[PICTURES/VIDEO] Was Sarfaraz Ahmed given out stumped wrongly?

[MenInG]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/t9vnj8" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[Rana]

Poor decision

But I guess no one will want to fight in his corner

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Looks clumsy to me. He raised his foot by falling over when bails removed.


There's an obvious shadow

 

[Barragan]

Pathetic decision!!

Who are these umpires?

The pcb needs to raise this issue, too many wrong decisions going against Pak when it shouldn't be.

 

[ARK Rafay]

Pathetic decision!!

Who are these umpires?

The pcb needs to raise this issue, too many wrong decisions going against Pak when it shouldn't be.

Ahsan Raza

 

[Varun]

In the first picture - while the bails are flashing (indicating that the keeper has dislodged them), there is still a shadow below Sarfraz's shoe (indicating that it is not grounded). Hence - OUT.

 

[Aman]

Stump cam shows his foot was up.

Even then, his decision earlier was 50-50 too given their was gap between bat and ball and Sarfraz did not review immediately (which suggest he didn't think he hit it).

 

[Hawkeye]

This one is more towards "OUT".

When the bails are dislodged, his foot is in the air. There's a possibility that some spikes might be touching the ground, but it's not really certain.

 

[Hawkeye]

Stump cam shows his foot was up.

Even then, his decision earlier was 50-50 too given their was gap between bat and ball and Sarfraz did not review immediately (which suggest he didn't think he hit it).

The previous LBW was correctly given NOT OUT.

Not all the nicks are noticed by the batters, specially the faintest ones, which it was.

If we're gonna rely on tech to give the stumping as out, then this one was very clearly not out.

 

[Aman]

This one is more towards "OUT".

When the bails are dislodged, his foot is in the air. There's a possibility that some spikes might be touching the ground, but it's not really certain.

Yup, there's no controversy when you see the stump cam and his foot clearly up.

Even Waqar is heard in commentary saying it's out.

 

[Rana]

Yup, there's no controversy when you see the stump cam and his foot clearly up.

Even Waqar is heard in commentary saying it's out.

Waqar is always waiting for Sarfaraz to get out

 

[Seen Sheen]

Stump cam shows his foot was up.

Even then, his decision earlier was 50-50 too given their was gap between bat and ball and Sarfraz did not review immediately (which suggest he didn't think he hit it).

Please don't lie - you can get away with lying if people rely on you for reporting events but in a live broadcast, this is not possible.

Sarfaraz reviewed immediately after umpire raised his finger, go check the live stream; he didn't even consult with Saud.

Also, the stump cam you are talking about, at the point the bails were first dislodged (and hence the first distortion in the image from the stump cam, some part of his foot was still touching the ground). It was only the off side camera angle that showed that there perhaps was nothing grounded.

Ultimately the angle that should have decided in the favour of Sarfaraz was the leg side angle, where you could see that part of left side of his toe was grounded.

 

[Loralai]

He was clearly out. Please read the bold part of Law 39: http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/LAWS/1980_CODE/LAW_39_STUMPED.html

Law 39: Stumped

1. Out Stumped

The Striker shall be out Stumped if, in receiving the ball, not being a no-ball, he is out of his ground otherwise than in attempting a run and the wicket is put down by the Wicket-Keeper without the intervention of another Fieldsman.

2. Action by the Wicket-Keeper

The Wicket-Keeper may take the ball in front of the wicket in an attempt to Stump the Striker only if the ball has touched the bat or person of the Striker.

Notes

(a) Ball Rebounding from Wicket-Keeper's Person
The Striker may be out Stumped if in the circumstances stated in 1. above, the wicket is broken by a ball rebounding from the Wicket-Keeper's person or equipment other than a protective helmet or is kicked or thrown by the Wicket-Keeper on to the wicket.

Therefore there is nothing to complain about here. Sarfraz should have been better balanced and have his foot behind the line given that the ball was so far down legside. Poor game awareness from Sarfraz. You can get away with it at first class level in Pakistan where there is no real awareness of laws but not at international level where opposition has top notch game awareness and will make you pay for little mistakes.

 

[emranabbas]

He was out could have been saved if the Umpire didn't go in to much detail
Regardless sarfaraz played an impacful innings

 

[MenInG]

Video added to post#1

 

[Babeikh]

It was a very tight call - 3rd umpire probably forgot that he would have studs on his shoes which would probably have been grounded at the time the bails came off. Don't think it was out personally but not a 'howler'.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Even a blind man can see it’s out.
The foot is clearly in the air and no part is touching the ground.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

He was clearly out. Please read the bold part of Law 39: http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/LAWS/1980_CODE/LAW_39_STUMPED.html



Therefore there is nothing to complain about here. Sarfraz should have been better balanced and have his foot behind the line given that the ball was so far down legside. Poor game awareness from Sarfraz. You can get away with it at first class level in Pakistan where there is no real awareness of laws but not at international level where opposition has top notch game awareness and will make you pay for little mistakes.

The absolute last thing for a wicket keeper to get out is by getting stumped. It’s like getting the taste of your own medicine.
But as you said, numb brains leading to comical level lack of game awareness is our trademark.

