[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Iftikhar Ahmed's dismissal - Poor umpiring or a right call?

Cricket Warrior

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 12, 2023
Runs
12,088
It was a really harsh decision by the umpire, as it was clearly seen that the ball was touching the ground when the fielder took support after holding it. The benefit of the doubt must be given to the batter especially when the umpire himself was confused. These silly mistakes by the umpires really cost teams the match.

What's your take guys? Was it a clean catch or not?


ss3HQts.jpeg
 
Last edited:
It looked clean. Unfortunately, when you slow down and zoom in and out, a bit of doubt creeps in. However, I think the umpires made the right call.
nah bro it wasnt a clean one.. infact umpire himself wasn't sure, so he should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batter in my opinion.
 
Wouldn't have made any difference imo. I thought not giving a wide was harsh even if he did move to the off stump, the ball was way outside the line.
Yeah that was much worse, there were two or three redneck rampage decisions against us, not really a surprise when Reiffel was involved. Not that I am complaining, if you get beat of USA, a team of amateurs you have more things to worry about than the odd umpire decision.
 
It was a clean catch and even if it wasn’t it deserved to be out and we deserved to lose.

I don’t know which Bozo thought chacha - a notoriously slow starter should face the super over
 
It was a clean catch. The umpire looked at quite a few angles. It was never clear from one angle that the ball touched grass.
 
IN a catch like this evidence against has to be conclusive more than evidence for. There was no evidence against the clean catch. Not a single angled showed fielder grassed it.
 
Benefit of the doubt should have been given to the batsman
Bro, the catch was clean, His fingers were underneath it. The ball can touch grass if the fingers are still underneath. Unless the bowler grabbed it from the side and the ball touched grass, then it's not out, but in this case his entire hand was enveloped in it.

So the ball touching the ground doesn't matter.
 
IN a catch like this evidence against has to be conclusive more than evidence for. There was no evidence against the clean catch. Not a single angled showed fielder grassed it.
You can grass it if your fingers are underneath the ball
 
It was a clean catch and even if it wasn’t it deserved to be out and we deserved to lose.

I don’t know which Bozo thought chacha - a notoriously slow starter should face the super over

If the target were to be 11 Babar/Rizwan would have opened. 19 means you probably must hit a six somewhere as hitting four won't be as straight forward. Hence world's best "six hitter" ifti was sent i guess. Fakhar is also a six hitter. That probably is the logic behind sending Shadab as well. One six will kill the game.Basically Babar doesn't consider himself and Rizwan as six hitters against pace.
 
If the target were to be 11 Babar/Rizwan would have opened. 19 means you probably must hit a six somewhere as hitting four won't be as straight forward. Hence world's best "six hitter" ifti was sent i guess. Fakhar is also a six hitter. That probably is the logic behind sending Shadab as well. One six will kill the game.Basically Babar doesn't consider himself and Rizwan as six hitters against pace.
But the thing is, Bowlers aren't gonna give chacha deliveries in his arc for a 6. Chacha can only hit in that arc which is slightly away from his body, otherwise he can't even hit a full toss.

This isn't odi or t20 where bowlers are gonna bowl a millenia of deliveries and eventually you'll get one arc to slog it for a 6. It's a super over, competent bowlers will be switched on.
 
Bro, the catch was clean, His fingers were underneath it. The ball can touch grass if the fingers are still underneath. Unless the bowler grabbed it from the side and the ball touched grass, then it's not out, but in this case his entire hand was enveloped in it.

So the ball touching the ground doesn't matter.
well it might be!

But from one angle it clearly seems like the ball is touching the ground.

QmEKCjf.jpeg
 
well it might be!

But from one angle it clearly seems like the ball is touching the ground.

QmEKCjf.jpeg
The ball is touching the ground but all his fingers are underneath it. The catch is clean. It's in the rules lol, I didn't make them up.
 
But the thing is, Bowlers aren't gonna give chacha deliveries in his arc for a 6. Chacha can only hit in that arc which is slightly away from his body, otherwise he can't even hit a full toss.

This isn't odi or t20 where bowlers are gonna bowl a millenia of deliveries and eventually you'll get one arc to slog it for a 6. It's a super over, competent bowlers will be switched on.
That is true. But they were hoping some inexperienced pacer would choke under pressure and bowl a leg side freebie.
 
well it might be!

But from one angle it clearly seems like the ball is touching the ground.

QmEKCjf.jpeg
It is allowed. You see this all the time in cricket. Then i learnt it is in the rule book. As long your finger is underneath the ball it can touch the grass between fingers.
 
That is true. But they were hoping some inexperienced pacer would choke under pressure and bowl a leg side freebie.
They had 20 overs to play isa pacer. Which pacer gave chacha that arc? None of them did.

Infact usa weren't stupid, they choose their best bowler for the evening to bowl rather then Ali Khan who's considered their go to death bowler while Pakistan relied on Amir and not Naseem Shah who was their best bowler this evening
 
Iftikhar doesn't score more than 20 anyway , would have been out next ball or in the same over again.
 
I think we should then stop using the term "GRASSED IT" for dropped catches if that was a fair catch. The left hand is not underneath the ball completely as you can see clearly. It was given out because onfield umpires would have given it out as well if you remember that on-field out rule. Third umpire is still living in the past.
 
