What's new

[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Did Suryakumar Yadav touch the boundary rope while taking the catch to dismiss South Africa's David Miller?

Did Suryakumar Yadav touch the boundary rope while taking the catch to dismiss South Africa's David

  • Total voters
    93
Ok even if he touched, who cares? India won. No way miller has capability to do anything in icc finals. Chokers will be chokers. Only worse is pakistan
 
Saw the video over and over again and I can say I don't see the rope move. It's a ligit catch. But the boundary line seems to be back than it's original position as per the FB pics I am seeing. This is not India or ICC conspiracy. This happened before, boundary line might have moved while the fielding team slide to save a 4 and it was not placed correctly.

I have seen this in another match too where something could have been 6 but fielder got advantage because of boundary line was not fixed. ICC should ensure 4th umpire is always checking this and ensuring it is fixed
 
Dhakar Pola said:
Saw the video over and over again and I can say I don't see the rope move. It's a ligit catch. But the boundary line seems to be back than it's original position as per the FB pics I am seeing. This is not India or ICC conspiracy. This happened before, boundary line might have moved while the fielding team slide to save a 4 and it was not placed correctly.

I have seen this in another match too where something could have been 6 but fielder got advantage because of boundary line was not fixed. ICC should ensure 4th umpire is always checking this and ensuring it is fixed
Click to expand...

They have different pitches. Every time they move to a different pitch rope moves. Marks cannot be erased.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
They have different pitches. Every time they move to a different pitch rope moves. Marks cannot be erased.
Click to expand...
Thats an interesting point, but in that case why is there only one mark?, there would be different marks for different pitches right as marks cannot be erased, I always see one mark although I am seeing from TV so there might be marks that I cant notice watching from home
 
Dhakar Pola said:
Thats an interesting point, but in that case why is there only one mark?, there would be different marks for different pitches right as marks cannot be erased, I always see one mark although I am seeing from TV so there might be marks that I cant notice watching from home
Click to expand...
They have just one mark. They don't mark every time they change pitch. That is why boundary curtains are used.
 
pillionrider said:
I looked up twitter to see the meltdown and the first result I got was some Indian-origin looking dude from SA screaming about cushions being moved. The next top result was some Bangladeshi dude in Dhaka :dhoni
Click to expand...

What cushions, doesn't matter if the whole stadium moved. News is that the big bully had everything in control.

The third umpire had already suffered relegation from the field umpire to third umpire. He wasn't going to risk his job.

Btw, was Imran Khan tested? What about Fazal Mahmood?
 
IMMY69 said:
I'm not a fan of his shaheen's bowling, he's one dimensional and often gets taken to the cleaners... he has to start delivering consistently sooner rather than laters.

Regarding his action, it's quite clear that it's a flick of his wrist...his arm is never bent at any point during his action. So I don't see the comparison...

On the other hand, I was shocked when Hasnain was called and had to be tested. His action never looked dodgy to me but I stood corrected... he clearly did bend his arm when bowling the short delivery...
Click to expand...
If you were shocked to be see Hasnain called, them clearly problem is with your eyes.
 
RedwoodOriginal said:
Let it go. Nobody cares. India won the WC. Move on.
Click to expand...

I'm moving on simply because they outnumber everyone in terms of trolls and they ignore the context of a post and stick to misinformation.

I don't want a reply from anyone on this but I myself don't give two hoots about the boundary line, doctored or not, the line is not why came to this thread. I saw a divet or movement as his left leg got close to the boundary...
that was from Sky TV's coverage and it was worth asking the question...
 
Runner Up said:
In my opinion, India had lost the match when South Africa needed 24 runs off 24 balls and Klassen was well settled. Suddenly, clever Pant appeared, needing a physician for his knee injury, whether deliberate or real. This broke the momentum of the match. Had they continued without any break, South Africa would have had a bright chance. After the much-needed break, Klassen got out the next ball. That was the turning point
Click to expand...
It was classic Choke. They saw the finishing line and they collapsed
 
Bhaijaan said:
To be honest I too felt we got away with it quickly. The TV umpire wasn’t interested in seeing multiple and conclusive angles of it.

