What's new

[VIDEOS/PICTURE] Virat Kohli given out LBW - was there an inside edge?

MenInG

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
218,133
You decide.

==

"Ball and bat and pad appears to be together. I don't have any conclusive evidence to overturn that," says the third ump. He asks umpire Anil Chaudhary to stick with the original call and then has a look at the ball-tracking. Three reds on HawkEye!

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 55.000%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/iwcqlr" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 178.218%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/3vqkqg" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

FFrAIyEVkAQ4f7D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seen the replay on multiple occasions and each time I can't get away from the notion that there was an inside edge, the direction of the seam changes as it hits the bat.

It's definitely not out for me.
 
Last Monetarist said:
Seen the replay on multiple occasions and each time I can't get away from the notion that there was an inside edge, the direction of the seam changes as it hits the bat.

It's definitely not out for me.
Click to expand...

Too much doubt I guess.
 
Just gone through replay.
That was a poor call from both on field and Third Umpire.

IPL standards :qdkcheeky
 
The point of DRS is that the umpires decision is overturned if there is clear evidence of an error. There clearly was not clear evidence of an error here - yes it probably hit the bat but whether it hit the bat before it hit the pad is not absolutely clear. Hence it was the correct decision to give it out.

Had the umpire given it not out, it should have stayed not out. One of those 'umpires call' moments.

Correct decision.
 
Everyone is right in this case unfortunately.

On-field umpire - May or may not thought ball hit the bat first or at all. Either way he felt it was pad first, ball hitting the stump so out.
Kohli - May or may not thought ball hit the bat first. Either way, he felt it was bat first so took the DRS.
3rd Umpire - By the rulebook, made the right call. Although one can argue he could have taken the bat-first call and overturned.

In either decision, controversy was bound to follow. That's why we love sport. Not everything is always black and white.
 
Kohli can consider himself unlucky but it wasn't a howler. Just bad luck.

Ball was smashing into middle of middle stump, bat and pad were close together, so can't blame on field umpire for giving it out.

Third umpire didn't have conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. You can blame the camera frame rate for that, this conclusive evidence thing can sometimes be tricky and luck does play a big part.

With the available set of rules and technology I think the most logical decision was made in the end, could very well be incorrect but sometimes it happens.

This wasn't a howler by any stretch of imagination. Can't expect 100% accurate decisions in any sport, can't get everyone to agree upon certain close calls like this one.
 
Last edited:
Last Monetarist said:
Seen the replay on multiple occasions and each time I can't get away from the notion that there was an inside edge, the direction of the seam changes as it hits the bat.

It's definitely not out for me.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Definite deviation from the bat. Kohli was unlucky.
 
It should be not out, but it's one of those cases where you can't change the original call due to lack of conclusive evidence.
 
street cricketer said:
It should be not out, but it's one of those cases where you can't change the original call due to lack of conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...

The more I see the video in post 1 the more I think it was not out.

Sometimes umpires have to apply cricketing sense rather then just technology and only going by snicko.

If I was the third umpire I would have said "Not Out".
 
A very UNHAPPY Virat Kohli....

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 45.000%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/4x606j" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>
 
"That should have been in favour of batsman. Not so long ago, ENG vs IND - 3rd test, 2nd innings, Axar to Root similar thing - ball seemed to hit bat pad together. Ruled out, Root wasn't confident as Kohli but reviewed and the call was overturned."
 
More I look at the replays, more it looks not out. Seam changes angle after hitting the bat, too big a clue to miss.
 
That was not out, hits bat first and then relays onto the pads, did not hit at the same time, hit the pads on the bounce. That’s ridiculous from the 3rd umpire.
 
IMMY69 said:
The more I see the video in post 1 the more I think it was not out.

Sometimes umpires have to apply cricketing sense rather then just technology and only going by snicko.

If I was the third umpire I would have said "Not Out".
Click to expand...

You cannot overturn an umpire decision without conclusive evidence.

It's the sort of calls that would have been not out had the umpire given not out on the field.
 
Inconclusive. Thus, whatever the onfield decision was had to stay.

Brilliant stuff by the tv umpire. He probably has his nation now targetting him, but atleast he didnt let his patriocy influence the decisions here.

