What's new

[PICTURES] Was Virat Kohli's catch in the 2nd Test taken cleanly? Poor decision by the Umpire?

saeed5646

saeed5646

T20I Debutant
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Runs
7,931
48337124_1973636909349215_5852937966472658944_n.jpg

DuhAyM7U8AA2EVv.jpg:large
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i don,t think it was clear catch .totally fault goes to on field umpire whose soft signal was out.
 
Out
Out
Out

Follow the rules what umpires say n dont make it an issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DuguWZiXcAA-EqR.jpg

How an earth this is out...this decision pretty much decides the outcome of this match as well as the series...
 
I can even live umpire's call in DRS. But the soft signal in catches by on field umpires is absolute crap.
 
Cric Talk said:
did you see the image that I posted above? How can that be given out!!!
Click to expand...

Images don't give the most accurate result. I saw the replay again and again and the more I saw it, the more it looked out.

It's a grey area I agree but it's not a scandalous decision. Time to move on.
 
Cric Talk said:
did you see the image that I posted above? How can that be given out!!!
Click to expand...

It can be given out because eagle eyed dharmasena who can't see all no balls bowled 2 feet from him was sure he saw a clean catch 35-40 yards from where he was standing.
 
Mamoon said:
Kohli is bigger than any white batsman. This has nothing to do with racism. The fielders tend to get too much benefit of doubt in situations like these.
Click to expand...

that is only if there is lack of evidence...here what other evidence you need when the above pic CLEARLY shows that the ball is touching the ground...

We can't expect people not to come up with these kind of conspiracy theories when the decision was so obliviously wrong..
 
Cric Talk said:
that is only if there is lack of evidence...here what other evidence you need when the above pic CLEARLY shows that the ball is touching the ground...

We can't expect people not to come up with these kind of conspiracy theories when the decision was so obliviously wrong..
Click to expand...

I have seen this happen plenty of times and the fielders gets the benefit of doubt almost every time. This has nothing to do with discrimination.
 
Chrish said:
Images don't give the most accurate result. I saw the replay again and again and the more I saw it, the more it looked out.

It's a grey area I agree but it's not a scandalous decision. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

As i said this decision can change the outcome of the match/series...when the image captured from the TV replays was so obvious...I don't know if we should consider the opinion of "IT MORE LOOKED OUT" on replays...
 
I just don't get how onfield umpire gives this out. If it's in conclusive the benefit goes to the bat...
 
You can clearly see that there are no fingers underneath the ball, which is in direct contact with the ground. There is no grey area here - it is 100% not out.

Images can be deceiving, but they cannot vanish fingers. This is not the first time either.
 
Cric Talk said:
As i said this decision can change the outcome of the match/series...when the image captured from the TV replays was so obvious...I don't know if we should consider the opinion of "IT MORE LOOKED OUT" on replays...
Click to expand...

I saw the replay that was available from all different angles. To me it looked more out than not-out. And apparently third umpire felt the same way as well and I don't blame him.

Whether the decision can change the outcome or not is irrelevant. Umpire's job is to make the decision irrespective of the possible outcome.
 
Looks clear not out from the image posted above. Well that's a bummer I guess.
 
Chrish said:
I saw the replay that was available from all different angles. To me it looked more out than not-out. And apparently third umpire felt the same way as well and I don't blame him.

Whether the decision can change the outcome or not is irrelevant. Umpire's job is to make the decision irrespective of the possible outcome.
Click to expand...

3rd umpire can't do much actually, if soft signal was not out he would have given it not out. Unless the ball clearly bounced in front of the fielder or it was a clean catch 2 feet off the ground the 3rd umpire is there to basically rubber stamp whatever the on field umpire says.
 
jagatk said:
3rd umpire can't do much actually, if soft signal was not out he would have given it not out. Unless the ball clearly bounced in front of the fielder or it was a clean catch 2 feet off the ground the 3rd umpire is there to basically rubber stamp whatever the on field umpire says.
Click to expand...

True but good luck explaining it to folks here.
 
Good teams overcome 1-2 bad decisions.

If India indeed is better than Australia B team, they should be able to overcome it and not make a big deal of it. Crying over it only goes to show India has not emerged yet as a team.
 
For some reason decision always goes with what fielder says. Seen it happen way too many times.

