[PICTURES] Moeen Ali stumping controversy during the first Ashes Test

[Titan24]

Whats up with so thick crease lines especially in the playing part of the pitch which seems thicker than the sides. Moeen Ali's foot might have been within the crease in most of the other grounds I think.

 

[Lefthanded]

Stump-cam should've introduced doubt in Aleem Dar's mind and given it to the batsman. Terrible decision.

 

[kingusama92]

Stump-cam should've introduced doubt in Aleem Dar's mind and given it to the batsman. Terrible decision.

3rd umpire is Gaffaney.

And it looked out tbh.

 

[Big Mac]

Aussies cheating with the wobbly crease

 

[R0H1T]

Aussies cheating with the wobbly crease

Yup, the line is stupidly wide to begin with, it;s even wider on the pitch, probably 2 or 3 inches if not more at the crease. #chittingtramline

 

[Lefthanded]

These aren't stump cam images.

 

[Titan24]

Whats up with so thick crease lines especially in the playing part of the pitch which seems thicker than the sides. Moeen Ali's foot might have been within the crease in most of the other grounds I think.

Michael Vaughan also talking about the thickness of the crease.

If on the line is out then there should be some sort of standard set by ICC about how thick can a crease be.

 

[Gilly]

Michael Vaughan also talking about the thickness of the crease.

If on the line is out then there should be some sort of standard set by ICC about how thick can a crease be.

The thickness of the crease line is so irrelevant, you just need to have some part of your foot behind the line. Even if the line was two foot thick the rule would be exactly the same, you need to have some part of your foot behind the line. The thickness of the line makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

 

[Big Mac]

Michael Vaughan also talking about the thickness of the crease.

If on the line is out then there should be some sort of standard set by ICC about how thick can a crease be.

It's not like the line moved after the ball was released. Yeah it's thicker than normal and it's not straight but it's still up the batsman to make sure he's behind it.

 

[Bilal7]

It's not like the line moved after the ball was released. Yeah it's thicker than normal and it's not straight but it's still up the batsman to make sure he's behind it.

Apparently they repainted the line after the fact so there was definitely something wrong with it.

 

[R0H1T]

The thickness of the crease line is so irrelevant, you just need to have some part of your foot behind the line. Even if the line was two foot thick the rule would be exactly the same, you need to have some part of your foot behind the line. The thickness of the line makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

For times when is just not enough

For your statement to make any sense, the length of the pitch, distance from the crease, of stumps, & a whole host of other things would have to change! You think making a crease that wide has no ramifications? Just try telling that to the bowlers & see how many legal deliveries they can bowl, it;s the same for batters i.e. totally unfair!

 

[Big Mac]

For times when is just not enough

For your statement to make any sense, the length of the pitch, distance from the crease, of stumps, & a whole host of other things would have to change! You think making a crease that wide has no ramifications? Just try telling that to the bowlers & see how many legal deliveries they can bowl, it;s the same for batters i.e. totally unfair!

As long as the back of the crease is in the right spot, it doesn't matter how fat it is. It could be a metre wide but the batsman still needs to have something grounded behind it.

 

[Bilal7]

For times when is just not enough

For your statement to make any sense, the length of the pitch, distance from the crease, of stumps, & a whole host of other things would have to change! You think making a crease that wide has no ramifications? Just try telling that to the bowlers & see how many legal deliveries they can bowl, it;s the same for batters i.e. totally unfair!

When batsmen are used to a thinner crease line, batting on a pitch with a crease that is much thicker can definitely mess with your head. Moeen would have been in if the crease was not abnormal, which is why it was a harsh call.

The fact that they had to repaint it after shows that everyone thought it was off.

 

[asadee]

Why is everyone crying the same crease must have been used when Aus batted

 

[R0H1T]

As long as the back of the crease is in the right spot, it doesn't matter how fat it is. It could be a metre wide but the batsman still needs to have something grounded behind it.

Again going hyperbole to make a point is, pointless. Sure we're talking inches over here but that also makes a difference in the finer margins of the game, run outs/edges/no balls et al. If we're standardizing everything then surely the crease should be of standard thicknesses around the world, you can't have a crease line two feet or a metre wide & just assume everything will fall into place!

Why is everyone crying the same crease must have been used when Aus batted

Oh the standard PPer reply ~ everyone's crying, pathetic!