The laws state to overturn decisions you need conclusive evidence. The ball seemed like touching both bat and pad but more portion touching that bad which allowee the inside edge cause a massive change in the deviation that it plays an optical illusion that the ball hit bat first and than went into the pads.
But you have to look at the initial frames. While some might say that the evidence for out was there but i would say that it was out because inconclusive ness was high to overturn the decision.

Had he overturned to not out many would had been blasting the indian umpire
 
MenInG said:
A very UNHAPPY Virat Kohli....

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 45.000%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/4x606j" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>
Click to expand...

he is gonna get a fine for that.
 
Benefit of doubt should go to batsmen as the evidence was inconclusive . Poor decision by onfield and tv umpire
 
Apparently if ball is squeezed between bat and pad, meaning if it hits both at the same time, it is considered as bat first according to the rules (MCC?). The experts were talking about this rule now. Didn't know that.
 
Swashbuckler said:
Apparently if ball is squeezed between bat and pad, meaning if it hits both at the same time, it is considered as bat first according to the rules (MCC?). The experts were talking about this rule now. Didn't know that.
Click to expand...

Just got to know the same on twitter.

36.2.2 - if the ball makes contact with the striker’s person and bat simultaneously, this shall be considered as the ball having first touched the bat.
 
Major said:
Inconclusive. Thus, whatever the onfield decision was had to stay.

Brilliant stuff by the tv umpire. He probably has his nation now targetting him, but atleast he didnt let his patriocy influence the decisions here.

The laws state to overturn decisions you need conclusive evidence. The ball seemed like touching both bat and pad but more portion touching that bad which allowee the inside edge cause a massive change in the deviation that it plays an optical illusion that the ball hit bat first and than went into the pads.
But you have to look at the initial frames. While some might say that the evidence for out was there but i would say that it was out because inconclusive ness was high to overturn the decision.

Had he overturned to not out many would had been blasting the indian umpire
Click to expand...

They were saying post match that as per rules if it hits both bat and pad simultaneously, it is considered as bat first. Doesn't matter how much, even if 90% of the ball is in contact with the pad and 10% with the bat, it will still be bat first. The third umpire probably didn't know about this rule.
 
The rules are simple - if there is any doubt, give the benefit of doubt to the batsman.
 
Looks clearly not out

It seems as if Kohli is no longer in favour with BCCI as he used to be

It seems as if the 3rd umpire is taking revenge for years of Kohli bullying umpires in IPL and other cricket
 
Last edited:
It was clearly not out and Virat very unlucky . But rules are rules. On field umpire decision cannot be overridden unless there is conclusive evidence. So just move on.
 
HitWicket said:
That isn't stated anywhere in the rules.
Click to expand...

36.2.2 - if the ball makes contact with the striker’s person and bat simultaneously, this shall be considered as the ball having first touched the bat.
 
Thanos said:
36.2.2 - if the ball makes contact with the striker’s person and bat simultaneously, this shall be considered as the ball having first touched the bat.
Click to expand...

Which isn't what was claimed is in the rules.

This law doesn't really make it any clearer though for a DRS call because a third umpire is never going to be able to conclusively state that he's sure the ball hit the bat and pad at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Not out, anytime the ball touches the bat and even in replays it's inconclusive it should be not out.
 
ICC needs to get rid of 'Umpire's call' aspect from the game. Once it goes to a TV umpire, he is the only Umpire in charge, he has much more data to base his decision on. When a decision goes for a refferal it shouldn't be based on your luck whether the umpire intially gave it out or not out. The final decision should only come from the third umpire.

This one is a definite Not out. Clear edge, bat seems slightly ahead of the pads and even if they did both hit at the same time the rules say it's not out.
 
That’s a close call but I am leaning towards not out.
 
Poor decision.

Last time he'll be officiating in an international match.
 
Saj said:
Poor decision.

Last time he'll be officiating in an international match.
Click to expand...

I won't be surprised if that happens. And today's decision only will not be the sole reason. He has been giving poor decisions for some time.
 
Move on, seen worst decisions given - India not in bad position, when someone has a bad phase, all these things come under..he did win toss so this is bargain for it lol
 
Swashbuckler said:
They were saying post match that as per rules if it hits both bat and pad simultaneously, it is considered as bat first. Doesn't matter how much, even if 90% of the ball is in contact with the pad and 10% with the bat, it will still be bat first. The third umpire probably didn't know about this rule.
Click to expand...