When it happened it looked out and a clean catch but the image above makes it seem like its clearly not out.
 
It's ok. Umpire makes mistake. It isn't as atrocious as it was with Steve Buckner.
 
Itachi said:
It's ok. Umpire makes mistake. It isn't as atrocious as it was with Steve Buckner.
Click to expand...

this kind of mistake seems to be made much more than any other for some reason though

time and time again whenever there is a close catch the fielders' word is taken

maybe we need a sensor on the ball for such situations like goal line technology in football? :))
 
The moment you slow down and zoom in the cameras, it's always not out.

But does that mean every catch is not out?
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Good teams overcome 1-2 bad decisions.

If India indeed is better than Australia B team, they should be able to overcome it and not make a big deal of it. Crying over it only goes to show India has not emerged yet as a team.
Click to expand...

Only when difference between teams is a lot. A decision can make or break series for one team.
 
Cric Talk said:
View attachment 86496

How an earth this is out...this decision pretty much decides the outcome of this match as well as the series...
Click to expand...

This picture shows that it was not out. But having said that, I don't think it was a terrible decision by the third umpire. Firstly, the soft signal was out. So straightaway, the decision is already 90% in favor of the fielding side. Secondly, this picture wasn't shown to the third umpire. It was a rolling video and based on that even I sitting at home wasn't convinced to overturn the out decision by the on-field umpires. Based on what was shown to the third umpire, the decision was certainly not a howler.
 
What cricket needs is a rule change. Often you have these exact scenarios repeating and the discussion continues about optical illusion, fingers beneath, grass touching etc. Make a consistent rule for the umpires, either out or not out. I say whenever we have such a situation give the benefit of doubt to the batsman even if it appears like fingers are underneath, because there is always a chance for some part of grass to kiss the surface of the ball than the other way. Force the catcher to take a clean catch where there is no scope for doubt.

Problem here is the continuous flip flops, pretty sure another day the exact same scenario will get a not out call. Atm we have no technology like sensor to help us out, so standardize the decision making process so that all parties can understand and also make peace with the decision. Cricket is way too complicated sometimes, no wonder it has limited appeal.
 
Slog said:
this kind of mistake seems to be made much more than any other for some reason though

time and time again whenever there is a close catch the fielders' word is taken

maybe we need a sensor on the ball for such situations like goal line technology in football? :))
Click to expand...

That's because the on field umpire usually goes with what the fielder says, and then when it goes upstairs, they claim that the evidence is not enough to overturn the decision.
 
Swashbuckler said:
What cricket needs is a rule change. Often you have these exact scenarios repeating and the discussion continues about optical illusion, fingers beneath, grass touching etc. Make a consistent rule for the umpires, either out or not out. I say whenever we have such a situation give the benefit of doubt to the batsman even if it appears like fingers are underneath, because there is always a chance for some part of grass to kiss the surface of the ball than the other way. Force the catcher to take a clean catch where there is no scope for doubt.

Problem here is the continuous flip flops, pretty sure another day the exact same scenario will get a not out call. Atm we have no technology like sensor to help us out, so standardize the decision making process so that all parties can understand and also make peace with the decision. Cricket is way too complicated sometimes, no wonder it has limited appeal.
Click to expand...

Agree with the bold part. Most of the catches like this looks doubtful.
 
Tired umpire needs to have conclusive evidence to overturn the onfield decision. It was a 50/50 chance and the 3rd umpire decided to stick with the onfield umpire as per rule.
 
Needs a technological solution.

Umpires go by the notion of fielder's reaction - they think fielders know when they have caught it immediately - but that's not necessarily true
 
What is with Aussie catchers and their habit of playing umpire's role? Ponting took a bump catch in SCG 2008 and signaled the umpire to give it out which was duly followed. Now this incident today, why no ICC action against the Aussies? I can imagine the penalties and bans if Asian/WI cricketers do something similar. This is what is called white privilege !!!

ponting_hndscm.jpg
 
shariqnoor said:
This picture shows that it was not out. But having said that, I don't think it was a terrible decision by the third umpire. Firstly, the soft signal was out. So straightaway, the decision is already 90% in favor of the fielding side. <b>Secondly, this picture wasn't shown to the third umpire.</b> It was a rolling video and based on that even I sitting at home wasn't convinced to overturn the out decision by the on-field umpires. Based on what was shown to the third umpire, the decision was certainly not a howler.
Click to expand...