That being said, it was one hell of a come back from India after RSA got themselves into 29 from 29 situation. They deserved that much luck I guess.
Click to expand...
At least there is an honest Indian going around. India deserved a World Cup win. The suspicions don't take that away. There are actual honest fans out there who can question it a bit without being made out to be sore losers. Everyone who has watched a modern cricket game should know how quick this review was done with.
 
Bhaijaan said:
To be honest I too felt we got away with it quickly. The TV umpire wasn’t interested in seeing multiple and conclusive angles of it.

That being said, it was one hell of a come back from India after RSA got themselves into 29 from 29 situation. They deserved that much luck I guess.
Click to expand...

This entire tournament, third umps have made decisions really quickly. I guess its been communicated to them. I forgot which instances but there were two other match turning scenarios, where the ump took a look at a few replays and then decided . They didnt mull over it for too long

I personally saw one angle where the foot was very close. But there were two better angles when the toblerone didnt move at all. I think it was a clean catch. At that speed Sky was running at, even a gentle touch would result in a big movement
 
A little bit of science goes a long way here. Some people actually don't realise how even a small lateral contact at that speed will move the toblerone out of its place. It would have moved by feet not even inches if he touched it side ways. And if you say it was vertical contact and he stepped on it, it would be been visible. If you wanna see conspiracy in everything, you will see one. See from the top angle, his foot was never that close to the rope when he first caught the ball and was getting closer to the toblerone. He was like 10cm away and then jumped over and came back in.
 
That was out but means my friends don’t think this law is right in most other sport if the ball is over the line then it is out or it become dead or whatever it is for that sport, we think it should always be a six and players going over the boundary and coming back to catch the ball
 
So the Whole South African team current players, ex-players, other cricketers, ex-cricketers like Nasser, Atherton, Pakistani ex-cricketers like Misbah, Malik, Wasim etc and all the reporters and TV Shows being ran in Pakistan... None of them has raised an iota of doubt about Surya's catch.
BCCI must be one hell of a bully that all these guys are not speaking a word against them lol.
 
sajad said:
That was out but means my friends don’t think this law is right in most other sport if the ball is over the line then it is out or it become dead or whatever it is for that sport, we think it should always be a six and players going over the boundary and coming back to catch the ball
Click to expand...
Read the laws of cricket then. It is as per law...So many catches have been taken like that.
 
It does not even matter anymore. India has the World cup now, and it is not like Surya's catch was the moment when SA choked, their choked started when Klassen threw away his wicket. Surya catch's was given out way too fast that is why it created a doubt in many minds.
 
BouncerGuy said:
It does not even matter anymore. India has the World cup now, and it is not like Surya's catch was the moment when SA choked, their choked started when Klassen threw away his wicket. Surya catch's was given out way too fast that is why it created a doubt in many minds.
Click to expand...
He asked for another angle. He got it. He can take 2 days. He is not going to come with different conclusion as it doesn't show anything.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
He asked for another angle. He got it. He can take 2 days. He is not going to come with different conclusion as it doesn't show anything.
Click to expand...
many people have posted zoomed photos and videos and compared them with real time footages. That created doubts in their minds.

Nothing is going to change now though.
 
IF ICC Rule 19.5.2 was properly applied Miller was not out and a 6 should have been awarded.

ICC Rule 19.5.2 states that "A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary."

If a fielder is outside the field of play and re-enters, until the fielder grounds his foot (or even just touches the ground) within the field of play he is seemed to be outside.

None of the camera angles is patently obvious about whether Yadav touched the boundary rope. However, he clearly effects the catch before his foot lands back in the field of play. In terms of Rule 19.5.2 he is deemed to be outside the rope and it is a six. No arguments. No speculation. If you look at the running video footage of the moment that he first touches the ball his foot is still 20cm above the ground. At the moment that the ball is firmly in his hands, he has still not touched the ground. Regardless of any benefit that should go to the batsmen if MUST be a six.


