Saeed Ajmal still baffled by Sachin Tendulkar lbw reversal

[SL_Fan]

The image over which Hawkeyes point of impact is overlayed above isn't necessarily the frame in which the real point of impact occurred because the cameras wouldn't have picked up the exact moment the ball hit the pad. The image it's overlayed over above is most likely the frame captured before the point of impact therefore in reality in that image (ignoring the overlayed impact point) the ball hasn't quite struck the pad yet.

I think through this thread now we're settled that the correct trajectory was predicted though based on that point of impact and the only debate now is the point of impact itself?

It was the impact point according to H/E. From there it obviously maps out the predicted path according to their calculations. As I have explained above the impact point from actual footage and the impact point from H/E footage doesn't seem to match-up.

 

[SL_Fan]

Evidence of HawkEye reviewing the decision based on raw data : https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/apr/06/hawk-eye-sachin-tendulkar-lbw-reprieve

And here is the image that will settle the issue as it compares original versus conspiricy theories:

That pic doesn't prove anything. You can put the two balls anywhere and draw a line to it. Not to mention that in that ball next to leg stump fair amount of it has been cut off by their line. The ball only had to just clip the stumps by a mm and it would have remained out.

 

[SL_Fan]

Also I'm a fan of DRS and all. It's much more accurate and consistent than on-field umps alone. But a fair few things do need to change with the system. One of them being host broadcasters should not have any involvement in the process.

Don't trust these broadcasters one bit. I mean what happened when Philander was caught ball tampering in SL couple of years back was absolutely ridiculous. Ten sports decided not to air the footage live because they did not want to risk having a fall-out with CSA (holds rights to SA cricket outside SA). What are they match officials as well now. Yet Philander got away with it with just a little fine and CSA/Ten sports got away scot-free. Enough said I think.

 

[HitWicket]

That pic doesn't prove anything. You can put the two balls anywhere and draw a line to it. Not to mention that in that ball next to leg stump fair amount of it has been cut off by their line. The ball only had to just clip the stumps by a mm and it would have remained out.

This picture was referenced generally as proof that the ball was predicted to follow a straight path if the point of impact was as Hawkeye gave becausea few people were claiming even with that impact point the ball would not hit the stump or that the ball appeared to 'swing' after impact.

In regards to the broadcasters, I think they'd have to be involved in some way. As far as I know at the moment their only involvement is actually supplying the footage from various different angles. The Hawkeye ball tracking cameras themselves are actually independent of the broadcasters and set up by the Hawkeye operators themselves. These operators are then the ones who run the Hawkeye systems, pick out the camera angles if the third umpire requires them, zooms in, does split screen etc. (they're the person you can sometimes hear in the background for games that broadcast umpire communications).

 

[Cricketrenew]

No, in one frame the ball has already hit the pad and moved off into the off side. The hall shown in the 2nd image is the electronically overlayed point of impact. The image from the frame before image shows the ball on the line of middle and off therefore as the hall travels a bit further after that frame it moves a short distance over to middle stump in that time.

What are you on about with it swinging with the wind? It hits him on middle stump (with his pad inclined towards the off side and hits him somewhere between the outside edge and middle of the pad therefore falls into the off side) and continues to travel along the predicted path in a straight line after hitting the pad which takes it just past the leg stump.

Ok I get that, it makes more sense the post impact image is where it would be after impact if no pad got in way. So how do you explain the pre impact and the predicted amount of movement in one frame?!
The middle of the ball has gone from middle and off (more off stump) to middle stump in one frame.

Looking more and more dodgier to me.
Also as the ball fell on offside sharpish must have hit outside of pad. Impact was on middle and off.
The angle and distance to travel was not great enough to miss leg stump completely.

So in all in all you have convinced me the decision was one of the dodgiest decisions in a world cup.
I hope the ICC find guts and more transparency and integrity and check it some day and admit to fault!

 

[Cricketrenew]

It was the impact point according to H/E. From there it obviously maps out the predicted path according to their calculations. As I have explained above the impact point from actual footage and the impact point from H/E footage doesn't seem to match-up.

[MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION]
If that was the impact point then the ball would have fallen leg side.
Far too dodgy, how did they get away with it!!!

 

[Tusker]

That pic doesn't prove anything. You can put the two balls anywhere and draw a line to it. Not to mention that in that ball next to leg stump fair amount of it has been cut off by their line. The ball only had to just clip the stumps by a mm and it would have remained out.

Not two ... Its three. Unless ofcourse you don't agree with where it pitches and where it hit the pads according to HawkEye

 

[HitWicket]

Ok I get that, it makes more sense the post impact image is where it would be after impact if no pad got in way. So how do you explain the pre impact and the predicted amount of movement in one frame?!
The middle of the ball has gone from middle and off (more off stump) to middle stump in one frame.

Looking more and more dodgier to me.
Also as the ball fell on offside sharpish must have hit outside of pad. Impact was on middle and off.
The angle and distance to travel was not great enough to miss leg stump completely.

So in all in all you have convinced me the decision was one of the dodgiest decisions in a world cup.
I hope the ICC find guts and more transparency and integrity and check it some day and admit to fault!

Once again, the ball doesnt move that far in one frame. In one frame it moves from being about to impact the pad to have already hit the pad and fallen into the off side.

I'm going to give up on the topic of where the ball fell now personally because if you don't understand how a ball that hit the pad, inclined towards the off side, somewhere between its outside edge and the middle of the pad can fall into the off side then you're a lost cause.

 

[Pete Rose]

Beginning to rival the great 'Shoaib Malik support' thread

 

[Cricketrenew]

Once again, the ball doesnt move that far in one frame. In one frame it moves from being about to impact the pad to have already hit the pad and fallen into the off side.

I'm going to give up on the topic of where the ball fell now personally because if you don't understand how a ball that hit the pad, inclined towards the off side, somewhere between its outside edge and the middle of the pad can fall into the off side then you're a lost cause.

I agree when the laws off physics and photographic images cannot be used to support an argument then that argument does not stand up. If the ball hit outside part of the pad then the ball would not have missed the stumps as impact would have been on middle and off (more off stump) not middle stump as the post impact or actual impact (seems to be disagreement on forum) image shows.


Ok "lost cause" says lets agree to disagree

 

[HitWicket]

I agree when the laws off physics and photographic images cannot be used to support an argument then that argument does not stand up. If the ball hit outside part of the pad then the ball would not have missed the stumps as impact would have been on middle and off (more off stump) not middle stump as the post impact or actual impact (seems to be disagreement on forum) image shows.


Ok "lost cause" says lets agree to disagree

Once again I'll just stick a split screen here showing the point of impact overlayed on the frame before and after when the point of impact occurred. Take note that the point of impact is on the middle stump and in both cases the impact is on the outer half of the pad.

 

[ChennaiFan]

There are many still baffled how Ajmal was allowed to chuck so long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sidilicious]

People are arguing against this decision, by using a 2D image??

 

[Cricketrenew]

Once again I'll just stick a split screen here showing the point of impact overlayed on the frame before and after when the point of impact occurred. Take note that the point of impact is on the middle stump and in both cases the impact is on the outer half of the pad.

You have changed the image on the left.
that is not the pre-impact used before.....here are the ones used before:


No possible for the ball to move from off to leg side in one frame!!!

 

[Cricketrenew]

There are many still baffled how Ajmal was allowed to chuck so long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no problems with Ajmal's action but agree he would not be playing under current scrutiny.
I am very surprised Ajmal has not released the details of his tests nor has he challenged the decision.
All should be tested.

 

[HitWicket]

You have changed the image on the left.
that is not the pre-impact used before.....here are the ones used before:

No possible for the ball to move from off to leg side in one frame!!!