But issue is with conclusiveness with regards to on field decision during DRS.

This is maybe a gray area and could lead to laws being changed.
 
I hope this decision forces the BCCI to take a stand against the ridiculous interpretation of umpire's call and bullies the ICC into rectifying the law. Maybe some good will come from Saurav Ganguly being appointed as the chair of the ICC's cricket committee.
 
It seems bat first... But difficult decision imo... Benefit of doubt should go to favour of batsmen...
 
That was a phenomenal decision in real time. The bat is behind the pad so he played forward as it hit the pad
 
Last edited:
Swashbuckler said:
Kohli can consider himself unlucky but it wasn't a howler. Just bad luck.

Ball was smashing into middle of middle stump, bat and pad were close together, so can't blame on field umpire for giving it out.

Third umpire didn't have conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. You can blame the camera frame rate for that, this conclusive evidence thing can sometimes be tricky and luck does play a big part.

With the available set of rules and technology I think the most logical decision was made in the end, could very well be incorrect but sometimes it happens.

This wasn't a howler by any stretch of imagination. Can't expect 100% accurate decisions in any sport, can't get everyone to agree upon certain close calls like this one.
Click to expand...

Agree. DRS is there to overturn howlers. This wasn't the case. You have described the scenario aptly.
Unlucky for Kohli. Expect him to come back even hungrier to score runs in the second innings.

Expect India to win within 4 days. Mayank has placed a great innings so far on a turning track.
 
50-50 call. All I know is had this been an opposition batsman and had the decision overturned by umpire, Kohli would be all over the umpires asking how it is not out. And camera wud be on him for next 10 minutes with Kohli looking disappointed and commentators going ga ga how passionate cricketer he is.
 
So VK given OUT by Firstly the ON field umpire and secondly the TV umpire might go some way in dispelling the widespread notion and perception that :

- Umps will not give gun players of the so called Big3 out if its a doubtful decision
- The ICC is not owned by a particular Board and by extension that board's country
- the technology was not fiddled with, by a particular board

Imagine if he was given NOT out, the usual 'lets bag that one board for all thats not good in cricket' brigade would have melted the internet.
The usual conspiracy theorists and their aunts would be crawling out of the woodwork & have had a field day - with the usual Big 3 rule the world, smaller boards, future test programme, the WTC schedule, the lack of fizz in ya soda, global warming, responsibility for the virus , blah blah blah...everything but themselves.
 
CrIc_Mystique said:
So VK given OUT by Firstly the ON field umpire and secondly the TV umpire might go some way in dispelling the widespread notion and perception that :

- Umps will not give gun players of the so called Big3 out if its a doubtful decision
- The ICC is not owned by a particular Board and by extension that board's country
- the technology was not fiddled with, by a particular board

Imagine if he was given NOT out, the usual 'lets bag that one board for all thats not good in cricket' brigade would have melted the internet.
The usual conspiracy theorists and their aunts would be crawling out of the woodwork & have had a field day - with the usual Big 3 rule the world, smaller boards, future test programme, the WTC schedule, the lack of fizz in ya soda, global warming, responsibility for the virus , blah blah blah...everything but themselves.
Click to expand...

Yea sure, one fair decision by umpires and everyone should forget that of the 18 countries that played in the T20 wc, 17 played atleast 1 day match and atleast 1 match in Sharjah while india didn't have to play in the heat or slow and low pitch of sharjah or the fact that india was given a rest of 7 days between 2 important matches. It was all a coincidence, right? Or the fact that when India abandoned the test match for god knows what reason, ECB was made to retract it's abandonment position about India to postponement, it must have been an administrative error, correct? Or how India doesn't have to your Bangladesh or honor the home/away rules, which other countries have to. And yea how players from all across the world leave their international games to play IPL because their boards are forced to give them NOC, while Indian players aren't allowed to play in BBL as only the other boards have to free up players for our domestic league, we don't have to reciprocate the favor. For clarification, there's no big 3, it's BCCI as the be all end all of world cricket, while ECB and ACB are distant 2nd and 3rd and the rest of boards just don't exist. And if you can't see the abuse of power by BCCI day in day out then I can't make a blind person see.