I thought the catch was clean. If your fingers are beneath its good .

I thought the wide that was not given was super questionable. Even if ifti shuffled the ball was STILL out of his range and should've been called wide!
 
the wide that was not given was super questionable
yes. That was another blunder of a decision made by the umpire. Those guys are blind. One of the wide given on amir's over was also not wide but as usual, blindness took over these umpires vision.
 
If the target were to be 11 Babar/Rizwan would have opened. 19 means you probably must hit a six somewhere as hitting four won't be as straight forward. Hence world's best "six hitter" ifti was sent i guess. Fakhar is also a six hitter. That probably is the logic behind sending Shadab as well. One six will kill the game.Basically Babar doesn't consider himself and Rizwan as six hitters against pace.
I get that, but surely you must also know your own players. How often has chacha hit a 6 immediately after going in? He normally “plays himself in” by consuming for after dot. This guy nearly played out a maiden in the t20 World Cup final.

And if you must send him, at least let Fakhar face! In all honesty you were probably better off sending Shaheen or Naseem instead of Chacha superstar
 
I thought the catch was clean. If your fingers are beneath its good .

I thought the wide that was not given was super questionable. Even if ifti shuffled the ball was STILL out of his range and should've been called wide!
It wasn’t out of his range. It wasn’t a wide, you can clearly see the bat pass the ball . He just didn’t connect with the ball.
 
IMG_1716.pngNot the best picture screen grab off YouTube, however if the ball is moving away from him , it must have been closer to him as it passed him. The ball is a bit behind the bat and it’s clearly “reachable” again I appreciate it’s a poor picture nd the ball is behind him, however the ball is moving away from him from right to left, this must mean as it was passing him it must have been even closer to him (with regards to line)
 
Honestly, Umpiring was poor, I feel for Pakistan as it was mostly against them but it doesn't change the fact that Pakistan still played poorly
 
View attachment 144306Not the best picture screen grab off YouTube, however if the ball is moving away from him , it must have been closer to him as it passed him. The ball is a bit behind the bat and it’s clearly “reachable” again I appreciate it’s a poor picture nd the ball is behind him, however the ball is moving away from him from right to left, this must mean as it was passing him it must have been even closer to him
Honestly from here it looks like a fair call
 
It wasn’t out of his range. It wasn’t a wide, you can clearly see the bat pass the ball . He just didn’t connect with the ball.

Even the commentator thought it was wide. It was so far wide he couldn't have reached it with rubber arms.
 
Even the commentator thought it was wide. It was so far wide he couldn't have reached it with rubber arms.
In real time it looks different, look at my screen grab. Even when the ball is behind him his bat “reaches” the distance , I mean it’s harsh on the umpires to have a go at them when in reality it’s a much closer call.

The energy should be focused on Pakistan playing so poorly , if the umpires gave that wide and chachas catch not out they still would have lost
 
What about the cheating that happened in the SO where the umpire never wided the first ball to Ifti?

Are Pakistan going to lodge a complaint about that? They should.
 
What about the cheating that happened in the SO where the umpire never wided the first ball to Ifti?

Are Pakistan going to lodge a complaint about that? They should.
Let's say it was given a wide, Pakistan still would need 6 of the last ball and shadab ain't hitting that
 
Wasn't a wide. Ifti moved well past off stump.
Can you post the vid or image? Ifti did move across but the ball was still way outside the line and wasn't going to reach it. I can guarantee you if that was an Indian batter, it would have been wided.
 
In real time it looks different, look at my screen grab. Even when the ball is behind him his bat “reaches” the distance , I mean it’s harsh on the umpires to have a go at them when in reality it’s a much closer call.

The energy should be focused on Pakistan playing so poorly , if the umpires gave that wide and chachas catch not out they still would have lost

Well I agree with that, wide or no wide it was inconsequential. Pakistan managed to find several opportunities to lose that game all by themselves regardless of the umpire. Pointless focussing on anything other than the terrible performances of the Pakistan players down to a man.
 
That catch was iffy. He used the left hand to bring it back after it touched the ground. Didn't look that clean tbh. Finger might have been been intially but when it touch the ground, the ball moved forward and finger didn't look like underneath and used the left hand to bring it back.
 
But main issue where Pak lost was not having long off and Rauf bowling fulltoss in the crunch situation. Horrible bowling by Amir in the superover. The left hand threw his line and was bowling wides. Even the first ball was a loose wide back of length with mid weight just ready to be hit.

I am not sure I like the moving of wide line. You have a guideline and should just follow that, otherwise it becomes arbitrary call from the umpire,subjective. The funny thing is if you move on the legside and it just hits 5th stump line, then umpire wont move the arbitrary line in that case
 
The catch was 100% clean.

It is only the foreshortening effect and green tinted lenses which can lead someone to say there was any doubt in it.

If anything Reiffel was overtly thorough given match situation and importance. Most other umpires wouldn't even have bothered with checking in detail after the first angle.

Even the first ball wide yorker was an excellent call from the umpire. The batter's back leg was one set of stumps outside off. Netravalkar read him like a book and executed his wide yorker brilliantly
 
Back
Top