I've not changed the image, like I stated I've chosen the images with the point of impact overlayed, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what the images are showing :

[Referring to the split-screen image in post #331 here]

The image on the left shows the pre-impact frame and the image on the right shows the post-impact frame. Overlayed on both images is the same real point of impact, which in reality occurs somewhere between the time when the 2 frames are taken. As you can see in both frames the point of impact is on the outer half of the pad, yet you argued it would be impossible for the ball to have it's impact point on middle stump and fall into the off side.

 

[James]

Lol yes this was an outrageous decision... but how many years ago was it now? Time to move on.

 

[srh]

Lol yes this was an outrageous decision... but how many years ago was it now? Time to move on.

exactly time to move on. no need to keep reminding all of us that it was out. everybody already know it was out. let it go.

 

[Cricketrenew]

I've not changed the image, like I stated I've chosen the images with the point of impact overlayed, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what the images are showing :

[Referring to the split-screen image in post #331 here]

The image on the left shows the pre-impact frame and the image on the right shows the post-impact frame. Overlayed on both images is the same real point of impact, which in reality occurs somewhere between the time when the 2 frames are taken. As you can see in both frames the point of impact is on the outer half of the pad, yet you argued it would be impossible for the ball to have it's impact point on middle stump and fall into the off side.

Ok my last post on this subject!!!

"The image on the left shows the pre-impact frame and the image on the right shows the post-impact frame. "
1. The ball cannot move that much in one frame from off to leg.

"As you can see in both frames the point of impact is on the outer half of the pad, yet you argued it would be impossible for the ball to have it's impact point on middle stump and fall into the off side."

2. On the image on the right, the ball is not hitting the outside of the pad! The ball would not fall offside as I said before.

Anyway no more replies from me on this subject for now!
Its been fun.......HOW DID THIS DECISION EVER GET MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am sure we will debate some other topic soooon.

 

[narayanjan]

In psychology when you study people that have a winning mentality and people that have a losing mentality - you always find two different emotions - Disappointment and Regret.

Disappointment always has to do with ACTIONS (why did it turn out this way), while you regret your INACTIONS (what if I had chosen a different path).

The more and more I read this forum and the more I come across posts by Pakpassion the more I see the losing mentality, almost always talking of disappointments. You look at the better teams and everyone around them, they talk of what-ifs - why didnt we try this, it might have made us a bigger winner etc.

No wonder Pakistan cricket fans are stuck in this losing mindset - thanks to the losing ways of the team.

 

[Titan of Technique]

^^^ harsh but has an element of truth

 

[Tusker]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1031971.html

Accuracy of Ball tracking technology verified by MIT

 

[MenInG]

Article dated : Wed 6 Apr 2011


Hawk-Eye Innovations has defended the accuracy of its tracking technology used during the Cricket World Cup's most controversial umpiring moment, when an lbw decision against Sachin Tendulkar was reversed during India's semi-final against Pakistan.

Ian Gould gave Tendulkar out lbw to Saeed Ajmal and shook his head with mystification when the decision was overturned on referral – a moment that may have cost England's leading official his chance to umpire in the World Cup final.

Conspiracy theories abounded. Ajmal claimed he had bowled an arm ball that Hawk-Eye had somehow misread and there was even speculation that the wrong delivery had somehow been super-imposed, perhaps as part of a deliberate plot.

Stephen Carter, the managing director of Hawk-Eye Innovations, has now published details of the Tendulkar reprieve on the company's website to counter the rumours.

"The path Hawk-Eye showed was accurate and the Decision Review System was used correctly to overturn the umpire's original decision," Carter said. "The Hawk-Eye track lines up perfectly with the video of the real ball from release to impact point.

"The commentators said on air that Tendulkar had been 'caught on the crease'. From the front-on angle it does look like Tendulkar has been hit when batting in his crease. However, Tendulkar was almost two metres out of his crease when struck."

The analysis seems to disprove Ajmal's contention that he bowled an arm ball, with the line clearly showing a slightly turning off-spinner.

Carter said that Ajmal also bowled this delivery from wider on the crease than any other ball in his spell – evidence not in their report to the International Cricket Council – which backs up Hawk-Eye's analysis that the ball would have missed leg stump.

