What's new

[VIDEOS/PICTURES] Mohammad Rizwan's dismissal in the 2nd innings at the MCG - Fair dismissal?

Mohammad Rizwan's dismissal in the 2nd innings at the MCG - Fair dismissal?

  • Total voters
    45
MenInG

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,991
puR1YOs.png


https://twitter.com/x/status/1740626931962294768

Given not out by the on field umpire.

Needed conclusive evidence to overturn.

Was the evidence conclusive?

Out given as deemed to have touched the wristband.

Rizwan looked to be indicating a hit on his forearm above the wristband.
 
Last edited:
Didn't look fair. Hot spot didn't show anything and the snicko is inconclusive of where exactly it snicked. There was reasonable doubt and it should have gone in the batter's favour.

Of course, Riz had no business trying to duck that one, it wasn't short enough.
 
Didn't look like it touch the sweatband part of his glove. Seemed higher than that. Benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman but not here I guess.
 
PCB should send a notice to the ICC about the incident. Umpires need to know that they will be called out by individual boards if they make such poor decisions.
 
From 7Cricket:

Simon Taufel: "For me, conclusive evidence was the ball on top of that wristband attached to the glove, with the spike (on Snicko).

"Very comfortable from where I'm sitting that Richard Illingworth the third umpire had conclusive evidence to overturn that decision."
 
I am not sure what Rizwan was doing here. Not even ducking the ball, not playing it, eyes off the ball. But this decision has sparked a controversy. The benefit of the doubt should have come into play here.
 
I will continue to love Rizwan and think that he is a special player, but that was out and Rizwan as big as he thinks he is as a batter, he needs to stop complaining and win a game for his team.
 
benefit of doubt goes to batsman.. inconclusive evidence on all fronts.. poor umpiring
 
Simon Taufel of course gonna say his usual PR supporting umpires.

A total flog
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lol, of course it was out. it clearly hit the wristband that was attached to his glove. this is not some controvertial decision.
 
Oh here we go, something to cope about!

1. It clearly hit his wrist band

2. It was such a pathetic attempt to play the ball, I mean he should be out just for that

3. Pat Cummins was given out in an even more marginal decision than this in Aus innings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How could ball hit the wrist band and fore arm at the same time?? There was no doubt it hit Rizwan on forearm which was visible to every one as there was a white mark on Rizwans Arm however for the ball to take the wrist band on the way to Rizwans Forearm either the wrist band and forearm ( the mark that was visible on Rizwans Arm) had to be in the same line or the ball had to change its path to first take the wrist band and then hit Rizwans forearm which didn’t happen. The trajectory of the ball didn’t change at all ..
 
It was out and the correct decision was eventually made.

Good news as the TV's of some Pakistan "fans" would have been broken if he was not out. His dismissal was all they were waiting for.
 
shaaik said:
How could ball hit the wrist band and fore arm at the same time?? There was no doubt it hit Rizwan on forearm which was visible to every one as there was a white mark on Rizwans Arm however for the ball to take the wrist band on the way to Rizwans Forearm either the wrist band and forearm ( the mark that was visible on Rizwans Arm) had to be in the same line or the ball had to change its path to first take the wrist band and then hit Rizwans forearm which didn’t happen. The trajectory of the ball didn’t change at all ..
Click to expand...
hmm. I thought test cricket was played with a red ball. How did he get a white mark from a red ball? And how come the replays and hotspot showed it hitting the wristband? Mistery.
 
Hafeez should focus on directing the team. He seems to speak about every single issue like a media spokesman. What is his actual job role?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It hit wrist band.

The batsmen never had an answer to cummins he used the shorter ball and the ones to nip back in with great effect top bowler.
 
Rizwan might have to face a hearing with the match referee.
Because by indicating that he was hit somehwere else he tried to influence a decision.
In u19 you get penalized for that, dont know if they do so in senior cricket
 
Hafeez needs to talk less. He comes across as quite bitter and its cringeworthy.

Do your job instead of trying to go viral with soundbites.
 
Buffet said:
I will have whatever Hafeez is smoking.

Better team don't allow opposition to get out of jail twice in the same match.

120 odd for 1, had to go big right there, but no batsmen went big. Game would have been won right there.

16/4 - dropped catch and then lost belief. Game could have been won right there even after a drop. I know posters focus on that drop, but there was no reason to not able to create another chance quickly when ball was doing so much.

Pakistan wasn't a better team in this match. Pakistan was able to give some fight and we did not see the usual one sided match.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!! First select proper players instead of Nauman/Fahim/parchi Imam/Hasan...Select a professional fielding/bowling coaches instead of lazy desi coaches. Australia deserve to win as they were far better than us.
 
