Umpire Ian Gould apologises to Jason Holder for wrong decision in Hyderabad Test

[Abdullah719]

India’s teen prodigy Prithvi Shaw may have been given a life during the second innings of the second Test against West Indies at the Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium at Uppal, Hyderabad on Sunday. And Shaw, who was awarded the Man of the Series for scoring 237 runs in the two Tests which India sealed inside three days on Sunday, can thank umpire Ian Gould.

The incident occurred in the fifth over of India’s second innings after the West Indies were bowled out for 127 and set a mere 72-run target for India.

Shaw, facing skipper Jason Holder, tried to duck a delivery, but the ball did not rise as expected and hit the 18-year-old on the arm instead right in front of the wicket. The West Indies appealed in unison for an lbw, but English umpire adjudged not out.

Replays showed the ball was going on to clip the bails and the Decision Review System stayed with on-filed umpire’s decision. In Gould, realising he made a mistake, apologised to Holder.

Shaw, who registered a century on his Test debut in the first match at Rajkot, scored the winning runs as India registered yet another dominating Test victory.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/news...r-for-wrong-decision-in-hyderabad-test-755520

 

[sunny85]

Harper apologised to Murali. And Haier apologised to Sachin.

Sorry mate, no hard feelings. Thanks for coming to my country.

 

[AuxiliA]

It wasn't a howler. Don't think he needed to apologize about an umpires call .

 

[EliteCynical]

Harper apologised to Murali. And Haier apologised to Sachin.

Sorry mate, no hard feelings. Thanks for coming to my country.

Isn't it the other way around?

Harper had given Sachin 'shoulder before wicket' against McGrath

 

[BaankeJi]

India’s teen prodigy Prithvi Shaw may have been given a life during the second innings of the second Test against West Indies at the Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium at Uppal, Hyderabad on Sunday. And Shaw, who was awarded the Man of the Series for scoring 237 runs in the two Tests which India sealed inside three days on Sunday, can thank umpire Ian Gould.

The incident occurred in the fifth over of India’s second innings after the West Indies were bowled out for 127 and set a mere 72-run target for India.

Shaw, facing skipper Jason Holder, tried to duck a delivery, but the ball did not rise as expected and hit the 18-year-old on the arm instead right in front of the wicket. The West Indies appealed in unison for an lbw, but English umpire adjudged not out.

Replays showed the ball was going on to clip the bails and the Decision Review System stayed with on-filed umpire’s decision. In Gould, realising he made a mistake, apologised to Holder.

Shaw, who registered a century on his Test debut in the first match at Rajkot, scored the winning runs as India registered yet another dominating Test victory.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/news...r-for-wrong-decision-in-hyderabad-test-755520

What is the issue here? DRS was taken and decision stayed with on field umpire call. Where is the need to apologise?

 

[Saj]

When is he going to apologise to Saeed Ajmal

 

[HitWicket]

When is he going to apologise to Saeed Ajmal

Shouldn't he be apologising to Tendulkar for giving him out incorrectly?

 

[Saj]

Shouldn't he be apologising to Tendulkar for giving him out incorrectly?

I know what I saw

 

[HitWicket]

I know what I saw

Genuinely curious, what did you see other than an off-spinning ball pitching outside off hitting a batsman on middle stump well infront of their crease and therefore going down leg?

 

[Saj]

Genuinely curious, what did you see other than an off-spinning ball pitching outside off hitting a batsman on middle stump well infront of their crease and therefore going down leg?

Looked plumb to me and plenty of other people.

 

[HitWicket]

Looked plumb to me and plenty of other people.

So what's your theory/area of concern? Where the ball was shown to have pitched or where the impact was shown to be (presumably they can be the only factors)?

 

[Saj]

So what's your theory/area of concern? Where the ball was shown to have pitched or where the impact was shown to be (presumably they can be the only factors)?

Don't need a theory to know when a batsman is plumb.

 

[HitWicket]

Don't need a theory to know when a batsman is plumb.

But you clearly need to have an issue with the ball tracking so which aspect (pitching or impact) was it?