As to the suggestion that the wrong ball was superimposed, Carter regards that as the sort of lurid theory that could develop only in an India v Pakistan World Cup semi-final. "Theoretically it is possible but in a practical sense you couldn't superimpose a wrong ball," he said. "It would not line up perfectly and it would be perfectly obvious to everybody."

Hawk-Eye routinely sends the ICC a study of any decision that is overturned on referral and this is passed down to the umpire for further analysis. "The system is devised so that umpires can have all the feedback they need," he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/apr/06/hawk-eye-sachin-tendulkar-lbw-reprieve

 

[Nikhil_cric]

So ajmal not only lied about that accident but about bowling an arm ball when he had bowled an off break. Disgraceful chucker !

 

[srh]

It was out

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Even if it was out it gets neutralised by the fact that ajmal was a chucker.

 

[Hawkeye]

It was out

You can't be out against throwing or watta bowling.

Ajmal isn't a bowler.

All illegal.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Article dated : Wed 6 Apr 2011


Hawk-Eye Innovations has defended the accuracy of its tracking technology used during the Cricket World Cup's most controversial umpiring moment, when an lbw decision against Sachin Tendulkar was reversed during India's semi-final against Pakistan.

Ian Gould gave Tendulkar out lbw to Saeed Ajmal and shook his head with mystification when the decision was overturned on referral – a moment that may have cost England's leading official his chance to umpire in the World Cup final.

Conspiracy theories abounded. Ajmal claimed he had bowled an arm ball that Hawk-Eye had somehow misread and there was even speculation that the wrong delivery had somehow been super-imposed, perhaps as part of a deliberate plot.

Stephen Carter, the managing director of Hawk-Eye Innovations, has now published details of the Tendulkar reprieve on the company's website to counter the rumours.

"The path Hawk-Eye showed was accurate and the Decision Review System was used correctly to overturn the umpire's original decision," Carter said. "The Hawk-Eye track lines up perfectly with the video of the real ball from release to impact point.

"The commentators said on air that Tendulkar had been 'caught on the crease'. From the front-on angle it does look like Tendulkar has been hit when batting in his crease. However, Tendulkar was almost two metres out of his crease when struck."

The analysis seems to disprove Ajmal's contention that he bowled an arm ball, with the line clearly showing a slightly turning off-spinner.

Carter said that Ajmal also bowled this delivery from wider on the crease than any other ball in his spell – evidence not in their report to the International Cricket Council – which backs up Hawk-Eye's analysis that the ball would have missed leg stump.

As to the suggestion that the wrong ball was superimposed, Carter regards that as the sort of lurid theory that could develop only in an India v Pakistan World Cup semi-final. "Theoretically it is possible but in a practical sense you couldn't superimpose a wrong ball," he said. "It would not line up perfectly and it would be perfectly obvious to everybody."

Hawk-Eye routinely sends the ICC a study of any decision that is overturned on referral and this is passed down to the umpire for further analysis. "The system is devised so that umpires can have all the feedback they need," he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/apr/06/hawk-eye-sachin-tendulkar-lbw-reprieve

I don't care about the decision at all but there's no way in hell that Sachin was 02 meters outside the crease. That's practically impossible and that's one of the most pathetic justifications of all time.

 

[Slim]

It is known that it was a fraud decision.

 

[Slog]

Even if it was out it gets neutralised by the fact that ajmal was a chucker.

He wasn’t a chucker by the rules of the time.

The rules changed in 2012-13 and that made him a chucker

As of 2011 World Cup he was a bowler with a legal action clearer by the relevant authorities

 

[Saurav]

He wasn’t a chucker by the rules of the time.

The rules changed in 2012-13 and that made him a chucker

As of 2011 World Cup he was a bowler with a legal action clearer by the relevant authorities

That LBW decision was also made by relevant authorities

 

[Saurav]

Anyway Pak had 3 more chances to get him out.

 

[Slog]

That LBW decision was also made by relevant authorities

I’m not complaining about them.

