[VIDEO/PICTURE] Ben Stokes claims a false catch off Shubman Gill

[hoshiarpurexpress]

<iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/2nqhsv?loop=0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


The false catch was claimed by Stokes.. rightfully given not out by Third Umpire.
How can Stokes claim this, You know as a player if your fingers are underneath the ball or not.

And Poor behaviour by Root and Anderson and Broad to question the decision made by the Third Umpire.


==

Despite advancement in technology and super slow-motion cameras, contentious catches and resulting controversy don’t go out of business. The Shubman Gill catch by Ben Stokes that was ruled not-out on Day 1 of the day-night Test on Wednesday, in the second over of India’s reply at Ahmedabad, certainly got the England captain Joe Root riled up.

The TV umpire overruled the “Out” soft signal (on-field umpires’ own call before technology adjudicates) and the incident renewed the debate whether soft signal can be an informed decision with very limited reaction time for the umpires on ground, on occasions blurry sighting too.

Stuart Broad, who went wicketless in the last Test match in Chennai, was getting the pink ball to do things and produced a genuine outside edge of Gill’s blade by squaring him up. England had finished a round of celebrations, buoyed by Stokes at slips claiming the catch. They were in no doubt after on-field umpire Anil Chaudhary agreed with his soft signal.

The joy lasted only till television replays suggested the England all-rounder didn’t have his fingers underneath the ball. With one replay, third umpire C Shamsuddin was convinced “the ball clearly bounced”. Gill stayed on. Next, the spotlight was on the fielder for claiming an unfair catch. Stokes grinned in bewilderment as if to say how poor the decision was. Root fumed, finger pointing at Chaudhary, nodding in disapproval.

It was somewhat like Michael Slater expressing anger in the 2001 Mumbai Test after Rahul Dravid’s catch claimed by him was disallowed by technology. Slater was more demonstrative, giving a piece of his mind to the batsman too. Two decades on, fielders continue to believe they have caught cleanly when it is proved otherwise. The mitigating factor here is the umpire’s initial signal.

The soft signal was brought in after it was found that two-dimensional TV cameras often provided inconclusive evidence and the catches almost always had to be ruled not out. With Stokes’ catch, the TV umpire ruled the technology was conclusive. The visitors were unconvinced, partly because of how the soft signal clause in the ICC rulebook is framed. “If the third umpire advises that the replay evidence is inconclusive, the on-field decision communicated at the start of the consultation process shall stand,” it reads.

The Marylebone Cricket Club which drafts laws before they are approved by ICC, in a recent meeting weighed in on the subject. “The committee felt that the soft-signal system worked well for catches within the 30-yard fielding circle, but that catches near the boundary often left the umpires unsighted,” MCC said in a statement. “It was proposed that, for such catches, the on-field umpires could give an ‘unsighted’ instruction to the TV umpire, rather than the more explicit soft-signal of Out or Not Out.”

The Stokes catch was in the slip cordon but the debate remains ever so relevant.

“There was conclusive overwhelming evidence that he hasn’t caught the ball,” Sunil Gavaskar commented during broadcast. “If anyone has any arguments, they can come and see me later.” Root and Stokes may be interested, even after watching numerous TV replays.

The England skipper was also not happy with the decision of the TV umpire to turn down a stumping appeal against Rohit Sharma off left-arm spinner Jack Leach, remonstrating with the umpire.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...oft-signal-rule-in-focus-101614187155664.html

 

[Titan24]

Regarding the catch I also believe it was not out. If you look at his eyes they are above and not looking at the ball so I think maybe he really believed that he caught that in quick motion however, after looking at the replays along with third umpire’s decision Stokes and his team mates should have accepted that in better spirit in my opinion as there was no conclusive evidence that he had finger underneath.

 

[BigShak]

Stokes is a pretty poor slip fielder imo. Yes he’s taken stunners there but shells too many regular chances to be classed as a good slip catcher.

 

[Sachin136]

Appealing for that is fine because it's hard to tell in a split second if it was grounded or not. But the petulant pestering of the umpire after it was given not out was definitely poor behavior.