 

[Saj]

But you clearly need to have an issue with the ball tracking so which aspect (pitching or impact) was it?

In my opinion there was no way that ball was turning that much and missing the stumps.

Saeed Ajmal "I was totally convinced I had him in front of the stumps but how the umpires didn’t give him out I still can’t understand. I was 110% confident when the referral was made that the batsman was out"

 

[HitWicket]

In my opinion there was no way that ball was turning that much and missing the stumps.

Saeed Ajmal "I was totally convinced I had him in front of the stumps but how the umpires didn’t give him out I still can’t understand. I was 110% confident when the referral was made that the batsman was out"

To believe it didn't turn as much as was displayed you'd have to believe the real point of pitching was closer to off stump than was shown or that the point of impact was further towards off stump than shown (to narrow down the angle), given any thought to which it is?

What Ajmal thought about it isn't really relevant, bowlers think they've got LBWs that turn out to be not out multiple times every game.

 

[Saj]

To believe it didn't turn as much as was displayed you'd have to believe the real point of pitching was closer to off stump than was shown or that the point of impact was further towards off stump than shown (to narrow down the angle), given any thought to which it is?

What Ajmal thought about it isn't really relevant, bowlers think they've got LBWs that turn out to be not out multiple times every game.

Are you convinced it was spinning that much and missing leg stump easily?

 

[HitWicket]

Are you convinced it was spinning that much and missing leg stump easily?

Personally yes I have been (it only just missed leg stump, not easily). Still curious if you have an answer to that question though?

 

[Saj]

Personally yes I have been (it only just missed leg stump, not easily). Still curious if you have an answer to that question though?

Already told you that I don't believe the ball was spinning that much and the trajectory of the tracking looked odd.

 

[HitWicket]

Already told you that I don't believe the ball was spinning that much and the trajectory of the tracking looked odd.

Looking more for the answer to this one: "To believe it didn't turn as much as was displayed you'd have to believe the real point of pitching was closer to off stump than was shown or that the point of impact was further towards off stump than shown (to narrow down the angle), given any thought to which it is?"

You'd have to believe one (or both) of those factors was off/dodgy in the ball tracking for the tracking to be off/ball to be spinning more than you expected.

 

[Saj]

Looking more for the answer to this one: "To believe it didn't turn as much as was displayed you'd have to believe the real point of pitching was closer to off stump than was shown or that the point of impact was further towards off stump than shown (to narrow down the angle), given any thought to which it is?"

You'd have to believe one (or both) of those factors was off/dodgy in the ball tracking for the tracking to be off/ball to be spinning more than you expected.

Nobody can say for definite really can they. But as I've already said the trajectory didn't look right in the replays to me.

 

[HitWicket]

Nobody can say for definite really can they. But as I've already said the trajectory didn't look right in the replays to me.

Only in the way that no one can ever state anything with absoloute certainty. The trajectory part of it is just drawing a straight line from A (the pitch) to B (the impact) and then extending it like shown below so one of those must be the ultimate factor (even if you've not consciouly thought about it) for you to believe it wasn't right.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Sachin was plumb lbw that day. Any Indian who tries to defend it is lying to his soul and will struggle to get moksha when the time is up on this planet.

It was a legendary knock nonetheless. One of the greatest played by Sachin.

But yes Ajju has him lbw clearly. BCCI thanks to Home bias and money handed out to officials as well as its paid ball tracking agencies ensured the replay showed the ball missing the stumps when it would have clearly gone on to hit the stump.

Most people who know their cricket know that the real trajectory of that ball that day was to hit the stump and not miss t as the replays showed. Beyond me why people would still wanna defend r after all these hearts:

Please move on.

Bhaijaan.

 

[Saj]

Only in the way that no one can ever state anything with absoloute certainty. The trajectory part of it is just drawing a straight line from A (the pitch) to B (the impact) and then extending it like shown below so one of those must be the ultimate factor (even if you've not consciouly thought about it) for you to believe it wasn't right.

I don't need diagrams or science or anything else to convince me that was missing the stumps.

 

[HitWicket]

Sachin was plumb lbw that day. Any Indian who tries to defend it is lying to his soul and will struggle to get moksha when the time is up on this planet.

