Root, in or out?

what are people thinking.

Me, bat then pad.

 

In... my first instinct, and think it remains is that the angle the bat was brought down, the bat must have marginally hit the ball first.

My concern is there are umpires who aren't bright enough when presented with such close calls to think properly and apply the correct logic.

I also think the ICC need to firmly come out and state or clarify the protocols. At present their is no consistency and that needs to change and quickly

 

It was a tough one to call. Agree about ICC comment, for me the decision should stand unless proven otherwise, different 3rd umpires interpret things differently. Erasmus last time out had a shocker (missed stumping and Trott), whoever is doing it this time probably got it right, but had the umpire said not out, I would hope he would have agreed.

 

He did and the decision was upheld.

 

the third umpire is asked when a review takes place "has an obvious error taken place?"

as the on field umpire gave him out and all replays were inconclusive then no obvious error had taken place, if the standing on field umpire had given him not out and the aussies appealed the decision, i would have expected the call to remain not out.

as an aside i think it hit his pad first. theres some yorkshire pride and byas on here today!

 

I agree it was a very very close call, and I suspect the killer frame is missing. Two things though. Firstly. Is "has an obvious error taken place?" the right question? It's quite subjective. And if a decision is being reviewed, surely we just need to ask "can you tell if it's out". If you can't we go with the onfield umpire (and Root would have been out, which is fine if that's how the law goes).

Secondly, in this instance. Root is playing off to leg, the ball is going off to leg. By laws of geometry, can the bat nick the ball in that particular spot after the ball has hit pad? At best, I think its hit bat and pad together, but it could have gone either way.

My biggest concern is I reckon the umpire is looking to try and see what the ball hit first, rather than considering angles, logic and sometimes gravity.

I'll hush for a bit now! ;-)

 

This is why DRS is ****.

 

Out, with Bairstow

neither good enough for Ashes cricket.

 

It was such a slight edge that the bat wouldn't/didn't change the direction of the ball so I think the ball could have gone in any direction after hitting the pad. It was all about looking to see which it hit first.

From front on and from square leg I thought it had hit the bat first, but from point, the smear that hotspot made showed that it actually hit the pad first. Correct decision I'm afraid, especially since the on field umpire gave him out initially.

 

as the umpire gave him out, I agree it was the right decision. But the missing frame issue needs sorting and better technology used there, even more so for line calls