[VIDEO] 3rd umpire gives Daryl Mitchell out LBW in New Zealand v India T20I despite mark on hot-spot

[Abdullah719]

India vs New Zealand 2nd T20I: Daryl Mitchell lbw decision sparks DRS controversy

Umpiring decisions can be questionable in cricket, and even the calls made after referring to the Decision Review System (DRS) can be doubtful at times, like in the second T20I between India and New Zealand at Eden Park in Auckland. After winning the toss and batting first, New Zealand’s Daryl Mitchell was given out leg before off Krunal Pandya in the sixth over of the inning. The issue, however, was there appeared to be an inside edge before the ball struck the front pad.

On the last ball of the sixth over, Krunal delivered the ball from around the stumps and had Mitchell, playing his second T20I, tried to play it down the legside but didn’t make clean or convincing contact.

Mitchell was given out lbw but immediately conferred with his skipper Kane Williamson at the other end before opting for a review. On the DRS, the HotSpot showed a mark but then on RTS, it didn’t show any spike as the ball went past the bat. After the three negatives on Hawk-Eye, third umpire Shaun Haig reckoned there was no bat involved and declared the batsman out.

As the decision was displayed, Mitchell looked stunned with Williamson looked equally dismayed. The Kiwi batsmen spoke to the umpires as the two officials – Wayne Knights and Chris Brown – discussed amongst them as well.

Mitchell clearly believed there was an inside edge and spoke to India skipper Rohit Sharma seeking a solution. MS Dhoni also joined the discussion, but it all proved useless. With no change in the decision possible, Mitchell was told to return to the dugout.

‘It’s ridiculous’, said former New Zealand bowler Simon Doull on air while adding that there was a clear inside edge.

It’s worth mentioning that in 2011, MS Dhoni called back England batsman Ian Bell after bizarre scenes at Trent Bridge. At the time, Eoin Morgan’s shot was believed to have gone for a four, with Praveen Kumar the nearest fielder. The ball bounced off his leg as the fielder fell over the boundary.

Kumar reckoned the ball had gone for four, as he returned it to the keeper. It was collected by MS Dhoni who then gave it to the short-leg fielder, Abhinav Mukund, who broke the stumps. By this time, Bell and Morgan, who appeared to think the umpire had called “over” were on their way back to the pavilion for Tea.

But to England’s surprise, Bell was given out after replays had shown that the ball had not gone for four. The umpires were booed as they took the field but it soon turned to cheers when Bell resumed his innings, Dhoni withdrawing the appeal over tea.

https://indianexpress.com/article/s...0-daryl-mitchell-lbw-drs-controversy-5575094/

Quite a contentious decision. Do they need proof from both ultra-edge and hotspot in this scenario (would imagine that's unlikely) or is this just a major goof-up?

 

[WengerOut]

On field umpire had given that out. There was a mark on hot-spot but nothing showed up on snicko. In case of ambiguities like these, umpires call should stand right? At least that is the general convention.

Plus Mitchell waited to go for review. He couldve done that straight away if he knew he had edged that.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yep nothing wrong there by the third umpire. Too much doubt and umpires call should stand

 

[IndianHero]

This is the major reason on why BCCI didn't accept this technology as this is not 100 % foul proof one !

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Just a confirmation bias, nothing else. Hope we get rid of the umpire’s call from DRS soon.

 

[WengerOut]

Apparently BCCI does not have enough clout to buy out hotspot. They could only offer for snicko

 

[hadi123]

Would have been interesting if it had been given not out and India had reviewed it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Just a confirmation bias, nothing else. Hope we get rid of the umpire’s call from DRS soon.

Yep. It is very annoying to see balls which are hitting the stumps overruled because the umpire has given not out and the ball is only partially hitting. It can lead to umpires giving out/not out so that the review might favour a particular side.

 

[TM Riddle]

Why even need Umpire's call when you have the latest technology available to make decisions at your disposal.
Makes the mockery of the whole system tbh.

 

[Indiafan]

Yep. It is very annoying to see balls which are hitting the stumps overruled because the umpire has given not out and the ball is only partially hitting. It can lead to umpires giving out/not out so that the review might favour a particular side.

But according to DRS, because of the error margin, the ball which is shown hitting partially might not be hitting at all and might be missing the stumps.