It was a legendary knock nonetheless. One of the greatest played by Sachin.

But yes Ajju has him lbw clearly. BCCI thanks to Home bias and money handed out to officials as well as its paid ball tracking agencies ensured the replay showed the ball missing the stumps when it would have clearly gone on to hit the stump.

Most people who know their cricket know that the real trajectory of that ball that day was to hit the stump and not miss t as the replays showed. Beyond me why people would still wanna defend r after all these hearts:

Please move on.

Bhaijaan.

Good thing I'm not Indian then isn't it. Care to provide any detailed opinion on what you thought was specifically wrong with the ball tracking rather than the pretty lacklustre "just is" you have so far?

 

[IMMY69]

To believe it didn't turn as much as was displayed you'd have to believe the real point of pitching was closer to off stump than was shown or that the point of impact was further towards off stump than shown (to narrow down the angle), given any thought to which it is?

What Ajmal thought about it isn't really relevant, bowlers think they've got LBWs that turn out to be not out multiple times every game.

Tendulkar was as plumb as it ever gets.
Couldn’t be any more plumb.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Only in the way that no one can ever state anything with absoloute certainty. The trajectory part of it is just drawing a straight line from A (the pitch) to B (the impact) and then extending it like shown below so one of those must be the ultimate factor (even if you've not consciouly thought about it) for you to believe it wasn't right.

Saeed Ajmal bowled that delivery and he has gone on record to reveal that he threw that ball with the intention of hitting the stumps. The claim that the ball turned outrageously to miss the stumps defies all logic. How can it miss the stumps when it was thrown precisely to knock them off unless you are claiming you know more about that delivery than the one who bowled it?

 

[Bhaijaan]

Good thing I'm not Indian then isn't it. Care to provide any detailed opinion on what you thought was specifically wrong with the ball tracking rather than the pretty lacklustre "just is" you have so far?

Two theories have been proposed.

One is that BCCI simply manipulated with the data thanks to its complete control over the video production to ensure the footage that was shown to third umpire was not the same delivery but another previously bowled delivery which might have been missing the stumps. West Indies we’re once caught red handed doing the same to India. Even Sri Lanka has done it. If those two poor boards can pull it off how can you doubt BCCI when the World Cup was at stake?


Secondly it is possible that thanks to many engineers and special graphics effects engineers employed by BCCI, a fresh footage was prepared that showed a wrong/rather artificially altered trajectory of the ball.

 

[HitWicket]

Saeed Ajmal bowled that delivery and he has gone on record to reveal that he threw that ball with the intention of hitting the stumps. The claim that the ball turned outrageously to miss the stumps defies all logic. How can it miss the stumps when it was thrown precisely to knock them off unless you are claiming you know more about that delivery than the one who bowled it?

I was watching a game of international cricket the other day. A top quality batsman missed a ball and got bowled. Afterwards he revelead he had swung his bat with the intention of hitting the ball. The claim that the ball missed the bat to hit the stumps defies all logic. How could the ball have missed the bat and hit the stumps when the bat was swung precisely to hit the ball unless you are claimining you know more about this shot than the one who played it?


I was looking for more factual aspects to do with what you think was wrong with the displayed trajectory /impact points of the ball rather than an "X said Y".

 

[HitWicket]

We're getting somewhere, far fetched conspiracy theories but still somewhere I guess.

Two theories have been proposed.

One is that BCCI simply manipulated with the data thanks to its complete control over the video production to ensure the footage that was shown to third umpire was not the same delivery but another previously bowled delivery which might have been missing the stumps. West Indies we’re once caught red handed doing the same to India. Even Sri Lanka has done it. If those two poor boards can pull it off how can you doubt BCCI when the World Cup was at stake?

Previous situations where this has happened (being deliberate is a debate for another day) involved all the footage of the wrong ball being shown. Given we can see the ball being bowled in hawkeyes graphical representation lines up with the ball we saw originally this isn't possible.

Secondly it is possible that thanks to many engineers and special graphics effects engineers employed by BCCI, a fresh footage was prepared that showed a wrong/rather artificially altered trajectory of the ball.