Freeze frames at 19:21 and 19:45 (with a bit of juggling of the pause button it can be clearly seen)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-07-02 at 16.26.49.png
    Screenshot 2024-07-02 at 16.26.49.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 27
Just not cricket said:
IF ICC Rule 19.5.2 was properly applied Miller was not out and a 6 should have been awarded.

ICC Rule 19.5.2 states that "A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary."

If a fielder is outside the field of play and re-enters, until the fielder grounds his foot (or even just touches the ground) within the field of play he is seemed to be outside.

None of the camera angles is patently obvious about whether Yadav touched the boundary rope. However, he clearly effects the catch before his foot lands back in the field of play. In terms of Rule 19.5.2 he is deemed to be outside the rope and it is a six. No arguments. No speculation. If you look at the running video footage of the moment that he first touches the ball his foot is still 20cm above the ground. At the moment that the ball is firmly in his hands, he has still not touched the ground. Regardless of any benefit that should go to the batsmen if MUST be a six.


Freeze frames at 19:21 and 19:45 (with a bit of juggling of the pause button it can be clearly seen)
Click to expand...

I think that catch was not conclusive and benefit of doubt should've gone to batter.
 
"The catch was fine. The cushion had moved, but that's in the course of the game. It had nothing to do with Surya. He didn't stand on the cushion. Brilliant bit of skill," Pollock said in an interview.

www.indiatoday.in

Shaun Pollock shuts down noise around Suryakumar Yadav catch: Brilliant bit of skill

T20 World Cup: Suryakumar Yadav took a brilliant catch to dismiss David Miller in the final against Aiden Markram’s South Africa at the Kensington Oval in Bridgetown, Barbados.
www.indiatoday.in www.indiatoday.in
=====

haha I’m so enjoying the meltdown of a certain poster. Clearly not a cricket fan though.
 
mominsaigol said:
No he didn't. It was a clean catch
Click to expand...
According to ICC Rule 19.5.2 this was DEFINITELY NOT OUT and a SIX should have been awarded.
BouncerGuy said:
Suryakumar Yadav played a crucial role in India’s T20 World Cup victory by making a remarkable boundary catch during the final over of South Africa’s innings in Bridgetown. However, some observant viewers identified a possible reason why the critical wicket should have been disallowed.

Suryakumar Yadav, positioned at long-off, ran towards the ball, tossed it into the air before crossing the boundary line, and then returned to the field to complete the catch.

Some argue that Yadav’s foot touched the boundary rope while he was in contact with the ball, which would make it a six according to the laws of cricket. However, the third umpire, Richard Kettleborough, after reviewing the replays, awarded the wicket to India.

Here are some pictures and videos for all of you to decide on:

40w2SUi.png


View attachment 144924View attachment 144923

“Do you believe Suryakumar Yadav’s boundary catch in the final over of the T20 World Cup was within the laws of cricket, or do you think it should have been ruled as a six?​
Click to expand...
 
BouncerGuy said:

40w2SUi.png



“Do you believe Suryakumar Yadav’s boundary catch in the final over of the T20 World Cup was within the laws of cricket, or do you think it should have been ruled as a six?​
Click to expand...

First picture shows his boot was possibly touching the rope. It can't be determined from this angle.

This picture alone shows why that should've been a six since it was inconclusive.
 
globetrotter said:
How many of you thinks Jay shah moved boundary rope with remote in his hand when SKY took that catch?
Click to expand...
Jay Shah tampered with the replay provided to 3rd umpire clearly. In real time you can see a Mexican wave along the Toblerone due to SKY landing squarely on it head first.
 
Just not cricket said:
IF ICC Rule 19.5.2 was properly applied Miller was not out and a 6 should have been awarded.

ICC Rule 19.5.2 states that "A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary."

If a fielder is outside the field of play and re-enters, until the fielder grounds his foot (or even just touches the ground) within the field of play he is seemed to be outside.