 

[hitthestump]

I had no idea about this because i wasn't following the test that closely.

Of course everyone already knows about Ben Stokes's character. A leopard doesn't change it's spots.

You're absolutely right that his scumbag behaviour doesn't get the attention it would if he was from the subcontinent.

 

[Buffet]

Appealing for that is fine because it's hard to tell in a split second if it was grounded or not. But the petulant pestering of the umpire after it was given not out was definitely poor behavior.

+1

Not realizing can happen, but it was very poor to see arguing with the umpire after seeing the replay.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Wondering what David Bumble Lloyd has to say about this ?

 

[Space Cat]

Its not out clearly.

But you dont always know in those situations i can vouch for that.

 

[Suleiman]

Yeah not surprised. Assuming it was a catch is one thing, but it’s Ben Stokes! He needs to soothe his inner child by arguing and yelling, maybe launching a hook in a nightclub as well. His fan girls will eat this up though.

Fantastic cricketer but can be very toxic personality wise.

 

[MenInG]

Ben Stokes was seen applying saliva to the ball on Day 1 of the third Test against India, a practice banned by International Cricket Council in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic

Bad boy Stokes.

 

[street cricketer]

99% of the times when players claim a close catch that's grounded, it's not because they're cheating.

 

[MenInG]

Ben Stokes was seen applying saliva to the ball on Day 1 of the third Test against India, a practice banned by International Cricket Council in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic

Bad boy Stokes.

England all-rounder Ben Stokes did not have the best of days on the cricket field on Day 1 of the India vs England third Test at the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad. After he was criticised heavily on social media for wrongly claiming Shubman Gill’s catch, Stokes was caught using saliva to shine the pink ball in the final session on Wednesday.

In what appeared to be an honest mistake, Stokes took the ball from Stuart Broad at the end of the 12th over in India's first innings and applied saliva to shine the ball, that too in front of on-field umpire Nitin Menon.

The umpire was quick to spot Stokes’ error. He first sanitised the ball and then called Stokes for a chat in what appeared to be a friendly warning as there was no official word from the umpires.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) had banned the use of saliva to shine the ball due to the Covid-19 pandemic in June last year.

As per the ICC's Covid-19 regulations, a team can be issued up to two warnings per innings but repeated use of saliva on the ball will result in a 5-run penalty to the batting side.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...nd-3rd-test-in-ahmedabad-101614182958697.html

 

[Ab Fan]

It can happen that a player might not have realised that he/she didnt hold on to it.

I recall in Headingley 2008, AB did something similar and the crowds booed him for that when he came to bat. He scored a brilliant 174 in that game and won his team that match.

 

[Robert]

He had his fingers under it but then it went to ground. It’s hard for a player to tell and up to the ump to decide.

While the umpiring in this series has been poor - not appearing to understand the Law regarding run-outs for example - arguing with the ump is not on.

Perhap the Indian umpires lack experience with DRS? I remember BCCI resisted introduction of this technology, allegedly because Tendulkar didn’t like it.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Perhap the Indian umpires lack experience with DRS? I remember BCCI resisted introduction of this technology, allegedly because Tendulkar didn’t like it.

Not because Tendulkar didnt like it, more like because you had the Gamini Dodgy Desilva's acting as 3rd umpires and not giving out, absolute out decisions. It was a while back, my memmory is not the best but I do remember Sri Lankan 3rd umpires were doing everything they could so the home side Sri Lankans would win.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Ben Stokes claiming that catch was very poor, he would have known for sure it hit the ground, it was even more disappointing to see the ENG players arguing with the UMP over it..

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I don't understand why it is wrong to claim a dropped catch. It's the umpire's responsibility to check if the fielder has taken it or not.
Bowlers can appeal for lbw even on balls going towards the ninth stump but somehow it's against the spirit of cricket to claim a dropped catch. Personally, i would claim a catch even if the ball is under the ground, don't care what some internet folks say. My team might get a breakthrough , that's more important than spirit of cricket.
It's cricket, you play to win.