 

[WengerOut]

Dunno what the big fuss is about. There should be something behind the line regardless of thickness. Simple

 

[wrongun]

If you don't want to be out stumped, get your foot BEHIND the line. Vaughan and co had the chance for a pitch inspection, why no mention that the line was 1cm thicker (note, thicker, not SHORTER) before play?

England tail looking very limp. Lyon looking a class above Moeen could be the difference here, vital breakthroughs they were.

 

[kingusama92]

Again going hyperbole to make a point is, pointless. Sure we're talking inches over here but that also makes a difference in the finer margins of the game, run outs/edges/no balls et al. If we're standardizing everything then surely the crease should be of standard thicknesses around the world, you can't have a crease line two feet or a metre wide & just assume everything will fall into place!Oh the standard PPer reply ~ everyone's crying, pathetic!

Standardization is applied to a single match (both teams play with the same crease).

A set regulation cannot be applied to crease lines because of ground conditions. Some grounds require a thicker line due to how the pitch is marked up otherwise it can't be seen properly.

They used to go with a thinner line in the subcontinent but it would disappear after 40 overs. The guy would rush in and repaint it, which was a waste of time for everyone.

 

[HitWicket]

If you don't want to be out stumped, get your foot BEHIND the line. Vaughan and co had the chance for a pitch inspection, why no mention that the line was 1cm thicker (note, thicker, not SHORTER) before play?

Worth noting the line would've been painted at lunch and possibly at drinks. The groundstaff evidently felt there was an issue with it though as they ran out to do some paintwork after seeing the third umpire footage.

 

[Big Mac]

Again going hyperbole to make a point is, pointless. Sure we're talking inches over here but that also makes a difference in the finer margins of the game, run outs/edges/no balls et al. If we're standardizing everything then surely the crease should be of standard thicknesses around the world, you can't have a crease line two feet or a metre wide & just assume everything will fall into place!

Not really, the only part of the line that matters is where it begins. The crease can be painted with a brush an inch wide or one a metre wide, it makes literally no difference as to how a stumping or a no-ball is called.

Why?

Your foot has to be behind the line, not on the line, therefore the thickness doesn't matter.

 

[R0H1T]

Standardization is applied to a single match (both teams play with the same crease).

A set regulation cannot be applied to crease lines because of ground conditions. Some grounds require a thicker line due to how the pitch is marked up otherwise it can't be seen properly.

They used to go with a thinner line in the subcontinent but it would disappear after 40 overs. The guy would rush in and repaint it, which was a waste of time for everyone.

Actually I;ve seen the crease lines being (re)painted between change of innings or at times during the lunch/tea breaks & at certain grounds the staff also used rulers, so that the paint would not spill over much to the other side. Considering this it seemed like a poorly executed menial work, nothing malicious atm but something that the ICC needs to have a closer look at, real close.

 

[wrongun]

All these crease experts!

The line looks wobbly because the crease area gets worn down during play & ends up at varying heights (you often see groundsmen out after wickets or at drinking working on the crease area). So any line drawn on that uneven ground is going to appear wobbly, due to depth perception and having to follow the course of the ground.

Nothing odd about it at all. Regularly see creases repainted after a stumping wicket due to all the scuffing.

Bottom line is- there was a line, he wasn't behind it.

 

[R0H1T]

So we now have armchair experts on the physics of optical illusion, on this board, nice!

 

[Big Mac]

Bottom line is- there was a line, he wasn't behind it.

This is the only part that matters.

 

[wrongun]

So we now have armchair experts on the physics of optical illusion, on this board, nice!
View attachment 77272

Well, is anyone here NOT an armchair expert? Welcome to the club.

How could a line drawn across bumpy ground possibly APPEAR straight? It can't, not if you draw it directly across the surface. The only place we would need your theoretical armchair optical illusion physics expert (which is it now?) would be to calculate the perspective & adjustments needed to draw a line that APPEARED straight from that angle.

 

[R0H1T]

Well, is anyone here NOT an armchair expert? Welcome to the club.

How could a line drawn across bumpy ground possibly APPEAR straight? It can't, not if you draw it directly across the surface. The only place we would need your theoretical armchair optical illusion physics expert (which is it now?) would be to calculate the perspective & adjustments needed to draw a line that APPEARED straight from that angle.

I dunno how about a still of the bowler's popping crease, I saw a straighter line there?