None of the camera angles is patently obvious about whether Yadav touched the boundary rope. However, he clearly effects the catch before his foot lands back in the field of play. In terms of Rule 19.5.2 he is deemed to be outside the rope and it is a six. No arguments. No speculation. If you look at the running video footage of the moment that he first touches the ball his foot is still 20cm above the ground. At the moment that the ball is firmly in his hands, he has still not touched the ground. Regardless of any benefit that should go to the batsmen if MUST be a six.
Click to expand...

You are reading the rule incorrectly. This doesnt apply on the relay throw back. This was the first contact with the ball when Surya took the catch the first time on the ground

It's all the part of the same catch attempt
 
Just not cricket said:
IF ICC Rule 19.5.2 was properly applied Miller was not out and a 6 should have been awarded.

ICC Rule 19.5.2 states that "A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary."

If a fielder is outside the field of play and re-enters, until the fielder grounds his foot (or even just touches the ground) within the field of play he is seemed to be outside.

None of the camera angles is patently obvious about whether Yadav touched the boundary rope. However, he clearly effects the catch before his foot lands back in the field of play. In terms of Rule 19.5.2 he is deemed to be outside the rope and it is a six. No arguments. No speculation. If you look at the running video footage of the moment that he first touches the ball his foot is still 20cm above the ground. At the moment that the ball is firmly in his hands, he has still not touched the ground. Regardless of any benefit that should go to the batsmen if MUST be a six.


Freeze frames at 19:21 and 19:45 (with a bit of juggling of the pause button it can be clearly seen)
Click to expand...
.Feel well dude. There are lot of extracurricular activities that can help you deal with disappointments.
 
nish_mate said:
Loving it, SA not complaining because allegedly their IPL contracts at stake, a few Pakistanis questioning and trolling because its India and a solitary rolling stone nominally BDeshi getting indigestion.

Loving it....
Click to expand...
At this point, I almost want the catch to be illegal so I can enjoy complaints about it for the rest of my life.
 
Just not cricket said:
IF ICC Rule 19.5.2 was properly applied Miller was not out and a 6 should have been awarded.

ICC Rule 19.5.2 states that "A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary."

If a fielder is outside the field of play and re-enters, until the fielder grounds his foot (or even just touches the ground) within the field of play he is seemed to be outside.

None of the camera angles is patently obvious about whether Yadav touched the boundary rope. However, he clearly effects the catch before his foot lands back in the field of play. In terms of Rule 19.5.2 he is deemed to be outside the rope and it is a six. No arguments. No speculation. If you look at the running video footage of the moment that he first touches the ball his foot is still 20cm above the ground. At the moment that the ball is firmly in his hands, he has still not touched the ground. Regardless of any benefit that should go to the batsmen if MUST be a six.


Freeze frames at 19:21 and 19:45 (with a bit of juggling of the pause button it can be clearly seen
Click to expand...

Now read the bold part again. Where was SKY's foot when he first touched the ball? That's all that matters. It has been clarified by ICC and cricket commentators time and time again.
 
BouncerGuy said:
Suryakumar Yadav played a crucial role in India’s T20 World Cup victory by making a remarkable boundary catch during the final over of South Africa’s innings in Bridgetown. However, some observant viewers identified a possible reason why the critical wicket should have been disallowed.

Suryakumar Yadav, positioned at long-off, ran towards the ball, tossed it into the air before crossing the boundary line, and then returned to the field to complete the catch.

Some argue that Yadav’s foot touched the boundary rope while he was in contact with the ball, which would make it a six according to the laws of cricket. However, the third umpire, Richard Kettleborough, after reviewing the replays, awarded the wicket to India.

Here are some pictures and videos for all of you to decide on:

40w2SUi.png


View attachment 144924View attachment 144923

“Do you believe Suryakumar Yadav’s boundary catch in the final over of the T20 World Cup was within the laws of cricket, or do you think it should have been ruled as a six?​
Click to expand...
Wait a min.. The first pic shows his foot touching the cushion between blue and green "aramco' but second angle shows that his foot is about 2 feet from green "aramco' cushion.
This is called magic of 2D images, thats why we have side angle during utra edge guys. If he was actually touching it would be same from both angles for the perceived contact with green aramco cushion. I hope it is clear enough.
Now let's not waste the neurons of the brains
 
If I were the 3rd umpire, I probably would've given it a six.