 

[Major]

I could see where the umpire goofed up.

The umpire gave it not out because he thought he saw a hot mark before the bat came in agains the ball.

THe decision could go either way

 

[Major]

Why even need Umpire's call when you have the latest technology available to make decisions at your disposal.
Makes the mockery of the whole system tbh.

no it doesn't.

The only people who it a mockery are those fools who have not bothered to understand the logic behind DRS.

I am really tired of such posts, mostly by Indians complaining about DRS.

DRS is not 100% accurate. HOwever, it is more accurate than the naked eye.

If the ball is clipping the stumps, decision should be with umpires call. Reason behind, while the technology might predict where the ball is going, but when we talk about less than 50% margns, then the technology cant be accurate as other factors could move the ball away.

Hence to also keep the on field umpires relevent and make their decision to also have worth, there is umpires call

 

[Sherlock]

I'm not joking here but you can tell from the front-on view he edged it. I saw a deviation first time I watched it.

 

[big_gamer007]

I'm not joking here but you can tell from the front-on view he edged it. I saw a deviation first time I watched it.

We don't need DRS we need umpires with hawk eyes like you..

 

[BobbySharma]

I could see where the umpire goofed up.

The umpire gave it not out because he thought he saw a hot mark before the bat came in agains the ball.

THe decision could go either way

Can you imagine the entertainment this would have provided had this been against the Bangladeshis

 

[Sherlock]

We don't need DRS we need umpires with hawk eyes like you..

Thanks. Then again the video was zoomed in to help my hawk eyes

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But according to DRS, because of the error margin, the ball which is shown hitting partially might not be hitting at all and might be missing the stumps.

I have no problem in computers having error of margin, less trust in humans unfortunately, which is why I would like them taken out of the equation where there is a better alternative. Nothing against most umpires by the way, most of them do a fine job, but even the best of them will have some leaning toward one side or the other.

 

[Sherlock]

Btw, I'll post the gif

 

[Sherlock]

Btw, I'll post the gif

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/vENfrGr"><a href="//imgur.com/vENfrGr"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Look at the slight deflection.

 

[Majid Khan]

Either take away the TV reviews and third umpire decisions or add a new rule which says ‘Common sense takes priority over any other factor when reviewing decisions via TV replays’ - in other words , you should never have a situation where the whole world sees on the TV replay that a batsman is out or not out, and the third umpire gives a decision opposite to this to fit in with so-called other rules.

 

[Majid Khan]

If there’s no other way, I would even put an emergency button in the TV commmentry
Box where if the third umpires gives a horrendous decision that two or more commentators of different countries oppose after seeing replay, they could hit this button before batsman has walked off the pitch and decision should be over ruled or reviewed again. In other words, the importance should be about making the right decision and common sense, not treating everyone like fools.

 

[Boi]

Shaun Haig clearly looking for an IPL contract.

 

[aloo paratha]

Reminds me of Nigel Llong from a couple of years ago. "There's a mark on the bat but it could come from anywhere!". NZ seems to always be on the receiving end of poor DRS work.

 

[asfandyar]

This is the major reason on why BCCI didn't accept this technology as this is not 100 % foul proof one !

If it is not 100% fool proof, is it wise to reject it unless it is perfected? Is all the technology you use at home 100% fool proof?

Rubbish mentality. The question here should not be whether the tech is fool proof or not, but rather whether the decisions with technology are better or worse (both in execution and credibility) than decisions without its use.

 

[Smbhayi]

no it doesn't.

The only people who it a mockery are those fools who have not bothered to understand the logic behind DRS.

I am really tired of such posts, mostly by Indians complaining about DRS.

DRS is not 100% accurate. HOwever, it is more accurate than the naked eye.

If the ball is clipping the stumps, decision should be with umpires call. Reason behind, while the technology might predict where the ball is going, but when we talk about less than 50% margns, then the technology cant be accurate as other factors could move the ball away.

Hence to also keep the on field umpires relevent and make their decision to also have worth, there is umpires call

there shouldn't be umpires call.. coz there will 2 decision on exact thing.. if umpire favors one team then this umpire's call thing will. destroy a team completely..

if it's hits then out if not then out.. that's the simplest and best way..