 

[imshally81]

Wrong decision.. Should be in the favour of batsman...

 

[Gilly]

Please don't lie - you can get away with lying if people rely on you for reporting events but in a live broadcast, this is not possible.

Sarfaraz reviewed immediately after umpire raised his finger, go check the live stream; he didn't even consult with Saud.

Also, the stump cam you are talking about, at the point the bails were first dislodged (and hence the first distortion in the image from the stump cam, some part of his foot was still touching the ground). It was only the off side camera angle that showed that there perhaps was nothing grounded.

Ultimately the angle that should have decided in the favour of Sarfaraz was the leg side angle, where you could see that part of left side of his toe was grounded.

The side angle shows that his toe is in front of the crease and not behind the line.

 

[charlie007]

Too much doubt to give that out. Yes, you can see the shadow but the spikes could be touching the ground. This is not a clear cut decision and usually the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman which it didn’t here. Sarfraz got the shorter end of the stick here.

 

[Plumb]

Pathetic Decision... Ahsan Raza and Aleem Dar are making some horrible decisions these days....Not being biased but really poor decision..

 

[badsha001]

there are umpires making great decisions in BBL while we got umpires who are making trashy decisions.

 

[Major]

what did stump cam show? the side vid is not conclusive enough to give out

 

[shamaan]

It was not out.

 

[Nasty Naz]

Wrong or not, it's another going down leg side delivery that should be hit for boundary is instead an out.

So many awful poor outs this way dating back to the England series.

 

[Saj]

Watched it a few times now and I still can't see how the umpire could say that was definitely out.

 

[charlie007]

Now I don't want to open a can of worms here, but I have seen that the local umpires sometimes give those what they think are marginal decisions to the visiting side to not appear biased towards the home side. I strongly believe if this was a visitor batsman the umpire would have given him not out and nobody would bat an eyelid.

 

[TheSultan]

In the old school days it would be benefit of doubt to the batsmen.

I have said numerous times that on flat tracks the umpires should favour the bowling side a bit more on marginal calls to get games moving. So in that sense I can’t complain about this.

However, that type of thinking should be applied across the board and I very much doubt Ahsan was thinking along those lines.

 

[Kroll]

Yes, it should have been not out or not even reviewed. It's obvious, it was to pacify the Kiwis who felt hard done by minutes earlier with a LBW decision going against them on review.

 

[BreadPakoda]

what did stump cam show? the side vid is not conclusive enough to give out

Haven’t watched the stump cam version but looks not out from the side angle.

 

[KhanNn]

Stump cam made me think out to be honest. It was more clearer

 

[Savak]

This wicket changed the momentum of the innings.

 

[SentOff]

The side angle shows that his toe is in front of the crease and not behind the line.

What? The rule is that any grounded part of the foot/body/bat has to be behind the line. Not that no part of the foot can be past the line (in the out territory).

So what if some of his toe is in front of the crease and not behind the line? It's still not out because his spikes behind the line are touching the ground.

 

[SentOff]

Very bad decision. From these angles, not only is there no conclusive evidence that it is out but he actually looks not out. Pakistani umpires these days terrible.

 

[Snowflake]

From the sideview; you cannot give that out.

Can anyone post the stump cam vid/screenshot?

 

[Snowflake]

Very bad decision. From these angles, not only is there no conclusive evidence that it is out but he actually looks not out. Pakistani umpires these days terrible.

Trying too hard to come across as impartial.

 

[Seen Sheen]

From the sideview; you cannot give that out.

Can anyone post the stump cam vid/screenshot?

This is the instance when the stump camera first gave the distorted picture, meaning that this is when the bails were first dislodged. You can see that at this point, the part of the foot is still touching the ground.

The 3rd umpire as well as the comm box saw the next frame as the point the bails were dislodged and at that point the foot had left the ground.

 

[TheSultan]

Yes, it should have been not out or not even reviewed. It's obvious, it was to pacify the Kiwis who felt hard done by minutes earlier with a LBW decision going against them on review.

Surely not, the kiwis can’t feel hard done by the earlier decision, it was a clear spike!

But I can believe our umpires always trying that much harder to show their “impartiality”

 

[Ryw]

Pathetic decision from 3rd umpire, plz sack him for this blunder, job failed.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

clearly looks not out to me. You can see his spikes in the ground! How can you give that out.

 

[Kroll]

Surely not, the kiwis can’t feel hard done by the earlier decision, it was a clear spike!

But I can believe our umpires always trying that much harder to show their “impartiality”

The way Mitchell was acting even after the spike indicated he thought there was some skulduggery going on with the footage.

Regardless I have no doubts this earlier review influenced their decision. If that never happened, no way was he getting ruled out on that evidence.

 

[Wristy_Shuffler]

Not out. Not even case of benefit of doubt going to batsman, it was just not out, clearly. Terrible decision, it changed the state of the game entirely.

 

[PakLFC]

Different angles and pics suggest different views. The shadow does suggest the boot is in the air where as the other pic shows the foot being firmly grounded. I would have given it as not out.