Just like a customer is always right by default, a batter is always not-out, unless proven otherwise.

From the angles we saw, it was not possible to determine accurately whether his boot touched the cushion or not. There needed to be a magnifying angle from the other side to get a clearer picture.
 
Runner Up said:
In my opinion, India had lost the match when South Africa needed 24 runs off 24 balls and Klassen was well settled. Suddenly, clever Pant appeared, needing a physician for his knee injury, whether deliberate or real. This broke the momentum of the match. Had they continued without any break, South Africa would have had a bright chance. After the much-needed break, Klassen got out the next ball. That was the turning point
Click to expand...
Rain broke Indian batting several times during the Aus match. India moved on regardless and scored 200 plus.

Champion teams don't complain.
 
One guy has gone into deep depression that he has to invent lies to keep his life moving lol Don't try to convince them logically. Just sympathise with them and move on. Don't even engage if you can. Just let it run its course.
 
Just not cricket said:
IF ICC Rule 19.5.2 was properly applied Miller was not out and a 6 should have been awarded.

ICC Rule 19.5.2 states that "A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary."

If a fielder is outside the field of play and re-enters, until the fielder grounds his foot (or even just touches the ground) within the field of play he is seemed to be outside.

None of the camera angles is patently obvious about whether Yadav touched the boundary rope. However, he clearly effects the catch before his foot lands back in the field of play. In terms of Rule 19.5.2 he is deemed to be outside the rope and it is a six. No arguments. No speculation. If you look at the running video footage of the moment that he first touches the ball his foot is still 20cm above the ground. At the moment that the ball is firmly in his hands, he has still not touched the ground. Regardless of any benefit that should go to the batsmen if MUST be a six.


Freeze frames at 19:21 and 19:45 (with a bit of juggling of the pause button it can be clearly seen)
Click to expand...
Hey man, watch this video in x.com and MCC (the chaps who make the laws) explaining such

https://twitter.com/x/status/1609552609588940800
 
sweep_shot said:
If I were the 3rd umpire, I probably would've given it a six.

Just like a customer is always right by default, a batter is always not-out, unless proven otherwise.

From the angles we saw, it was not possible to determine accurately whether his boot touched the cushion or not. There needed to be a magnifying angle from the other side to get a clearer picture.
Click to expand...
This customer is always right by default is a myth and never works in any business.

Suppose your running a salon and you have a customer that pays you, and says rather then cutting my hair, would you please cut my neck and kill me?

Does that mean you would oblige and he is 100% right in that matter? Or would you do the logical thing and call the police on said lunatic?

It's never about individual customers. You watching the game and thinking it's a 6 doesn't mean you are correct or that your analogy is correct.

It's always about what the majority thinks, KEY WORD: Majority.

And the majority during that game including the 3rd umpire, and the umpires and most of the people watching the game including the saffers thought it was out.
 
Suryakumar Yadav in a chat with the Indian Express, has opened up on the catch, explaining how careful he was while catching the ball, ensuring his feet don't touch the rope. But, there was a moment that the India star was worried about, he said:

"Our fielding coach (T) Dilip sir has said that Surya, Virat (Kohli), Axar Patel and Ravindra Jadeja should always field at the hotspot areas, where there is the greatest chance of the ball going," Surya said.

"The catch I took, I have practised it at different grounds, depending on the wind. I was standing a bit wide yesterday because Hardik (Pandya) and Rohit (Sharma) bhai had put a field for the wide yorker, and (David) Miller had hit straight. My mind was clear that kaise bhi karke pakad he lena hai (come what may, have to catch it). Rohit bhai usually never stands at long-on but at that moment he was there. So when the ball was coming, for a second I looked at him and he looked at me. I ran and my aim was to catch the ball, had he (Rohit) been closer, I would have thrown the ball towards him. But he was nowhere close. In those 4-5 seconds, whatever happened, I can't explain. The amount of reaction I have been getting for that, people have been calling, messaging, there are more than 1,000 unread WhatsApp messages on my phone. The catch is all over social media. I'm grateful that I was there in those five seconds of play,"

