You're right. Without him, our batting would look really fragile.
The point I was trying to make is that we have totally misread this pitch and gone in with just one frontline spinner and four seamers whereas India have three spinner and just two seamers
I know. It was a joke.
We shall see if that's correct. If Anderson, Broad and Archer bring their A game then in a day night game ?
In my view, England got the selection right. A three-man pace attack is likely to take more wickets than one with Bess as a second spinner.
A four-man pace attack - Anderson, Broad, Archer and Stokes
Did you see his fingers underneath the ball on the replay? I didn't.
If you could see them and you could see the ball on the ground, then you can overturn the decision. If you can't see his fingers, then you have to agree with the on-field umpire's decision that it's out.
Did you see his fingers underneath the ball on the replay? I didn't.
If you could see them and you could see the ball on the ground, then you can overturn the decision. If you can't see his fingers, then you have to agree with the on-field umpire's decision that it's out.
Did you see his fingers underneath the ball on the replay? I didn't.
If you could see them and you could see the ball on the ground, then you can overturn the decision. If you can't see his fingers, then you have to agree with the on-field umpire's decision that it's out.
I was initially outraged but that looked pretty clear to me. Right call. I've argued the foreshortening point on slow mo replays before but this is far more than could be attributed to that.
The soft signal was 'out' and Stokes' fingers were under the ball. That's a very, very, very poor decision by the third umpire.
Did you really think that was a very very very poor decision ?
Soft signal or not.
Yes.
According to the ICC Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix D, section 2.2.3, '...if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman is (...) Not out by any mode of dismissal (excluding LBW), he/she shall notify the
bowler’s end umpire'.
The umpire gave the soft signal 'Out', which means that the third umpire must clearly see (the word 'clear' is in the Conditions) that it is Not Out. The soft signal indicates that the on-field umpires (plural) were satisfied that Stokes took the catch, that is, his fingers were under the ball.
If the third umpire could see, clearly, that the batsman had missed the ball or that the ball had bounced before reaching the fielder, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. This wasn't the case.
And if he could see, clearly, that the fielder's fingers were other than underneath the ball, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. I don't think Stokes' fingers could be seen on the single camera angle used by the third umpire. Therefore I think it was the wrong call.
If you could see Stokes' fingers, then it would be reasonable to overturn the on-field umpires. They weren't visible.
The soft signal was 'out' and Stokes' fingers were under the ball. That's a very, very, very poor decision by the third umpire.
Did you really think that was a very very very poor decision ?
Soft signal or not.
Yes.
According to the ICC Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix D, section 2.2.3, '...if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman is (...) Not out by any mode of dismissal (excluding LBW), he/she shall notify the
bowler’s end umpire'.
The umpire gave the soft signal 'Out', which means that the third umpire must clearly see (the word 'clear' is in the Conditions) that it is Not Out. The soft signal indicates that the on-field umpires (plural) were satisfied that Stokes took the catch, that is, his fingers were under the ball.
If the third umpire could see, clearly, that the batsman had missed the ball or that the ball had bounced before reaching the fielder, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. This wasn't the case.
And if he could see, clearly, that the fielder's fingers were other than underneath the ball, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. I don't think Stokes' fingers could be seen on the single camera angle used by the third umpire. Therefore I think it was the wrong call.
If you could see Stokes' fingers, then it would be reasonable to overturn the on-field umpires. They weren't visible.
I agree. I think they come to a different conclusion if an Indian fielder is taking that catch.
Looking at the zoomed in versions above there is definitely a case for that not carrying, however, I'm not sure how they could've been certain from a quick replay from one angle.
I have no problem with it being given not out, I just think the umpiring was very poor.
Comments
We don’t deserve to win but this series is farcical.
Ridiculous
Laws of the game state that call should stand.
Unfortunately.
If you could see them and you could see the ball on the ground, then you can overturn the decision. If you can't see his fingers, then you have to agree with the on-field umpire's decision that it's out.
Did you really think that was a very very very poor decision ?
Soft signal or not.
Top class bowling and fielding
What can Crawley say? "You were f***ing plum mate but too late now."
Somehow I don't think I'll be missing any of the Test match Day 5...
According to the ICC Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix D, section 2.2.3, '...if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman is (...) Not out by any mode of dismissal (excluding LBW), he/she shall notify the
The umpire gave the soft signal 'Out', which means that the third umpire must clearly see (the word 'clear' is in the Conditions) that it is Not Out. The soft signal indicates that the on-field umpires (plural) were satisfied that Stokes took the catch, that is, his fingers were under the ball.
If the third umpire could see, clearly, that the batsman had missed the ball or that the ball had bounced before reaching the fielder, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. This wasn't the case.
And if he could see, clearly, that the fielder's fingers were other than underneath the ball, he should overturn the on-field decision and signal that it is Not Out. I don't think Stokes' fingers could be seen on the single camera angle used by the third umpire. Therefore I think it was the wrong call.
If you could see Stokes' fingers, then it would be reasonable to overturn the on-field umpires. They weren't visible.
Looking at the zoomed in versions above there is definitely a case for that not carrying, however, I'm not sure how they could've been certain from a quick replay from one angle.
I have no problem with it being given not out, I just think the umpiring was very poor.