 

[KingKhanWC]

You can see the edge with one eye closed but it seems just like the 3rd umpire we have many people with poor eyesight.

Even if he was partially blind to the front on view, hot spot was huge and clear.

This guy should be sent back to umpire schoolkids.

 

[jnaveen1980]

This was an interpretation issue. It is impossible for the main umpire to know the back of the bat edge. So generally they give out. It looked out in real time. But snicko interpretation was botched up by third umpire. Once you see a mark that occurrs case closed it was not out. Having said that Kane williamson trying to badger umpire, opposition captain into changing decision is a very very bad precedent. Hope he knows as a professional cricketer it will lead to chaotic scenarios. Definitely tough on a youngster trying to make a mark at the internationals.

 

[WengerOut]

Kohli gets flak for his demeanour, captaincy etc and rightly so. But if he had done what Kane did today, hell would've broken loose here. 100 page thread dedicated to that incident would've been in order.

 

[rhony]

Would have been interesting if it had been given not out and India had reviewed it.

Then the decision would have stood again as not out. There is just enough doubt and hence the third ump didn't over turn it. In the office side view, there was hit spot on the outside edge for some weird reason. That was not even close to the bat. It was ambiguous and hence wasn't overturned.

 

[rhony]

Kohli gets flak for his demeanour, captaincy etc and rightly so. But if he had done what Kane did today, hell would've broken loose here. 100 page thread dedicated to that incident would've been in order.

Let's see if the batsmen get fined. It's a good thing that all three umpires were from NZ. So, there's no bias and the way Kane acted was ridiculous

 

[Major]

there shouldn't be umpires call.. coz there will 2 decision on exact thing.. if umpire favors one team then this umpire's call thing will. destroy a team completely..

if it's hits then out if not then out.. that's the simplest and best way..

again, you have failed to comprehend what i have said.

Hawk Eye isn't 100% accurate. If 40% of the ball is hitting stumps, the ball could go either way in reality.

Thus, to keep the on the field umpires relevant and their decision to be important, plus to make sure their isn't any controvery regarding such decisions, the on field decision should have value.

Like i have said before, if hawk-eye shows that 40% of the ball hits the stump, in reality that might not be hitting the stump at all due to wind or some unexpected rise in the ball or sudden drp in its speed and vice versa aswell

When the full ball is hitting, such considerations donot have to be taken in.

 

[Hasan123]

Poor umpiring.

 

[Snowflake]

I thought there was not even a need for Hotspot or Snicko in this case! The deviation from the front-on angle was HUGE!

Snicko clearly didn't pick it up. Poor umpiring!

 

[Snowflake]

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/vENfrGr"><a href="//imgur.com/vENfrGr"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Look at the slight deflection.

This should have been primary evidence with Hotspot and Snicko being secondary!

 

[SportsWarrior]

Wow very very poor behavior by KW. Really, how is this guy hailed as a gentleman.

 

[bantu]

If it such an obvious hotspot edge and deflection seen .. why is there no snicko spikes? ..Heard somewhere that Snicko is more validated than hotspot by ICC ..

 

[jnaveen1980]

This should have been primary evidence with Hotspot and Snicko being secondary!

Absolutely that is not going to be considered as primary evidence. It could give you all kind of optical illusion. Primary evidence is hot spot.In real time he was stone dead. There is no way anyone could see ball hitting the back of the bat with bat, ball, pad everything close together.

 

[Afzal_K]

This should have been primary evidence with Hotspot and Snicko being secondary!

Actually its after hitting the pad, in super slow mo

 

[Space Cat]

The hot spot camera from the offside boundary showed no marks at all on the pads.

You could literally see the ball deflect off the bat.

 

[Sherlock]

The hot spot camera from the offside boundary showed no marks at all on the pads.

You could literally see the ball deflect off the bat.

Agreed. The snicko tech etc has had some weird history before. Add this to one of those days.