"When I pushed the ball and took the catch, I knew I hadn't touched the rope. The only thing I was cautious about was that when I pushed the ball back inside, my feet don't touch the rope. I knew it was a fair catch. In hindsight, anything could have happened. If the ball had gone for six, the equation would have been 5 balls, 10 runs. We might have still won, but the margin would have been closer,"
 
Here is the angle to stop all trash talk. You can clearly see he didn't even come close to touching it. It was cm away and not mm.

P.S - See Rohit there.. Hands on his knees..Thought it was a six 😁
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mominsaigol said:
This customer is always right by default is a myth and never works in any business.

Suppose your running a salon and you have a customer that pays you, and says rather then cutting my hair, would you please cut my neck and kill me?

Does that mean you would oblige and he is 100% right in that matter? Or would you do the logical thing and call the police on said lunatic?

It's never about individual customers. You watching the game and thinking it's a 6 doesn't mean you are correct or that your analogy is correct.

It's always about what the majority thinks, KEY WORD: Majority.

And the majority during that game including the 3rd umpire, and the umpires and most of the people watching the game including the saffers thought it was out.
Click to expand...

Customer is right "by default". I added "by default". There are exceptions obviously.

Anyway, that dismissal needed a magnifying angle (from the front side) for further clarification.
 

Also
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1719905761811.jpg
    FB_IMG_1719905761811.jpg
    29 KB · Views: 17
Last edited by a moderator:
ethan3686 said:
Here is the angle to stop all trash talk. You can clearly see he didn't even come close to touching it. It was cm away and not mm.

P.S - See Rohit there..Hands on his knees..Thought it was a six 😁
Click to expand...

They have to cope somehow right? :)
 
mominsaigol said:
This customer is always right by default is a myth and never works in any business.

Suppose your running a salon and you have a customer that pays you, and says rather then cutting my hair, would you please cut my neck and kill me?

Does that mean you would oblige and he is 100% right in that matter? Or would you do the logical thing and call the police on said lunatic?

It's never about individual customers. You watching the game and thinking it's a 6 doesn't mean you are correct or that your analogy is correct.

It's always about what the majority thinks, KEY WORD: Majority.

And the majority during that game including the 3rd umpire, and the umpires and most of the people watching the game including the saffers thought it was out.
Click to expand...

I believe you are in your early-20's. So, you probably have never run a business before. Your "customer service" knowledge probably comes from observation and Google.

I am in my mid-30's and I had a side business in the past. The business went quite well (4.9 out of 5 and 70+ reviews). My bachelor's was also in business (although I switched to IT later on). I have hands on experience with running a business.

Back to topic. When you mean majority, how do you know that? Did you do a survey? How many fans did you talk to? I saw many on social media who were saying the decision was dodgy. I am not sure if majority think it was out.
 
sweep_shot said:
Just like a customer is always right by default, a batter is always not-out, unless proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
And yet you would have sung from a different hymn sheet when Umprire was Bucknor, batsman was Sachin.

No benefit of doubt to batsman at that time.

Forget Bucknor, you would have been supporting Ajmal in Mohali 2011 and subscribed to all the conspiracy theory.

Rolling stone thy name.
 
nish_mate said:
And yet you would have sung from a different hymn sheet when Umprire was Bucknor, batsman was Sachin.

No benefit of doubt to batsman at that time.

Forget Bucknor, you would have been supporting Ajmal in Mohali 2011 and subscribed to all the conspiracy theory.

Rolling stone thy name.
Click to expand...

I believe Ajmal was robbed in 2011 semi. That was out.

India got benefited many times with these close decisions.

Bucknor was a legendary umpire despite occasional mistakes.
 
sweep_shot said:
I believe Ajmal was robbed in 2011 semi. That was out.

Technology was either tampered with or it got the decision wrong.
Click to expand...
But but but

Benefit of doubt should go to batsman as per you only.