 

[Robert]

I don't understand why it is wrong to claim a dropped catch. It's the umpire's responsibility to check if the fielder has taken it or not.
Bowlers can appeal for lbw even on balls going towards the ninth stump but somehow it's against the spirit of cricket to claim a dropped catch. Personally, i would claim a catch even if the ball is under the ground, don't care what some internet folks say. My team might get a breakthrough , that's more important than spirit of cricket.
It's cricket, you play to win.

Because it is dishonest. Acting honourably is more important than winning.

 

[Dingolfy]

Because it is dishonest. Acting honourably is more important than winning.

Says who? This is professional sports not park cricket. Gazillions of batsmen stood their ground even after knowing they knicked. Footballers do fake diving to get penalties and free-kicks in their favor. You play to WIN in professional sports. Its umpires/referees job to maintain the laws.

 

[pillionrider]

While the umpiring in this series has been poor - not appearing to understand the Law regarding run-outs for example - arguing with the ump is not on.

The umpiring has been pretty good in difficult conditions where every other ball has been an event.

The 3rd umpiring has been a joke though. The same third umpire Anil Chaudhary who had a poor one last match, has been good on-field this game.

Maybe some lack of training with handling technology.

 

[Saj]

How can Stokes claim this, You know as a player if your fingers are underneath the ball or not.

I don't know about this instance, but it's not always easy for a player to know whether their fingers are underneath the ball or not. It happens so quickly, sometimes you think your fingers are under the ball, when they aren't.

 

[Bilal7]

Anyone who has played any cricket knows that you don't know if you've caught it clean or not. England were desperate for early wickets and were thus, adamant about the catch being clean.

 

[Buffet]

Ben Stokes claiming that catch was very poor, he would have known for sure it hit the ground, it was even more disappointing to see the ENG players arguing with the UMP over it..

Sometimes in close fielding positions, you won't realize it if it is too close. I am not talking about clear bump catches, but very close ones.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I guess Ben Stokes subscribes to the old adage if you are not cheating you are not trying.

 

[pillionrider]

<iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/2nqhsv?loop=0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

<iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/2nqhsv?loop=0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What the pathetic reaction from Stokes. Clapping sarcastically on how come a brown umpire question his integrity.

 

[ravisurya]

Him claiming the catch was ok as he might not have been sure but his reaction after the decision is what cheating is all about.

 

[HitWicket]

What the pathetic reaction from Stokes. Clapping sarcastically on how come a brown umpire question his integrity.

Him claiming the catch was ok as he might not have been sure but his reaction after the decision is what cheating is all about.

They weren't happy with the haste of the third umpire without looking at additional angles and therefore the lack of consistency compared to other similar decisions, something the (Indian) match referee has conceded they were right to be asking questions about.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

They weren't happy with the haste of the third umpire without looking at additional angles and therefore the lack of consistency compared to other similar decisions, something the (Indian) match referee has conceded they were right to be asking questions about.

But we are told you are not supposed to question the umpires.. even for Plumb LBW's not given due to umpires call. This is purely visible or the large screen that he grassed it.. what is there to question about ?

 

[HitWicket]

But we are told you are not supposed to question the umpires.. even for Plumb LBW's not given due to umpires call. This is purely visible or the large screen that he grassed it.. what is there to question about ?

Chances are he grassed it but it's been regularly shown front on angles can be deceptive regarding fingers being under the ball hence the standard practice of the third umpire requesting additional angles to make sure, something the umpire didn't make use of in this case. Here are a couple of examples of front on angles of catches that were given out after reviewing additional angles:

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Chances are he grassed it but it's been regularly shown front on angles can be deceptive regarding fingers being under the ball hence the standard practice of the third umpire requesting additional angles to make sure, something the umpire didn't make use of in this case. Here are a couple of examples of front on angles of catches that were given out after reviewing additional angles:

Yes I agree at that may be moment it was not clear... which is strange in this case as he is not falling down, and you can feel if your fingers are underneath or not.
But later you can see it on big screen and it is pretty clear that it was grassed.
So what is with clapping sarcastically and questioning the umpire ?