 

[UsmanhailsAfridi]

It’s marginal

For me he hit the inside back of the bat. Snicko is missing a frame it’s not ultra slow...the spike on snicko is bat/pad combined and umpire took it as pad only

 

[Haripotter]

Main signal from on-field umpire was OUT . so the main job of 3rd umpire was to see if there is sufficient evidence to overturn the decision . In this case, the hotspot showed a mark as the ball went past the bat but snicko showed no spoke. Hence there was no clear sufficient evidence to o return the decision. So I feel Umpire took a good and brave call .
Who so ever is questioning the umpire should know AtoZ about their role and not just make sweeping judgements

 

[Muhammad10]

Going by some of the posts on here, it seems HotSpot is merely for show, whereas Snicko is the real deal when it comes to detecting edges. If HotSpot's credibility is in question, why is it a part of DRS at all?

 

[HitWicket]

no it doesn't.

The only people who it a mockery are those fools who have not bothered to understand the logic behind DRS.

I am really tired of such posts, mostly by Indians complaining about DRS.

DRS is not 100% accurate. HOwever, it is more accurate than the naked eye.

If the ball is clipping the stumps, decision should be with umpires call. Reason behind, while the technology might predict where the ball is going, but when we talk about less than 50% margns, then the technology cant be accurate as other factors could move the ball away.

Hence to also keep the on field umpires relevent and make their decision to also have worth, there is umpires call

The margin of error of Hawkeye is nowhere close to the radius of the ball.

 

[HitWicket]

Like i have said before, if hawk-eye shows that 40% of the ball hits the stump, in reality that might not be hitting the stump at all due to wind or some unexpected rise in the ball or sudden drp in its speed and vice versa aswell

When the full ball is hitting, such considerations donot have to be taken in.

Added to that Hawkeye tracks the ball at regular frames up to the point of impact therefore something like wind doesn't have to be accounted for in any way for the projection.

 

[Smbhayi]

again, you have failed to comprehend what i have said.

Hawk Eye isn't 100% accurate. If 40% of the ball is hitting stumps, the ball could go either way in reality.

Thus, to keep the on the field umpires relevant and their decision to be important, plus to make sure their isn't any controvery regarding such decisions, the on field decision should have value.

Like i have said before, if hawk-eye shows that 40% of the ball hits the stump, in reality that might not be hitting the stump at all due to wind or some unexpected rise in the ball or sudden drp in its speed and vice versa aswell

When the full ball is hitting, such considerations donot have to be taken in.

that's not a problem.. if hawk eye shows its hitting then you've to trust that..

 

[barah_admi]

If it such an obvious hotspot edge and deflection seen .. why is there no snicko spikes? ..Heard somewhere that Snicko is more validated than hotspot by ICC ..

This seems to be the case. I remember reading a while ago that snicko overrides hotspot and on that basis the decision, with the onfield call already being out, was not wrong per say but there needs to be clear guidelines explained to teams and viewers on how these things work.

 

[BDfanforever]

Really appalled by some of the posts here. Where is the source that says Snicko over Hotspot? In Snicko, sound can be anything.

If third umpire cannot overturned such easy decisions then I am afraid third umpires will not be needed.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Main signal from on-field umpire was OUT . so the main job of 3rd umpire was to see if there is sufficient evidence to overturn the decision . In this case, the hotspot showed a mark as the ball went past the bat but snicko showed no spoke. Hence there was no clear sufficient evidence to o return the decision. So I feel Umpire took a good and brave call .
Who so ever is questioning the umpire should know AtoZ about their role and not just make sweeping judgements

You forgot to mention the key point here. There was a hot spot on the bat before the ball came close to the BAT.... Then you can argue there was no noise after what I just mentioned. It was clear OUT...

 

[Space Cat]

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/vENfrGr"><a href="//imgur.com/vENfrGr"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Look at the slight deflection.

Hit the cover off it.

 

[Saurav]

If it such an obvious hotspot edge and deflection seen .. why is there no snicko spikes? ..Heard somewhere that Snicko is more validated than hotspot by ICC ..

Interesting.So if snicko showed a spike and hotspot didn't show a mark,would it have been overturned?

 

[Saurav]

If it such an obvious hotspot edge and deflection seen .. why is there no snicko spikes? ..Heard somewhere that Snicko is more validated than hotspot by ICC ..

Interesting.So if snicko showed a spike and hotspot didn't show a mark,would it have been overturned?

 

[HitWicket]

If it such an obvious hotspot edge and deflection seen .. why is there no snicko spikes? ..Heard somewhere that Snicko is more validated than hotspot by ICC ..