Oh come on, you;re reaching that far? Even in Aus I've seen straighter lines.

 

[wrongun]

I dunno how about a still of the bowler's popping crease, I saw a straighter line there?

Oh come on, you;re reaching that far? Even in Aus I've seen straighter lines.

Ok, they should hire you to draw straight lines on uneven surfaces without a hint of wobble. Draw them nice & thin mind!

Then we should blame the lines again, not the batsman who didn't get his foot behind it.

 

[Aman]

Does it matter? Ali's dismissal will have zero bearing on the result.

 

[R0H1T]

Ok, they should hire you to draw straight lines on uneven surfaces without a hint of wobble. Draw them nice & thin mind!

Then we should blame the lines again, not the batsman who didn't get his foot behind it.

There's lots of ways to make sure that the lines don;t go nuts on the pitch, plastic paint/oil paint & other (viscous paints) that don;t expand as much as supposedly this one did.

As for optical illusion, check the last one, via twitter ~

 

[wrongun]

There's lots of ways to make sure that the lines don;t go nuts on the pitch, plastic paint/oil paint & other (viscous paints) that don;t expand as much as supposedly this one did.

As for optical illusion, check the last one, via twitter ~

View attachment 77276

The last picture just illustrates my point that due to the dip in the pitch caused by wear at the crease, the line APPEARS to bend back as the ground falls away. Putting a 2 dimensional line is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that he didn't get his foot behind the line on the ground, not behind a 2 dimensional line drawn over the top of a depression.

 

[Aman]

[MENTION=83349]R0H1T[/MENTION] drop it... it has zero bearing on the result. Aus are going walk this.

 

[R0H1T]

The last picture just illustrates my point that due to the dip in the pitch caused by wear at the crease, the line APPEARS to bend back as the ground falls away. Putting a 2 dimensional line is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that he didn't get his foot behind the line on the ground, not behind a 2 dimensional line drawn over the top of a depression.

How, the different elevation level doesn;t make up for the fact that the line deviates right, slightly, coming from the top. This can only happen when there;s (slightly) exaggerated elevation on the plane, the footholes (depression) would make it seem as if the line is moving to the left i.e away from you. This isn;t what happens here, also taking your theory shouldn;t it be clear that the benefit of doubt goes to the batter?

 

[kingusama92]

Does the stumping really matter if AUS chases this without losing a wicket?

 

[R0H1T]

[MENTION=83349]R0H1T[/MENTION] drop it... it has zero bearing on the result. Aus are going walk this.

Whoops missed you, anyway the point has been made, it;s not a straight line & the benefit of the doubt ought to have gone to the batter!

 

[wrongun]

Whoops missed you, anyway the point has been made, it;s not a straight line & the benefit of the doubt ought to have gone to the batter!

Where is benefit of doubt in the laws of cricket? Please show me?
3rd umpire decided it was out, clearly nothing back behind the line (not his job to debate line quality, just to rule on what he sees) so he gave it out. Mountain out of molehill springs to mind.

 

[MenInG]

[PICTURE] Moeen Ali stumping controversy during the first Ashes Test

From Bodyline to Wobblyline.

A contentious stumping decision in the first Ashes Test in Brisbane on Sunday has rocked England, divided cricket greats and created controversy over the Gabba crease.

A day after Steve Smith survived "modern-era Bodyline" from England, Tim Paine's stumping of Moeen Ali off Nathan Lyon sparked claims the Gabba crease wasn't painted straight.

Third umpire Chris Gaffaney gave Moeen out for 40 after quick work by Paine despite replays indicating the allrounder's heel may have snuck behind the crease.

While the likes of former players Michael Clarke and Shane Warne butted heads over the decision, social media erupted over the crease with still shots of Moeen's dismissal indicating the line was inconsistent.

Some complained the line was not straight or thicker where the batsman stood.

However, the seemingly irregular crease line appeared to be an optical illusion thanks to a huge divot at that end created by Australian quick Mitchell Starc.

"If I was bowling I would want it to be out. It depends on what angle you look at it from but you have to respect the umpire's call," Moeen said.

"I thought I was alright personally. The replay did look very tight."

Asked about the crease line's perceived varying thickness, Moeen said: "It's what happens in cricket. I was more disappointed with the time when I got out.

"I was over it straight away."