Pakistan didn’t lose due to this decision. Sachin had a scratchy innings of not the greatest impact where he was dropped 4 times; 3 of which were dollies.

The main reason for Pakistan’s loss was the implosion in the middle order and the absolutely ridiculous pace at which Younis Khan and Misbah ul Haq played.

Even with the chance laden 85, Sachin did not take away the game from Pakistan. And if his innings is held as a reason for defeat then certainly the blame is on Pakistan’s fielders.

 

[HitWicket]

I don't care about the decision at all but there's no way in hell that Sachin was 02 meters outside the crease. That's practically impossible and that's one of the most pathetic justifications of all time.

They appeared to mean 2 metres from his stumps.

 

[Hawkeye]

It is known that it was a fraud decision.

Calm down.

Not even close to the fraud Ajmal pulled off. Chucked and threw, no bowling at all.

Watta bowler.

He wasn’t a chucker by the rules of the time.

The rules changed in 2012-13 and that made him a chucker

As of 2011 World Cup he was a bowler with a legal action clearer by the relevant authorities

He was a chucker and everyone knew it.

All his wickets should be stripped off. A thrower cannot be called a bowler.

 

[Slog]

Calm down.

Not even close to the fraud Ajmal pulled off. Chucked and threw, no bowling at all.

Watta bowler.




He was a chucker and everyone knew it.

All his wickets should be stripped off. A thrower cannot be called a bowler.

He was not a chucker as per the times till 2012 or so

 

[Hawkeye]

He was not a chucker as per the times till 2012 or so

Dodging and gaming the system doesn't mean he wasn't chucking.

Everyone knew he chucks. Never wore half sleeves. Unplayable balls and doosras were all chucks and throwing.

Not bowling.

 

[Slim]

Calm down.

Not even close to the fraud Ajmal pulled off. Chucked and threw, no bowling at all.

Watta bowler.




He was a chucker and everyone knew it.

All his wickets should be stripped off. A thrower cannot be called a bowler.

Stop with the lame whataboutism. Focus on the topic at hand.

 

[ahmedzee]

Its been 9 years. Lets get over it please!

 

[Bhaijaan]

You can't be out against throwing or watta bowling.

Ajmal isn't a bowler.

All illegal.

Bhai what did Ajju do to invite this wrath?

I loved his bowling he really was lethal and magical.

I don't mind little bit watta from spinners if it makes the game interesting.

 

[Bigboii]

Bhai what did Ajju do to invite this wrath?

I loved his bowling he really was lethal and magical.

I don't mind little bit watta from spinners if it makes the game interesting.

if we go by his opinion than Murali is out of GOAT category which is criminal

 

[MenInG]

Saeed Ajmal speaking in a PCB video

If you ask me, I would have loved to have bowled with the legendary Abdul Qadir. He was a great leg-spinner and possessed a remarkable googly. And, I had a doosra in my arsenal. So, ours would have been a great pair.

Qadir sahab had the googly and at the time, everyone was talking about the googly because it was new. Me bowling the doosra and Qadir bhai bowling the googly, imagine how that would be. It was my dream to bowl alongside such a bowler. I would definitely make a good pair with Qadir sahab amongst the ex-cricketers, he was one of my favorite players.

 

[Mr Crickekter]

Anything can happen if India is home team.....

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Today - Ravichandran Ashwin to Dean Elgar looked out and should have been out<br><br>30 March 2011 - Saeed Ajmal to Sachin Tendulkar, looked out and should have been out<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvsIND?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvsIND</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IndVsPak?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IndVsPak</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@SajSadiqCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/SajSadiqCricket/status/1481690072172933132?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[shamaan]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Today - Ravichandran Ashwin to Dean Elgar looked out and should have been out<br><br>30 March 2011 - Saeed Ajmal to Sachin Tendulkar, looked out and should have been out<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SAvsIND?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SAvsIND</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IndVsPak?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IndVsPak</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@SajSadiqCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/SajSadiqCricket/status/1481690072172933132?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And what was the reaction of both set of players.