[VIDEO] Was Mohammad Rizwan given out incorrectly?

[MenInG]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/qsm52w" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

Boult to Rizwan, out Caught by Phillips!! What's happened here? Rizwan is caught in the deep off a high full toss. It could be a no-ball, but then New Zealand show good awareness to run him out at the non-striker's end anyway. Some confusion out there. So it seems that the no-ball check was referred to the third umpire, and he found it to be a fair delivery. Rizwan is out caught. Rizwan c Phillips b Boult 57(43) [4s-5]

 

[Mamoon]

No. He was way out of the crease and it wasn’t above his waist when he made contact.

If there was a slight doubt, the umpires would have given Pakistan a favor.

 

[MenInG]

Maybe should have signalled a no ball?

 

[90MPH]

No, he was down the crease.

 

[Major]

Eramus was umpire, same ball as kohli and both were out of crease.

Funny how eramus gave this to the third umpire

 

[Kriketer]

Rizwan was out, out his batting area.... Exactly how Kholi was out but wasn't given

 

[Major]

Also had that not been given out, Indian posters would had come out and say look icc is favouring Pakistan, now they are not gonna utter a word

 

[Ramsay]

Rizwan was out, out his batting area.... Exactly how Kholi was out but wasn't given

It’s Kohli or do you deliberately write it as Kholi..

 

[Raja111]

Rizwan was out, out his batting area.... Exactly how Kholi was out but wasn't given

When was kohli out on a no ball?

 

[Forum363]

Probably the correct decision.

But just reiterates how bad the Kohli decision was. Especially considering the pace of the bowler. The decision wasn’t even reviewed against Kohli! That’s absolute madness.

 

[IMMY69]

A bowler cant just bowl a Beamer if he sees the batsmen advancing...
So how do the laws address this?
If it's allowed then every bowler should just look to ball a Beamer when he sees the batsman advancing

 

[Major]

No. He was way out of the crease and it wasn’t above his waist when he made contact.

If there was a slight doubt, the umpires would have given Pakistan a favor.

but but but, icc wanted pakistan vs india, why didnt they give it in Pakistans favor?
Had it gone in our favor you would had used the above logic.

 

[produke]

Scripted cricket...just like wrestling...

 

[Saj]

Looked very similar to the Kohli one?

 

[Smbhayi]

Rizwan was out, out his batting area.... Exactly how Kholi was out but wasn't given

How Kohli is out when he hit a six..?

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Correct decision.

He was out of the crease, ball was in line with the waist and there was some distance to travel.

Since we must discuss Kohli, that was an incorrect decision in my opinion (no ball). His front foot was quite a distance out of the crease and it was a spinner bowling so the ball dips much sharper.

 

[Mamoon]

but but but, icc wanted pakistan vs india, why didnt they give it in Pakistans favor?
Had it gone in our favor you would had used the above logic.

Because there wasn't a slightest of doubt on this decision. It wasn't 100% conclusive that it is out.

The state of the pitch clearly showed that ICC wants Pakistan in the final.

 

[ex-q-zit]

Eramus was umpire, same ball as kohli and both were out of crease.

Funny how eramus gave this to the third umpire

Funny that you are not aware that the on-field umpire can ask the 3rd umpire only if there is a dismisal as per ICC rules. Rizwan was caught butKohli was not caught he hit a 6 hence it was not referred.

 

[Front Foot Pull]

kohli's back leg was still on the crease at the point of contact and rizwan is clearly down the track. just post the square leg angle pics of both incidents at the point of contact. in what world are people living.

 

[ex-q-zit]

Probably the correct decision.

But just reiterates how bad the Kohli decision was. Especially considering the pace of the bowler. The decision wasn’t even reviewed against Kohli! That’s absolute madness.

You can only review it if its out but Kohli was not out so it cannot be reviewed by 3rd umpire and on field umpire is final. Thats the ICC rule.