Australian wicketkeeper Tim Paine was adamant there was paint behind Moeen Ali's foot after he stumped him in the first Ashes Test.

Not surprisingly recalled 'keeper Paine was convinced he had snatched just his second Test stumping and first since 2010.

"Definitely. We could see paint behind his foot. It was hard to tell - I haven't seen the replays up close but certainly out there live, we knew we had him," he told ABC Grandstand.

Former England captain Michael Vaughan said the right call had been made but still managed to back the conspiracy theories.

"It was fair, it was a very tight one but we had it out (in the commentary box)," he said.

"(But) we also reckon it is the thickest crease line that we have ever seen."

Moeen's dismissal was a hammer blow for England who were bowled out for 195 on day four, setting Australia a victory target of 170.

Australia were 0-114 at stumps on day four.

Former Australian captain Clarke believed the call should have gone the way of Moeen who was stumped for the first time in his Test career.

"I disagree with that decision. I thought he had something just behind the line and I thought the benefit of the doubt had to go to the batsmen," he said.

Warne disagreed.

"There is not enough reason to do anything other than give that out," he said.

"I don't think he had anything behind the line whatsoever."

It was Paine's first Test stumping since catching Pakistan's Salman Butt short off Marcus North at Lord's in 2010.

The fine work made up for Paine's missed regulation catch off Lyon in England's first innings.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/11/26/14/40/contentious-paine-stumping-rocks-england

 

[shariqnoor]

I saw it live and thought that was out clearly. Still feel it's out. Can't see anything behind the crease. However must say that that's the thickest crease line I've ever seen.

 

[Gilly]

Its a good distraction for England, other than that its a non event.

 

[Madplayer]

As long as the back of the crease is in the right spot, it doesn't matter how fat it is. It could be a metre wide but the batsman still needs to have something grounded behind it.

It does matter in terms of how the batsman adjusts at the crease.

 

[Hasan123]

He's out. Moen brigade need to stop crying.

 

[Abdullah719]

He's out. Moen brigade need to stop crying.

Moeen brigade such as Michael Clarke?

Former Australian captain Clarke believed the call should have gone the way of Moeen who was stumped for the first time in his Test career.

"I disagree with that decision. I thought he had something just behind the line and I thought the benefit of the doubt had to go to the batsmen," he said.

It's a valid discussion.

 

[Hasan123]

Moeen brigade such as Michael Clarke?



It's a valid discussion.

People can have their opinion but it's been given out and I don't think Moen would have been able to prevent the defeat.

Most people are defending him for non cricketing reasons anyway.

 

[Sherlock]

I think this will be the least controversial incident during the Test.

I'm looking in your direction Bairstow

 

[wrongun]

Nathan Lyon & Paine got together & hatched a plan that Moeen batted within 5mm of his crease, therefore if they could just bribe the groundsman to paint 6mm thicker, they could remove the renowned England superbat.

Of course, all this conjecture is short sighted fixation on the width of the line. Not seeing the first for the trees. The ONLY real value is in the distance from the back of the line to the stumps- you know, the one mandated in the laws of the game. Otherwise it can be as thick as it wants.

The line is drawn, the batsman can see it, it's not hidden, it's not a surprise, Moeen can look down & see where the back of the line is at any time. In fact- there is footage of him taking his guard there so he clearly knew the boundaries of the game, same as every field has different boundaries & ropes & such & all the players can see them.

 

[dravidthewall]

Clear not out.that change the course of the match.

 

[Bewal Express]

Does the stumping really matter if AUS chases this without losing a wicket?

Because different scores bring different pressures.

 

[Bilal7]

The one person least concerned with this controversy is Moeen Ali himself. The commies were right when they said he wasn't going to whine about it at all.

 

[Mamoon]

It is the type of decision that if it goes against you, you will feel hard done by. Moeen could have been given the benefit of doubt, but I don't think it had any implications on the outcome of the match.

People need to move on, especially those who have sworn an oath to defend his honor no matter what.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

That's out. There's nothing behind the line. However, sometimes i've seen umpires give the benefit to the batsmen. When we toured Australia i remember Symonds being given not out when Dhoni clearl had him short of his crease and that was much more decisive for the match and the series. This wouldn't have made any difference either way.

 

[CricFan2012]

was a 50/50 and he isn't hard done by the decision

 

[Big Mac]

It does matter in terms of how the batsman adjusts at the crease.