So which particular area of the ball tracking was wrong? Was the pitching location manipulated? Was the point of impact manipulated? Were basics laws of physics 'adjusted' (I've shown images above detailing the ball travelling in a straight line between impact points as you'd expect)?

 

[Sidilicious]

Tendulkar was as plumb as it ever gets.
Couldn’t be any more plumb.

OR DRS Simply shows how much our eyes could deceive?

What generally has more chances of being correct - Science or our eyes?

 

[Sunny_majoka]

when will Aleem dar apologies to ganguly

 

[Napa]

India’s teen prodigy Prithvi Shaw may have been given a life during the second innings of the second Test against West Indies at the Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium at Uppal, Hyderabad on Sunday. And Shaw, who was awarded the Man of the Series for scoring 237 runs in the two Tests which India sealed inside three days on Sunday, can thank umpire Ian Gould.

The incident occurred in the fifth over of India’s second innings after the West Indies were bowled out for 127 and set a mere 72-run target for India.

Shaw, facing skipper Jason Holder, tried to duck a delivery, but the ball did not rise as expected and hit the 18-year-old on the arm instead right in front of the wicket. The West Indies appealed in unison for an lbw, but English umpire adjudged not out.

Replays showed the ball was going on to clip the bails and the Decision Review System stayed with on-filed umpire’s decision. In Gould, realising he made a mistake, apologised to Holder.

Shaw, who registered a century on his Test debut in the first match at Rajkot, scored the winning runs as India registered yet another dominating Test victory.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/news...r-for-wrong-decision-in-hyderabad-test-755520

About half of DRS challenges for LBW are denied due to "umpire's call" (or so it seems tome). Strange that in this one particular case the umpire would choose to apologize.

 

[USofA]

Looks like the ICC is being accused of being corrupt and accepting bribes in the above exchanges. Who do you think was/were involved and how much money was in play?

I am sure the entire ICC during that time was not corrupt. It would have been certain individuals who took the bribe. Which individual(s) do you think were involved? Also, I am assuming there is corroborating evidence to support these accusations.

 

[AMSS]

When is he going to apologise to Saeed Ajmal

He did need to apologize to the general cricketing fraterinity. For allowing Ajmal to transparently pelt them down.

 

[IMMY69]

OR DRS Simply shows how much our eyes could deceive?

What generally has more chances of being correct - Science or our eyes?

No!
When it looks out LBW it is generally out LBW.
If you get your calls wrong when watching it on TV then I think you should either start playing the game to get a better understanding of it or maybe get your eyes tested.

 

[IMMY69]

Looks like the ICC is being accused of being corrupt and accepting bribes in the above exchanges. Who do you think was/were involved and how much money was in play?

I am sure the entire ICC during that time was not corrupt. It would have been certain individuals who took the bribe. Which individual(s) do you think were involved? Also, I am assuming there is corroborating evidence to support these accusations.

OR

There was a simple fault with the system.
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

 

[Sidilicious]

No!
When it looks out LBW it is generally out LBW.
If you get your calls wrong when watching it on TV then I think you should either start playing the game to get a better understanding of it or maybe get your eyes tested.

I Would agree to this, but with a caveat - "generally". This could have been one of the occasions where it was not.

I know you dont mean any tampering, but a faulty system fault. But if it was a system fault, then it would have to happen more often. Not denying that technology cant make mistakes, but the human eye is more prone to mistakes than technology.

 

[Tusker]

No!
When it looks out LBW it is generally out LBW.
If you get your calls wrong when watching it on TV then I think you should either start playing the game to get a better understanding of it or maybe get your eyes tested.

Hawkeye later defended that decision and said that the call was accurate. They even had released their detailed explanation with the tracker snapshots that aren't showing during live broadcast.

 

[ipl_fan]

when will Aleem dar apologies to ganguly

When will Aleem Dar apologise to Zaheer Khan for ruling AB not out for a slip catch.

 

[Lion]

About half of DRS challenges for LBW are denied due to "umpire's call" (or so it seems tome). Strange that in this one particular case the umpire would choose to apologize.