This picture is probably a video that has been paused. The third umpire can pause the video too, it doesn't have to be only rolling.
 
Napa said:
This picture is probably a video that has been paused. The third umpire can pause the video too, it doesn't have to be only rolling.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what matters is what is shown to the third umpire. The third umpire doesn't control the videos. You could say that probably the home broadcaster didn't show this picture deliberately. But based on what the third umpire was shown, he didn't make the wrong decision I believe.
 
shariqnoor said:
Yes, but what matters is what is shown to the third umpire. The third umpire doesn't control the videos. You could say that probably the home broadcaster didn't show this picture deliberately. But based on what the third umpire was shown, he didn't make the wrong decision I believe.
Click to expand...

I believe the third umpire has control over the playback. Can ask for it to be paused, replayed etc.
 
This can prove to be a game-changing blunder, but I'll take it. Our teams are used to so much worse in Australia, so this is nothing.
 
Tbh it looked out to me in the video replays..m ok with the decision, at worst u cud call it 50-50 but using these 2d images to build an opinion don't help.
 
Swashbuckler said:
What is with Aussie catchers and their habit of playing umpire's role? Ponting took a bump catch in SCG 2008 and signaled the umpire to give it out which was duly followed. Now this incident today, why no ICC action against the Aussies? I can imagine the penalties and bans if Asian/WI cricketers do something similar. This is what is called white privilege !!!

View attachment 86498
Click to expand...

Michael Clarke took that catch, and the catch was of Ganguly in the 4th innings of the 2nd Test held in Sydney. Ponting confirmed with Clarke and signaled to the umpire.
 
So if (we the spectator) at a forum can see clear pictures; umpires aren't doing their jobs properly.

Pathetic stuff. Mr Nigel Llong :facepalm:
 
Hitman said:
Michael Clarke took that catch, and the catch was of Ganguly in the 4th innings of the 2nd Test held in Sydney. Ponting confirmed with Clarke and signaled to the umpire.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I knew it was Ganguly but forgot who took the catch.
 
Swashbuckler said:
What is with Aussie catchers and their habit of playing umpire's role? Ponting took a bump catch in SCG 2008 and signaled the umpire to give it out which was duly followed. Now this incident today, why no ICC action against the Aussies? I can imagine the penalties and bans if Asian/WI cricketers do something similar. This is what is called white privilege !!!

View attachment 86498
Click to expand...

Let's not blame Aussies for it because before the series Kumble and Ponting had agreed to a soft pact that fielders will tell the opposition if the catch was taken or not, as none of the 2 captains believed that technology was good enough to determine. So blame it on Kumble's stupidity to agree to such a pact, rather than blaming Ponting for it.
 
not out !! really pathetic dreadful decision, Kohli was the man of deep concern for Aussies.
 
Kohli was not out.

His finger got pushed back, it hit the ground, and then he wrapped the same finger underneath it. Just one of those dropped catches that stick instead of bouncing out.

I think the umpire assumed the finger was hidden while remaining under the ball, which was not the case.
 
Canford Cliffs said:
Yes I have noticed it too. He walked just after the replay even before the screen showed out.
Click to expand...

On-field umpires told him it was out (they heard Nigel through their earpiece).

He looked straight at them, they mouthed "you're out" and he walked.
 
Last edited:
Seen the replay about 10 times . Not out imo . Pity the soft signal is given so much weightage .
 
Was not out but this can happen. All teams have got such benefits sometimes and they all cancel each other out.

We have a great chance to keep Aus to 250 and then fight for the 4th innings chase. Though recent history will suggest scoring Aus already have a winning score.
 
1. If the umpire saw the same picture as posted here, it was a very strange decision.

2. Just assume it was 50/50, previously batsmen got the benefit of doubt, have they stopped practising that?
 
Fingers were not under the ball. They were in no mans land. It’s evident the ball touched the ground based on the location of the fingers. Plus the momentum of the ball going in the direction of the ground with fingers not under the ball it went on to brush or even hit the ground flush.

Poor decision and poor claim of catch.