Surely it didn't reduce the fizz in my cola or affected global warming but it just made me like indian cricket a lot lesser than the times when rules were more fair.
 
happydavy said:
Yea sure, one fair decision by umpires and everyone should forget that of the 18 countries that played in the T20 wc, 17 played atleast 1 day match and atleast 1 match in Sharjah while india didn't have to play in the heat or slow and low pitch of sharjah or the fact that india was given a rest of 7 days between 2 important matches. It was all a coincidence, right? Or the fact that when India abandoned the test match for god knows what reason, ECB was made to retract it's abandonment position about India to postponement, it must have been an administrative error, correct? Or how India doesn't have to your Bangladesh or honor the home/away rules, which other countries have to. And yea how players from all across the world leave their international games to play IPL because their boards are forced to give them NOC, while Indian players aren't allowed to play in BBL as only the other boards have to free up players for our domestic league, we don't have to reciprocate the favor. For clarification, there's no big 3, it's BCCI as the be all end all of world cricket, while ECB and ACB are distant 2nd and 3rd and the rest of boards just don't exist. And if you can't see the abuse of power by BCCI day in day out then I can't make a blind person see.

Surely it didn't reduce the fizz in my cola or affected global warming but it just made me like indian cricket a lot lesser than the times when rules were more fair.
Click to expand...

Considering that you've weighed in on the scheduling, did'nt see how many countries including yours tour BD, Zim, Ireland, Afg or call them on a regular basis for tests. or odi's. or even t20's. Since you've pointed out about the 7 days of rest, did you consider the fact that it could also be detrimental? players could fall out of rhythm? the bubble life could possibly take its toll? also the fact that 'certain other' countries also had one match every three days which in a T20 context is perfect scheduling? So you are alluding that the schedule was purposely scheduled to benefit India? And off course, you will come up with a similar scheduling for every world cup played for the two formats including wtc to suit your narrative.
Also, whilst at it - the last test in the eng india series was not played, because of covid fears amongst the team. A real fear that they could contact it whilst on the field, there was a massive uncertainity.
Whilst on scheduling - considering a particular country toured England every year from 2015 onwards, should'nt it have won the WC-2019 or swept and smashed the 2020 test and odi series at least considering it almost qualified for UK citizenship on the basis of its frequent visits?
How about putting out the stats as to how many times your side toured BD and how many times did u invite them to tour you?
Yes, i grant that India should have been more accomodating to BD, IRE, Zim etc but hey, 'rules are more fair' is a load of hot air excuses and the same its always someone elses fault gravy train and bcci with the ipl moolah just happen to be a convenient unload.
Am no Fan of them bcci cement heads and feel they could be a lot more transparent and accomodative in their dealings. I also feel like in the spiderman movie 'with great power comes gr8 responsibility' and wish BCCI would do more positive stuff for the game to combat this -ve perceptions . .... but my point was more about perception that typical ones like you have , with the whole 'when the rules were more fair' convenient hooplah, and your narrative being all that is great and good for the game and the BCCI being on the oppo spectrum. There are several of us indian fans who love the game and call it for what it is, without being bCCI fan boys but also point out the narrative like yours.
 
Last edited:
It didn't seem clear. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should've gone to the batsman.

I think it should've been not out.
 
Seems as if this was the bit of luck that Ajaz needed on the journey to getting his 10 out of 10 wickets!
 
Bad luck and half baked law. I think Third umpire never seem to use visual evidence unless there is a massive deflection.
 
If it hits bat and pad simultaneously, its considered bat first. Hence not out.
 
I'm confused as it seems both pad and bat at the same time.. I think that is why 3rd umpire decided to go with the on field umpire
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
[VIDEO] Incredible hitting by Logan Van Beek in Super Over versus West Indies
Replies
2
Views
926
Major
M
MenInG
[VIDEO] Najam Sethi takes offence to a question on what's been achieved in the Asia Cup saga
Replies
69
Views
6K
Savak
Savak
MenInG
[PICTURES/VIDEO] Was Sarfaraz Ahmed given out stumped wrongly?
Replies
43
Views
6K
PakLFC
P
MenInG
[VIDEOS] England's superior bowling and fielding plans in this series
Replies
11
Views
2K
Savak
Savak
MenInG
[VIDEO] Shahid Afridi invites Pakistan squad to home for dinner, meet Jahangir Khan
Replies
17
Views
5K
MenInG
MenInG
Back
Top