In this one, seems like the umpires tenor and manner after the appeal was that it was a frivolous appeal. There was talk in commentary that he may even have made that apparent to the Windies.

When he himself saw how close it was to being Out, he apologized for his gross miscalculation

 

[Indiafan]

Tendulkar was as plumb as it ever gets.
Couldn’t be any more plumb.

This is why we have technology. You show how wrong the human eye and perception can be

 

[BreadPakoda]

When is he going to apologise to Saeed Ajmal

Quite frankly I am waiting for Ajmal's apology to every batsman that he got out.

 

[Tusker]

Nobody can say for definite really can they. But as I've already said the trajectory didn't look right in the replays to me.

Well hawkeye responded to the huge controversy that decision had created with conspiracy theories floating around in social media. Here is a link to the pdf file which has their explanation: http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...ponse_to_questions_posed_on_Tendulkar_LBW.pdf

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

 

[Kaka_Hathrasi]

A student passed his exams throughout his career by cheating and once he didnt get the marks he expected as the proffessor had other ideas...The students keep on repeating about it..Although when he appeared for the exam when the examiner was strict and he had to do it on his own then he failed miserably.... Now ppl r wise enough to understand that who was that boy in this topic of Tendulkar dissmissal.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Shoulder before the wicket is always going to favor batsman except ofcourse Sachin didn't get the benefit of doubt. It will introduce lot of doubts. I am not even sure why he had to apologize for it. There were much more obvious howlers i have seen

 

[Tusker]

Quite frankly I am waiting for Ajmal's apology to every batsman that he got out.

Good point !! If there is anyone that owes an apology it is Ajmal

 

[Napa]

In this one, seems like the umpires tenor and manner after the appeal was that it was a frivolous appeal. There was talk in commentary that he may even have made that apparent to the Windies.

When he himself saw how close it was to being Out, he apologized for his gross miscalculation

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[mak36]

@<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=9" target="_blank">Saj</a> just to give credence to your point about ball trajectory, if you watch the below video carefully Hawkeye showed two completely different trackings for the same delivery (Starc's dismissal).

Didn't make a difference this time (both trackings gave it out) but it certainly backs up your point that you cannot put blind faith in ball tracking as @<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=134608" target="_blank">Hawkeye</a> seems to think you should:

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/rv2b5/epamlt" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>


Worth remembering the tech is supposed to have improved since the infamous Ajmal/Tendulkar incident.

 

[Tusker]

Worth remembering the tech is supposed to have improved since the infamous Ajmal/Tendulkar incident.

See post# 45 and Hawkeye's official response to the Tendulkar lbw controversy

 

[Hawkeye]

@<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=9" target="_blank">Saj</a> just to give credence to your point about ball trajectory, if you watch the below video carefully Hawkeye showed two completely different trackings for the same delivery (Starc's dismissal).

Didn't make a difference this time (both trackings gave it out) but it certainly backs up your point that you cannot put blind faith in ball tracking as @<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=134608" target="_blank">Hawkeye</a> seems to think you should:

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/rv2b5/epamlt" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>


Worth remembering the tech is supposed to have improved since the infamous Ajmal/Tendulkar incident.

I'm a human after all. Can make mistakes.

 

[HitWicket]

@<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=9" target="_blank">Saj</a> just to give credence to your point about ball trajectory, if you watch the below video carefully Hawkeye showed two completely different trackings for the same delivery (Starc's dismissal).

Didn't make a difference this time (both trackings gave it out) but it certainly backs up your point that you cannot put blind faith in ball tracking as @<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=134608" target="_blank">Hawkeye</a> seems to think you should:

-

Worth remembering the tech is supposed to have improved since the infamous Ajmal/Tendulkar incident.

The issue with this one was practically no distance between pitching and impact, and it's blatantly obvious that the impact was incorrectly assigned. Hawk-eye themselves have stated the reliability of the system isn't as high when there's such a small distance between pitching and impact.

If someone wants to genuinely claim the Ajmal one was wrong they'd also have to claim one of the points of pitching or impact was wrong, which as far as I'm aware no one in this thread has done yet.