Take a look at the footage and there's no frame with the ball between the bat and the pad. There's a frame just before it hit the bat and the next frame the balls impacting with the pad. There's no frame in-between that would show the noise off the bat in isolation.

 

[AMSS]

How much do these umpires make in a year? I cannot think of a more cushier job.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Going by some of the posts on here, it seems HotSpot is merely for show, whereas Snicko is the real deal when it comes to detecting edges. If HotSpot's credibility is in question, why is it a part of DRS at all?

I agree. Hotspot is even prioritised in the order. No ball, slow motion, hotspot, snicko. You would think that is the overriding priority list. As [MENTION=47000]Sherlock[/MENTION] indicated, even in slow motion you could see the deflection.

Crazy decision this.

 

[Abdullah719]

Black Caps v India: Kiwi umpire 'feeling it' after wrong call giving Daryl Mitchell out

Kiwi umpire Shaun Haig was "really feeling it" after his error in last week's T20 in Auckland.

New Zealand Cricket has admitted Haig, the TV umpire for the match between the Black Caps and India, got the controversial Daryl Mitchell lbw decision wrong.

The Black Caps all-rounder was given out ​and reviewed the decision as he believed the ball had taken his inside edge. An edge appeared to be visible on hot spot but Haig was satisfied there was no edge and told the on-field umpire Chris Brown to stick with his decision, much to the surprise of Mitchell.

On Tuesday, New Zealand Cricket match officials manager Sheldon Eden-Whaitiri said Haig had got it wrong and the on-field decision should have been overturned.

Eden-Whaitiri said the mistake - which was blasted by TV commentators and fans - hit the umpire hard.

"Shaun was really feeling it in the 24 hours post the match," Eden-Whaitiri said.

"He felt he let his umpire team down that night by not interpreting the information to get the right outcome. That's in hindsight.

"He had to get back on the horse less than 48 hours later because he was on-field in Hamilton. Shaun took it the right way - how am I going to get better?"

Eden-Whaitiri said after the regular comprehensive review of the game's officiating by the ICC and NZC, it was acknowledged Haig had made a mistake by deeming the mark on the bat was through the inside edge of the bat brushing the pad.

Eden-Whaitiri said he was speaking from a NZ Cricket perspective, as the review process is primarily handled by the ICC.

For T20 internationals in New Zealand, all umpires are from the host country and contracted to New Zealand Cricket, who make the appointments.

Eden-Whaitiri said the NZ umpires "do a lot of good stuff".

"We made a lot of changes three seasons ago and in those three years, this is probably the only story that's been on the back page.

"So the umpiring standards internationally have been pretty strong the last three years - just one error by a TV umpire isn't going to diminish all the good work we've done with Chris Brown, Shaun Haig (both former players) and Wayne Knights.

"Wayne hasn't made an error since December 2017.

"People can't understand - all this technology, how are you going to make an error? But sometimes it happens and we've just got to learn from it."

Eden-Whaitiri may later discover if the ICC is as comfortable with the admission of an umpiring mistake as NZC is, but felt the stakeholders in the game deserved it.

"That's the nature of the game - nine times out of 10 it's the errors that stand out for the public, the stakeholders, the public.

"We're still talking about Wayne Barnes in '07.

"I've got no issue coming out and saying when we make an error; it's part and parcel of sport, officials make errors.

"However, there are times when observations by commentators, journalists etc aren't quite correct."

During international games, the ICC match referee logs every decision that an umpire makes. There is also an ICC umpire coach present at matches while the umpires also do a self-assessment process following every match.

"It's quite a robust process," Eden-Whaitiri said.

There was another controversial decision in the T20 decider in Hamilton on Sunday when Black Caps opener Tim Seifert was given out stumped by Brown, officiating as the TV umpire.

"We haven't finished the review process of that match just yet - it's been game-travel-game, it's hard to get these things done and dusted," Eden-Whaitiri said.

"From early reports, that was deemed correct."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...ong-decision-made-on-daryl-mitchell-dismissal

 

[Space Cat]

At least he was willing to admit he made a massive error. Hope he learns from it and improves.

 

[BDfanforever]

There was no doubt that it was a wrong decision. At least he admitted to making a mistake which we never saw from Aleem Dar back in 2015.

I also thought Seifert stumping call was also incorrect since some part of his foot looked to be inside the line.