Was SRT bowled out in Mohali by Ajmal, no, then there is doubt on the ball hitting the wicket.

Make your mind up matey.
 
nish_mate said:
But but but

Benefit of doubt should go to batsman as per you only.

Was SRT bowled out in Mohali by Ajmal, no, then there is doubt on the ball hitting the wicket.

Make your mind up matey.
Click to expand...

Ajmal's one looked out. Plumb. Umpires are likely to give that out 9 out of 10 times.

SKY's catch didn't look out. It was not conclusive.
 
sweep_shot said:
Ajmal's one looked out. Plumb.

SKY's catch didn't look out. It was not conclusive.
Click to expand...
Looked out and plumb are different things. Looked out to you, not to DRS and what about benefit of doubt.

And you never came back on Bucknor.

Stop digging yourself into a deeper hole, I will gladly help you dig a bigger one for yourself.
 
nish_mate said:
Looked out and plumb are different things. Looked out to you, not to DRS and what about benefit of doubt.

And you never came back on Bucknor.

Stop digging yourself into a deeper hole, I will gladly help you dig a bigger one for yourself.
Click to expand...

There is no hole.

I did say Bucknor was a legendary umpire. But, he made some mistakes here and there. That's alright.

Bucknor is one of my favorite umpires (along with Aleem Dar and Simon Taufel).
 
sweep_shot said:
There is no hole.

I did say Bucknor was a legendary umpire. But, he made some mistakes here and there. That's alright.

Bucknor is one of my favorite umpires (along with Aleem Dar and Simon Taufel).
Click to expand...
So Ajmal no benefit of doubt to batsman
Bucknor no benefit of doubt to batsman

Miller benefit of doubt to batsman

stance of convenience you have.



Thy hypocrisy on display is well understood.
 
nish_mate said:
So Ajmal no benefit of doubt to batsman
Bucknor no benefit of doubt to batsman

Miller benefit of doubt to batsman

stance of convenience you have.



Thy hypocrisy on display is well understood.
Click to expand...

Case by case basis. You can't be very black and white always.

Miller's one wasn't conclusive due to missing magnifying angle.
 
sweep_shot said:
Case by case basis. You can't be very black and white always.

Miller's one wasn't conclusive due to missing magnifying angle.
Click to expand...
No case by case basis
You only said benefit of doubt should always go to batsman.

Your words not mine.

Can't have your cake and eat it too
 
sweep_shot said:
I believe you are in your early-20's. So, you probably have never run a business before. Your "customer service" knowledge probably comes from observation and Google.

I am in my mid-30's and I had a side business in the past. The business went quite well (4.9 out of 5 and 70+ reviews). My bachelor's was also in business (although I switched to IT later on). I have hands on experience with running a business.

Back to topic. When you mean majority, how do you know that? Did you do a survey? How many fans did you talk to? I saw many on social media who were saying the decision was dodgy. I am not sure if majority think it was out.
Click to expand...
Mate, I didn't ask for your business success story nor should you make assumptions about me when you don't know me.

Now back to topic, Mr business man, if you knew you how to read properly, you'd realise that the majority in this Instance are being referred to as the umpires. In business terms Their the Stakeholder segment that will influence the decison and all 3 umpires feel it was out.

You or I or twitter is irrelevant, you're not customers, you're whiny machines that flood yelp. The umpires are the stakeholders in this case, so you may continue your fantasy about being a 3rd umpire.
 
mominsaigol said:
Mate, I didn't ask for your business success story nor should you make assumptions about me when you don't know me.

Now back to topic, Mr business man, if you knew you how to read properly, you'd realise that the majority in this Instance are being referred to as the umpires. In business terms Their the Stakeholder segment that will influence the decison and all 3 umpires feel it was out.

You or I or twitter is irrelevant, you're not customers, you're whiny machines that flood yelp. The umpires are the stakeholders in this case, so you may continue your fantasy about being a 3rd umpire.
Click to expand...

I was simply pointing out your understanding of "customer is always right" is faulty. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. It means focusing on customer satisfaction. Please learn more about it. You can get a basic understanding here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right.