Tough on the batsman but clearly out. The ball brushed past the wrist band and hit his forearm. Wrist band connected to glove. Simple as that. The 3rd umpire says and explains the same as well when giving the verdict. In fact the Cummins decision earlier in the day was even more marginal than this. But no one complained.

And hafeez showing how awful he is. He should read up and see videos of drs . Drs is a "predicted" trajectory. That's why it's umpire's call. Nasser Hussain explained it clearly when kohli said the same thing. And technology is not a curse mr.hafeez- it's a boon for the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He was clearly out, no controversy here.
 
Rizwan does so much over acting after these dismissals. Very good knock but he is trying to nail the shocked and disgusted expressions after the decision
 
Master Blaster said:
I like the way he did a little rub/massage near his right elbow a couple of times just after the appeal.

Fooled everyone except the snicko...
What an actor... :inti
Click to expand...
That is what I was wondering. Why is he rubbing the portion where ball did not even touch? It was an excellent acting.
 
oatmeal said:
Rizwan does so much over acting after these dismissals. Very good knock but he is trying to nail the shocked and disgusted expressions after the decision
Click to expand...
He has gotten excellent by doing acting of cramps all the time. He was trying to take a notch up by rubbing a portion where ball did not hit, lol
 
This armband rule doesn't make sense. If a batter wears a full-sleeved shirt, most likely a portion of the shirt will be in touch with the gloves. Extending the rule to such scenario, can an umpire rule the batsman out if the ball touches the shoulder and gets caught by a fielder?
 
Australia wicketkeeper Alex Carey, after the 2nd Test versus Pakistan, while speaking to the media on the field, commented on Mohammad Rizwan's dismissal:

"Eleven of us saw pretty clearly the wristband of the glove, which wristband of the gloves sm out. That's what we saw on the field. And I think that's the way the third umpire saw it as well."

"No, of course not, he probably felt it was obviously on the forearms. Whether the wristband was pretty crucial in the wicket, the match scenario. There's going to be disappointment there. I guess I can. We can only comment from what we saw; he probably feels differently about it. He was rubbing his forearm, we thought we could see it off the wristband, and that was about it."
 
Master Blaster said:
I like the way he did a little rub/massage near his right elbow a couple of times just after the appeal.

Fooled everyone except the snicko...
What an actor... :inti
Click to expand...

14d11573ddfc5f26818c9060126cfadf


Use your own eyes. Did you see him make that bruise/mark on his own hand?
 
I was watching the game when he was given out and watched all the replays and at the end it was an absolute right decision. Ball very clearly touched the band which was extension of his batting gloves , he was out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MenInG said:
14d11573ddfc5f26818c9060126cfadf


Use your own eyes. Did you see him make that bruise/mark on his own hand?
Click to expand...
I absolutely missed the ball brusing him around his forearm area after getting a feather touch on the band.

Quite baffling. He got robbed...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To me Rizwan's dismissal was fair enough.

The wristband is part of the gloves so if the ball hits that part it must be given out.
 
After the controversial dismissal of Mohammed Rizwan in the second Test against Australia, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has decided to take up issues pertaining to umpiring and use of technology with the International Cricket Council (ICC). On Friday, the on-field umpire refused to give Rizwan out after Australian captain and pacer Pat Cummins appealed for a caught behind, but the home side managed to overturn the decision through the DRS.

However, the Pakistan camp was less than happy about the reversal of the decision after the ‘Snickometer' showed a spike on it when the ball was just above the wrist of Rizwan.

A reliable source within the PCB said its head Zaka Ashraf had a conversation with team director Mohammed Hafeez, who conveyed some points to him about the umpiring and the use of technology during the Melbourne Test which they lost by 79 runs.

Now, the PCB is all set to raise those points with the global governing body.

All rules and regulations governing cricket and the use of technology on the field is approved by the ICC Executive Board after being vetted by the MCC Cricket Committee and ICC Cricket Committee.

Hafeez was visibly upset during the post-match press conference at the MCG on Friday, while stressing on the need to highlight inconsistent umpiring and the challenges of technology which had influenced the outcome of the Test.

“If you look at the entire game, there were very inconsistent decisions by the umpires. We play this beautiful game of cricket with natural instinct, and we all know the basics of the game.

However, at times, it feels like the focus is more on technology than on the actual cricket being played. I believe this is an area that needs to be addressed,” he Hafeez had said.

The former also reiterated the need for clarity and certainty in the sport.

“I am not against technology in the game. But if it brings doubt and confusion, it is not acceptable. Some decisions were not understandable. The ball hitting the stumps is always out. I will never understand why there is an umpire's call,” he detailed.