Hope kohli smashes them to pieces in the fourth innings.
 
It was a marginal call, by no means a howler we are so used to when we tour Australia. I will cut the umpires some slack, if this forces ICC to have a relook at the absurd 'soft signal' process, it will be good for the sport. But knowing them this may take a while, they are always slow to react and even if they do, trust the idiotic BCCI (or CoA) to oppose the move without attempting to understand anything.
 
shariqnoor said:
This picture shows that it was not out. But having said that, I don't think it was a terrible decision by the third umpire. Firstly, the soft signal was out. So straightaway, the decision is already 90% in favor of the fielding side. Secondly, this picture wasn't shown to the third umpire. It was a rolling video and based on that even I sitting at home wasn't convinced to overturn the out decision by the on-field umpires. Based on what was shown to the third umpire, the decision was certainly not a howler.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Not a terrible decision. Replays were not conclusive
 
Virat Kohli scored his first century in the ongoing Test series against Australia, sixth Down Under, as India scored 283 in reply to the hosts' first innings total of 326 in the second Test in Perth on Sunday. The Indian captain made 123 runs off 257 balls before he was given out by the on-field umpire. Fast Bowler Jasprit Bumrah, who claimed three wickets in the match, said the visitors were "surprised" at the on-field umpire's call that led to Virat Kohli's dismissal.


Kohli's dismissal triggered a controversy after Peter Handscomb took the catch at second slip off Pat Cummins' bowling and on-field umpires deferred to the third umpire with a soft signal of out, meaning only conclusive evidence could overturn the decision.

However, TV replays were not sufficient enough to overturn the decision, which left the Indian fans and Kohli disappointed as the skipper walked off the ground without acknowledging the ovation for his superb innings of 123.

"We were a little surprised by the on-field call but now that it's been done means it's been done. We will move forward with the game. That's about it," said Bumrah when asked about the controversial decision.

Virat Kohli scored his 25th Test hundred to help India score 283 runs in their first innings. But the last six wickets fell for 60 runs which meant that they surrendered a 43-run lead.

Talking about Kohli's knock, Bumrah said, "Obviously, we were in a bit of bother at the start (of the day), and then the way he played, the way he carried his whole innings was infectious.

"He has been doing all the time and he is an inspiring leader. He leads from the front. So, it's a good thing for the team and hopefully he will keep doing it in future as well."

The hosts finished day three on 132/4 and took an overall 175-run lead in the second Test. Bumrah said that they would want to restrict Australia to as few runs as possible on day four.

"Tomorrow the first session will be important. We want to take early wickets, so it will restrict the total to as less as possible and that will help us to chase it in the fourth innings. In my eyes, our team is capable of chasing any total but we will try to minimise as much as possible," he said.

"If you see the match, nobody has really gotten out (to balls that come) off the track. The crack is just there but it doesn't do a lot. It's only in the mind. So yeah, we will not take that into consideration (while batting)," he added.

In the second innings, the Indian pacers tested the Australian batting line-up, and didn't allow them to settle down with regular breakthroughs.

https://sports.ndtv.com/australia-v...prising-for-india-says-jasprit-bumrah-1963462
 
Only issue with the decision was the haste with which the TV umpire concluded there is not enough evidence to overturn field call. Could have looked at a few more angles with the zoom option.
 
It was out, not sure what the fuss is about. Fourth finger is under the ball. Keep sentiments aside, if you have caught such catches in slips then it 'll be easier to understand.
 
It’s out. There was no obvious evidence that clearly showed the ball bouncing on the ground first to overturn the on-field decision.
 
It was as clean as a whistle. Fingers were clearly under the ball so stop whining people :shh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll Poll
Virat Kohli retires from Test cricket
2 3
Replies
167
Views
7K
VForVendetta
V
SpiritOf1903
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Was Steve Smith's catch to remove Virat Kohli a legitimate decision or another umpiring error?
Replies
37
Views
870
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
New ICC Rules (June 2025): Stop Clock in Tests, One Ball in ODIs, and More
Replies
40
Views
3K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Cricket Warrior
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] The best catch by a wicketkeeper
Replies
18
Views
735
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
FearlessRoar
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Was Quinton de Kock adjudged Not Out correctly by the Third Umpire?
Replies
4
Views
338
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Back
Top