Unless it the batsman is an idiot who doesn't understand the rules of cricket, no it doesn't.

Which area is the 'safe' zone for the batsman? The area behind the crease.

If the back edge of the crease is painted in the right spot, the amount of paint in front of that area is irrelevant because it doesn't change the area behind the crease.

 

[htariq25]

In future the line should be made less thick but on this occasion the right decision has been made. At the end of the day both teams have to deal with this thick line. Also it would make no difference to the result of the test as England would have lost anyway.

 

[squarecut]

He was out fair and square. If some English fans are crying over this decision then it shows the lack of fighting spirit in the English team. What were the other batsmen in the side doing ? Why they did not score runs. None of them were given out stumped. Even then England managed to lose their last four wickets without a fight. On the other hand, Australian lower order put price on their wickets and added invaluable runs for their side.

Based on temperament, Australia have shown themselves to be far superior to England and they will be worthy winners of this match sometime tomorrow. as for English fans, they can clutch on to this straw as much as they want. It will not matter.

 

[aloo paratha]

What's the controversy? It's clearly out.

 

[Lefthanded]

Moeen was stumped with the a thicker line than may have been thinner when Oz were batting. Moeen could've double his score or got a hundred to put Oz under pressure. This final target wasn't sufficient, even if the pundits like Michael Vaughan thought 180 was defendable.

So, a tight decision cost England the possibility of a competitive 4th innings and maybe victory.

I'm not convinced that Moeen would've played a match winning knock, but his tight dismissal led to a collapse and imminent defeat.

Even if Moeen was hard done by [and I think he was], Australia are the better team and deserve to win.

If England can't win at Adelaide, England can't win the last three Test Match. Maybe one with Ben Stokes if he comes back.

 

[Mamoon]

The band of whingers should listen to what Moeen had to say on this so-called controversy.

 

[GrandMaster]

The thickness of the crease line is so irrelevant, you just need to have some part of your foot behind the line. Even if the line was two foot thick the rule would be exactly the same, you need to have some part of your foot behind the line. The thickness of the line makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

If the thickness of the crease line would have been appropriate, it would have been a straightforward decision - NOT OUT.

 

[Professor]

People can have their opinion but it's been given out and I don't think Moen would have been able to prevent the defeat.

Most people are defending him for non cricketing reasons anyway.

Hey, [MENTION=83349]R0H1T[/MENTION] what non-cricketing reason are you defending Moeen Ali for? I also wonder what non-cricketing reason Clarke has?

 

[IAJ]

Not really, the only part of the line that matters is where it begins. The crease can be painted with a brush an inch wide or one a metre wide, it makes literally no difference as to how a stumping or a no-ball is called.

Why?

Your foot has to be behind the line, not on the line, therefore the thickness doesn't matter.

I partially agree with your post, no matter how broad the line is you have to be behind it. But why is the line broader at the crease, almost bending towards stumps? If it was a straight line following from one end to another he would have been saved, but if the whole line was like that on the playing area he would have been out.

Anyways his foot is on the line and is out.

 

[BaankeJi]

If the thickness of the crease line would have been appropriate, it would have been a straightforward decision - NOT OUT.

Thickness of the line would matter only if thickness was modified during the course of the match. If it was modified during the game, then where was the thickness added - outer part or inner part. If later, only then it will have an impact.

 

[savecricket]

Agree the line looks way too wide but I'm afraid it's out. Moeen was aware of the line so it's his fault for not keeping his foot behind it. Good piece of bowling from Lyon and glove work from Pain. Move on lads

 

[R0H1T]

Hey, [MENTION=83349]R0H1T[/MENTION] what non-cricketing reason are you defending Moeen Ali for? I also wonder what non-cricketing reason Clarke has?

Why would I defend him for anything other than gross incompetence, by the ground staff & to a lesser extent TV umpire? Anyway he didn't try to drag his foot back, that bit's his own fault.

 

[Bilal7]

Why would I defend him for anything other than gross incompetence, by the ground staff & to a lesser extent TV umpire? Anyway he didn't try to drag his foot back, that bit's his own fault.

It's done now. No point in debating this any more, especially when Moeen Ali himself hasn't made an issue about it.

 

[Pete Rose]

I dont know if anyone noticed, but after dismissal they had a camera view from fine leg (or maybe it was short third-man) that seemed to be show a bit of his foot behind the line.