Hafeez said he had a talk with Rizwan and the wicketkeeper batter told him that the ball did not touch his gloves, and there should be conclusive evidence to overturn the decision of the on-field umpire.

NDTV
 
Australian great Adam Gilchrist said the footage of the incident was not entirely conclusive, though he added it did look to catch the top of Rizwan’s glove.

“I wasn’t certain. All the replays I saw, I didn’t feel with certainty that it had (hit the wristband). I think if it’s taken that many looks and that long a time, there’s probably got to be a cut-off point,” Gilchrist said on Fox Cricket.

“There’s a rather large mark on his forearm a bit further up his arm.”

“Having looked at it the amount of times that we did, I just wonder if it just flicked the wrist band. We can only assume that is what Richard Illingworth thought,” he added.

Rizwan had a significant mark on his right forearm and was stunned at the decision, which he relayed to his coach.

“I spoke to him and he’s a very honest person and what he said to me was he did not even feel that it touched anywhere near the gloves,” Hafeez said.

“And what we know is there should be conclusive evidence for the third umpire to reverse the decision.

“The umpire gave it not out and there was no clear conclusive evidence that the decision has to be turned over.”


www.foxsports.com.au

‘Putting a curse on this beautiful game’: Pakistan coach blows up over controversial wicket

‘Must be addressed’: Coach’s stunning post-Test blow up over ‘unacceptable’ DRS ‘curse’
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au
 
ICC sanctions on their way for Rizwan, I am sure.

SLWC4IY.png
 
He's clearly indicating the ball brushed the white spot. It's Riz we are talking about, we all know how trustworthy and drama free he is.


But something strange happened there. May be the ball boomeranged, it's Australia after all.


Hafeez should go one step ahead of words like curse, he should talk about black magic, voodoo etc... :inti
 
I don't understand what Rizwan was doing while pointing to that spot..cameras and all are there...no need to make such excuses if you are out.
 
Blistering Barnacle said:
hmm. I thought test cricket was played with a red ball. How did he get a white mark from a red ball? And how come the replays and hotspot showed it hitting the wristband? Mistery.
Click to expand...

Yes the white mark actually got me there which Rizwan was pointing to but now I heard the mark was already there when he came on to bat, in that case it looks like a fair decision in the end by the third umpire..
 
Hitting a wristband that has nothing to do with a batsmen armoury and being given out is a stupid rule
 
Pakistan has been making it bitter. It wasn't a clear not out . That could go either way. Pakistan lost the game and they should accept it.
 
Mainul said:
Pakistan has been making it bitter. It wasn't a clear not out . That could go either way. Pakistan lost the game and they should accept it.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a clear out? In which kind of cricket it wasn’t a clear out? The Afghanistan Sheepgaza league cricket?
 
Rana said:
It wasn’t a clear out? In which kind of cricket it wasn’t a clear out? The Afghanistan Sheepgaza league cricket?
Click to expand...

How many replays took to find that out?
 
Last edited:
Clearly got hit wristband he’s out. Shocking shot trying to duck a ball not short enough. Not good enough simple
 
Mainul said:
Pakistan has been making it bitter. It wasn't a clear not out . That could go either way. Pakistan lost the game and they should accept it.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a clear out either. It might have hit the wrist band or it might have made contact with his forearm a fraction later. As such should have stayed with the umpire's call.
 
Whether it was out or not out, the fact remains that we weren't going to win because no one was staying on the other end for Rizwan.
 
Rana said:
It wasn’t a clear out? In which kind of cricket it wasn’t a clear out? The Afghanistan Sheepgaza league cricket?
Click to expand...
The debate is on because it could go either way. Out or not out. If it was clear,so why the debate ?
 
wristband is a part of gloves and the ball clearly brushed that part so in my opinion it was a fair decision to give Rizwan out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FearlessRoar
  • Poll Poll
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Controversial dismissal of Yashasvi Jaiswal in India's 2nd innings of the 4th Test against Australia – a fair call or a mistake?
3 4 5
Replies
376
Views
10K
HitWicket
H
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Inzamam-ul-Haq, Misbah-ul-Haq, Mushtaq Mohammad and Saeed Anwar named in the PCB Hall of Fame for 2024
2
Replies
106
Views
5K
RizwanT20Champ
R
FearlessRoar
"The Pakistan team played better than the other team": Mohammad Hafeez
Replies
55
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Cricket Warrior
Beyond the Boundary: The learn that broke the camel’s back
Replies
27
Views
800
Markhor
M
Cricket Warrior
Australia [318 & 262] secure the Benaud-Qadir series with a 79-run win over Pakistan [264 & 237] in the 2nd Test at the MCG
11 12 13
Replies
1K
Views
21K
Nikhil_cric
N
Back
Top