I was also asking why you thought majority was okay with SKY's catch decision. Do you have any data to back it up? I have seen many on social media who were not happy with the decision.
 
sweep_shot said:
I was simply pointing out your understanding of "customer is always right" is faulty. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. It means focusing on customer satisfaction. Please learn more about it. You can get a basic understanding here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right.

I was also asking why you thought majority was okay with SKY's catch decision. Do you have any data to back it up? I have seen many on social media who were not happy with the decision.
Click to expand...
Omg I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation. I'm going to ignore most of it and just talk about the thing that's relevant,

The whole point is, you don't matter, people on twitter do not matter, and you strawmanning me towards a twitter argument or what you SAW doesn't matter. I don't care if you saw big foot in the forest lol.

They are no customers in this case, only internal stakeholders who happen to be the umpires. Their the majority and if all 3 thought it was out, it's out.

So your fantasy on being the 3rd umpire may come true in a novel, but tough luck on reality for now.
 
mominsaigol said:
Omg I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation. I'm going to ignore most of it and just talk about the thing that's relevant,

The whole point is, you don't matter, people on twitter do not matter, and you strawmanning me towards a twitter argument or what you SAW doesn't matter. I don't care if you saw big foot in the forest lol.

They are no customers in this case, only internal stakeholders who happen to be the umpires. Their the majority and if all 3 thought it was out, it's out.

So your fantasy on being the 3rd umpire may come true in a novel, but tough luck on reality for now.
Click to expand...

That was an analogy. I am obviously not an umpire and I don't want to be an umpire.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree. I don't think we can truly know if majority thought it was out. That was my point.

Have a good day. Sorry if I have offended you.
 
sweep_shot said:
That was an analogy. I am obviously not an umpire and I don't want to be an umpire. I live in Canada and players here often behave like animals; it is dangerous to be an umpire here.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree. I don't think we can truly know if majority thought it was out. That was my point.

Have a good day. Sorry if I have offended you.
Click to expand...
Yes you can.

India has the world's biggest population, majority Indian fans believe it was out.

Do the math 1.3B population vs rest of the world. Big countries like China, USA, Russia are excluded due to lack of cricket in those regions. Even if people from here are watching it'll be far and few in between, whereas even if 5% of the Indian population is watching, it still outweighs most countries.
 
Statpadder Inc said:
I have seen many people on Twitter call for stripping Bangladesh of their test status. Let's start with it
Click to expand...

I agree that BD's Test status should taken away. They don't deserve it.

Also, fans don't seem interested in it. Tests don't normally attract crowds.
 
No more off topic discussions or trolls here. If there is nothing relevant to discuss please avoid posting here.
 
sweep_shot said:
I was simply pointing out your understanding of "customer is always right" is faulty. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. It means focusing on customer satisfaction. Please learn more about it. You can get a basic understanding here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right.

I was also asking why you thought majority was okay with SKY's catch decision. Do you have any data to back it up? I have seen many on social media who were not happy with the decision.
Click to expand...
Even in this thread vote poll (80% say out and 20% say Six) you can see the majority and you can also see that not all of them are indians..
 
The lone Ranger said:
Even in this thread vote poll (80% say out and 20% say Six) you can see the majority and you can also see that not all of them are indians..
Click to expand...

OK. Sample size is not big enough here (less than 100). I think Twitter/FB/Instagram have far more dissatisfied people.

I was simply curious why umpire didn't use a magnifying angle for such an important game.

Anyway, it's all good. Let's move on. India have won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
India (110/2) defeat South Africa (106/8) by 8 wickets to win the 1st T20I - Lead series 1-0
2
Replies
117
Views
5K
jnaveen1980
J
A
ICC Champions Trophy - Group B : Pakistan defeat South Africa by 19 runs (DLS method)
Replies
70
Views
6K
Dingolfy
D
S
Beyond the Boundary - The dying art of leg-spin
Replies
19
Views
4K
Hasan123
Hasan123
Back
Top