 

[Front Foot Pull]

Eramus was umpire, same ball as kohli and both were out of crease.

Funny how eramus gave this to the third umpire

which game were you watching? kohli's back leg was on the crease and rizwan was both legs comfortably way outside the crease.

still posting these conspiracy theories after that other thread backfiring. can at least understand occasional watchers believe in such theories but how can people who watch cricket so much and be members of a niche forum monger such theories.
and still talking about erasmus after watching today's game

 

[Snowflake]

Rizwan was way down the pitch. Fair call.

 

[Forum363]

You can only review it if its out but Kohli was not out so it cannot be reviewed by 3rd umpire and on field umpire is final. Thats the ICC rule.

That's fair enough, makes more sense in that case. I still think as per the rule, kohli's was not a noball for height and it was a big mistake by the umpire which cost us the match.

 

[Mamoon]

Rizwan was out, out his batting area.... Exactly how Kholi was out but wasn't given

Some people need to get their eyesight tested.

Kohli at the point of impact - his feet is on the line, he did not leave his crease completely.



In Comparison, Rizwan is about 2 feet outside the crease. How is this exactly like Kohli?



The first one is a borderline no-ball, the second one is a 100% legit delivery.

 

[Nasty Naz]

Some people need to get their eyesight tested.

Kohli at the point of impact - his feet is on the line, he did not leave his crease completely.

View attachment 117758

In Comparison, Rizwan is about 2 feet outside the crease. How is this exactly like Kohli?

View attachment 117759

The first one is a borderline no-ball, the second one is a 100% legit delivery.

And what about the way the bat is extended in the first photo and the point of contact made with the bat is virtually the same place Rizwan is standing and had his point of contact.

Regardless, there’s enough technology in the game that no ball decision based on height should be done via hawkeye or something similar to confirm the trajectory and if it is really a no ball instead of being pretty arbitrary.

 

[Babeikh]

It was a marginal decision, probably just a no ball - similar to the Nawaz/Kohli one too.

 

[Major]

Funny that you are not aware that the on-field umpire can ask the 3rd umpire only if there is a dismisal as per ICC rules. Rizwan was caught butKohli was not caught he hit a 6 hence it was not referred.

Funny how u are not aware that on field umpire can ask 3rd umpire to check no ball waist height

 

[Zaz]

Looks pretty similar to the kohli dismissal

Even though riz came down the wkt he hit the ball under his eye wheras kohli hit the ball a full bats length down the wkt

Theres no consistency whatsoever with these decisions

 

[zulfiqar]

Looks pretty similar to the kohli dismissal

Even though riz came down the wkt he hit the ball under his eye wheras kohli hit the ball a full bats length down the wkt

Theres no consistency whatsoever with these decisions

Yourw right bro. Almost NEVER would an umpire give the Kohli one a no ball. Umpires generally don't call high full tosses from spinners a noball, especially if batsman has left his crease and in kohlis case like you point out he played the ball way far out. That ball could have dipped much lower.

I know the rules changed a few years ago where it doesnt matter that a spinner is bowling vs a fast bowler (for most of crickets history, it DID matter, as the point of calling high full tosses a no ball was that it was dangerous for the batsman who is not expecting it), but application of the new rule has been consistent this WC. Also why was the umpire discussing this with the other ump? I thought no balls can't be referred for height?

Anyway, done lamenting about it. Esp now cuz were in the finals

 

[Ilan Bluestone]

Don't fall hook line and sinker into people's narratives. It is a game to them.

 

[hamzi]

Some people need to get their eyesight tested.

Kohli at the point of impact - his feet is on the line, he did not leave his crease completely.

View attachment 117758

In Comparison, Rizwan is about 2 feet outside the crease. How is this exactly like Kohli?

View attachment 117759

The first one is a borderline no-ball, the second one is a 100% legit delivery.

