way that you can see the ball smoothly landing in the fielder’s hands. It’s more like collecting the ball than catching it. In this particular example, you can clearly see the ball hitting his fingers and going down. You can also see that his fingers are pointing downwards (ie. not parellel to the ground). From that position it’s very very difficult to catch that ball without some ‘help’ from the grass underneath. He probably had his fingers wrapped around the ball including its sides, which can confuse the casual observer but the umpire was smart enough to not consider it as evidence. Just my opinion.

So if I was the third umpire, I’d have given it not out as well.

Out of interest do you play cricket at any decent level and have you ever sat in the slips?

 

[Mr.Q]

Out of interest do you play cricket at any decent level and have you ever sat in the slips?

Not anymore. But I used to play cricket at a very decent level.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Not anymore. But I used to play cricket at a very decent level.

If you look at the catch at full speed, it shows the ball was taken a good few inches off the ground. Once you take a catch like this it is highly unlikely you havnt got your fingers under the ball. This usually happens when the ball is 'taken' very close to the ground. The 3rd umpire made a decision with a 2D image when the hands were close to the ground. There is no way he could be sure the ball was touching the grass, so should have stuck with the soft signal.

 

[Ab Fan]

It's not out for me. Conclusive enough to say so.

No issues with the decision for me.

 

[emranabbas]

Not out

 

[Mr.Q]

If you look at the catch at full speed, it shows the ball was taken a good few inches off the ground. Once you take a catch like this it is highly unlikely you havnt got your fingers under the ball. This usually happens when the ball is 'taken' very close to the ground. The 3rd umpire made a decision with a 2D image when the hands were close to the ground. There is no way he could be sure the ball was touching the grass, so should have stuck with the soft signal.

At high speed if the ball hits your fingers like that, 9 out of 10 times it’ll touch the ground. It’s clear from the video it hit the ground.

The third umpire took the decision after seeing the footage. That’s what he’s there for. My opinion is also based on the footage. Nobody (not even Azhar) really knows if that was a clean catch or not. You have to go with the evidence in front of you, which is what the umpire did.

I just stated my opinion. You obviously have a different opinion.

 

[KingKhanWC]

At high speed if the ball hits your fingers like that, 9 out of 10 times it’ll touch the ground. It’s clear from the video it hit the ground.

The third umpire took the decision after seeing the footage. That’s what he’s there for. My opinion is also based on the footage. Nobody (not even Azhar) really knows if that was a clean catch or not. You have to go with the evidence in front of you, which is what the umpire did.

I just stated my opinion. You obviously have a different opinion.

I refer you to my post #70. It's been proven you can never be sure from video or photo if the ball hits the ground. You are only guessing and it's a very weak guess too. You say 9/10 times it would touch the gournd? If you have experience in the slips you'd know if the ball is taken well above the ground, you have your fingers underneath it. If you dont you will drop or just cling on which wasn't the case here.

Sure, we are entilted to our opinions and they are only opinions.

 

[Ab Fan]

The pic shown in the first post obviously makes us wonder if there were really conclusive evidences to overturn this decision. However, I watched that delivery and during the highlights it looked quite apparent to me that the ball had hit the ground in the process of the catch being taken.

 

[Mr.Q]

I refer you to my post #70. It's been proven you can never be sure from video or photo if the ball hits the ground. You are only guessing and it's a very weak guess too. You say 9/10 times it would touch the gournd? If you have experience in the slips you'd know if the ball is taken well above the ground, you have your fingers underneath it. If you dont you will drop or just cling on which wasn't the case here.

Sure, we are entilted to our opinions and they are only opinions.

If you can never be sure from a video, what’s the point of having a third umpire. In certain cases it can be very difficult I agree. Like when you know the fielder’s fingers are underneath the ball but not sure if some part of the ball actually touched the ground before that.

But in this case you can conclude without much doubt that a) it hit the ground b) fingers weren’t completely underneath the ball.

I refer you to my post #71, in which I observe that the ball actually hit his fingers and went down. At the time of initial contact his fingers and the ball were above the ground but it then went down and touched the grass. You can freeze the video to see this.

Let’s just agree to disagree.