You do realize that it doesnt matter where the batter is but instead where the bowl is? They need to check how far the bowl has to travel before it gets to the crease(where it is judged whether it is waist high or not). If you look closely the bowl has more to travel in Kohli's picture then it is in Rizwan's so this analysis of yours makes 0 sense.

 

[shamaan]

Eramus was umpire, same ball as kohli and both were out of crease.

Funny how eramus gave this to the third umpire

Rizwan was way down the crease.

 

[shamaan]

And what about the way the bat is extended in the first photo and the point of contact made with the bat is virtually the same place Rizwan is standing and had his point of contact.

Regardless, there’s enough technology in the game that no ball decision based on height should be done via hawkeye or something similar to confirm the trajectory and if it is really a no ball instead of being pretty arbitrary.

That is good point

 

[Savak]

Am even more shocked that Rizwan didn't put that away for 4 or 6. It is criminal to dispatch such a delivery straight to the fielder. A well set batsman needs to put such deliveries away for 4 or 6. Kohli would have easily made the most of such a delivery.

 

[Rana]

Am even more shocked that Rizwan didn't put that away for 4 or 6. It is criminal to dispatch such a delivery straight to the fielder. A well set batsman needs to put such deliveries away for 4 or 6. Kohli would have easily made the most of such a delivery.

Oh bhai that’s his capacity

60-70-80 runs after playing ball one of the innings

 

[Zaz]

Oh bhai that’s his capacity

60-70-80 runs after playing ball one of the innings

And its enough to help take pakistan into a world cup final

Tough day for you and the rest of the haters today
Go rest and sharpen the knives for sunday

 

[arif_2021]

not a no ball

 

[MenInG]

Am even more shocked that Rizwan didn't put that away for 4 or 6. It is criminal to dispatch such a delivery straight to the fielder. A well set batsman needs to put such deliveries away for 4 or 6. Kohli would have easily made the most of such a delivery.

He won you a match today. He played many other shots before.

 

[Kianig89]

Thank Gawd we sailed through Shaheens text book first over already had Erasmus clutching at straws

 

[moghul]

Who cares, we won the match.

 

[Plumb]

Rules need to be looked into. Some very pathetic rules I noticed introduced recently.

So third umpire was consulted because it was a catch. If its a six or boundary third umpire wont be consulted?

Really???

 

[Executioner]

You can tell me whatever you like but if that kohli-nawaz no-ball was fair call to you, then you might want to check your intelligence.

I have said it before and will say it again, no-ball is all about the trajectory of the ball. A lot of you folks are talking about the Kohli's backfoot being on the crease so it does not mean he is that far down the track etc etc.

1) What feels like a no-ball on contact should not necessarily mean it is a no-ball. What our brains tell us is that the moment the ball has contact with the bat and the ball feels waist high then it is a no-ball. But here is the thing, the ball might create contact at varying positions based on the extension of the arms. In Kohli's case his arms are extended and he has quite a big forward stride when it contact. With Nawaz being a spinner the trajectory would certainly mean that the ball would have hit the stumps. It was just shocker.

Rizwan too was out here.

 

[Jonty]

The Virat Kohli & Mohammad Rizwan “no balls”

So, the waist height delivery bowled by Boult to Rizwaan was at best the same height as bowled to Kohli vs Pakistan. In my opinion, it was actually slightly lower.

Thoughts? Probably doesn’t matter now, but very little margin for error in a tournament like this…

 

[Aman]

Rizwan was run out anyway and the decision made little impact on the result.

Kohli's wasn't a no ball, Rizwan's definitely wasn't because he was so far out of the crease. If he stood in his batting stance it would have been below the waist.

 

[Zaz]

Rizwan was run out anyway and the decision made little impact on the result.

Kohli's wasn't a no ball, Rizwan's definitely wasn't because he was so far out of the crease. If he stood in his batting stance it would have been below the waist.

The ball becomes dead once a wkt is perceived to have been taken so technically the double play and runout wouldnt have stood