Marcus Stoinis got away with a wide delivery on the second last ball of the game which would’ve seen Sri Lanka eclipse the Aussie total by one run. Instead, Australia won it with ease in a super over.
Absolute garbage. What is that line there for; theatrics. Just another hometown decision from an incompetent umpire buckling in a pressure situation. We see it often in womens cricket as well.
Correct call..........from the position of the umpire.
If the umpire were standing wide crease to wide crease - perhaps a different call - however the umpire is standing stumps to stumps - - people tend to forget this.
The game is adjudicated from the perception of the controlling umpire.
Exactly, this was probably a wide, but it's really a line ball decision. It pitched well within the line and swung out late, passing over the batsman's bat - calls like this get given either way all the time. If you go through every ball in the game, you'd find a number of calls like this, the most obvious being the Maxwell dismissal as you say, where the evidence in favour of his dismissal was far from conclusive given:
1) The noise registered was a sharp spike when contact to gloves and pads usually register as a dull spread out peak.
2) If RTS was synchronised properly, the noise matched up to when the ball passed the rear glove - from front on it was clear there was a large gap between the rear glove and the ball.
I think there was enough evidence to confirm an on-field out, but not to overturn an on-field not out. That's just part of the game and good teams find a way to overcome it.
As for the idea that Sri Lanka would have won if this wide was given - well we don't know that the final ball would have played out the same if 4 was required to win off 2 rather than 5 off 1. The field may have been set differently or different balls bowled. The batsmen might have tried to go for two 2s and had a run out.
Looks like Sri Lankan fans conveniently looked the other way at the Maxwell dismissal. A bit rich actually.
The facts are the umpires' decision was not out. There was a "noise" of sorts as the ball passed the bat (God knows what).
Hotspot showed nothing.
There was a camera angle that clearly showed "a gap between the glove and ball", in other words, we have conflicting pieces of evidence here.
What "usually" happens here is merit is given to the umpires original decision, which in this particular case means "Benefit of Doubt" must be given to the batsman.
Two pieces of evidence showed in favour of the batsman (hotspot and video vision) compared to one piece of evidence that favoured the bowler (snicko).
Two pieces of "Technology Evidence " to one in favour of the batsman combined with the original not out decision by the on-field umpire there was clearly not enough for the third umpire to overturn the decision.
It is the way it is supposed to work these days. The third umpire clearly got it wrong. If the on-field decision was out it then becomes a little more tricky to decide.
"Pick the bones" out every single umpiring decision of the whole game and you will probably find other errors.
And for the record, I believe that Maxwell was probably out (I can't say 100% precisely) but the way these things are supposed to be judged these days he should have been given the benefit of doubt.
Just because a controversial incident happens near the end of the game, doesn't make it any more or less important than a similar incident near the start of the game. So looking at this in isolation really isn't that useful. What about Maxwell's dismissal for Australia? There is no way there was enough certainty to over turn the on field umpire's decision.
Robert Tunstall
Guest
Maybe a wide in test cricket, short forms, wide every day.
Gee
Roar Rookie
Awful captaincy getting a part timer to bowl the last over. Lucky a bad umpire saved Finch here.
Simoc
Guest
Absolute garbage. What is that line there for; theatrics. Just another hometown decision from an incompetent umpire buckling in a pressure situation. We see it often in womens cricket as well.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Exactly - it had to be conclusive and - the point of that spike was it was far too sharp for a glove flick.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Correct call..........from the position of the umpire. If the umpire were standing wide crease to wide crease - perhaps a different call - however the umpire is standing stumps to stumps - - people tend to forget this. The game is adjudicated from the perception of the controlling umpire.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
Exactly, this was probably a wide, but it's really a line ball decision. It pitched well within the line and swung out late, passing over the batsman's bat - calls like this get given either way all the time. If you go through every ball in the game, you'd find a number of calls like this, the most obvious being the Maxwell dismissal as you say, where the evidence in favour of his dismissal was far from conclusive given: 1) The noise registered was a sharp spike when contact to gloves and pads usually register as a dull spread out peak. 2) If RTS was synchronised properly, the noise matched up to when the ball passed the rear glove - from front on it was clear there was a large gap between the rear glove and the ball. I think there was enough evidence to confirm an on-field out, but not to overturn an on-field not out. That's just part of the game and good teams find a way to overcome it. As for the idea that Sri Lanka would have won if this wide was given - well we don't know that the final ball would have played out the same if 4 was required to win off 2 rather than 5 off 1. The field may have been set differently or different balls bowled. The batsmen might have tried to go for two 2s and had a run out.
BM
Guest
Looks like Sri Lankan fans conveniently looked the other way at the Maxwell dismissal. A bit rich actually. The facts are the umpires' decision was not out. There was a "noise" of sorts as the ball passed the bat (God knows what). Hotspot showed nothing. There was a camera angle that clearly showed "a gap between the glove and ball", in other words, we have conflicting pieces of evidence here. What "usually" happens here is merit is given to the umpires original decision, which in this particular case means "Benefit of Doubt" must be given to the batsman. Two pieces of evidence showed in favour of the batsman (hotspot and video vision) compared to one piece of evidence that favoured the bowler (snicko). Two pieces of "Technology Evidence " to one in favour of the batsman combined with the original not out decision by the on-field umpire there was clearly not enough for the third umpire to overturn the decision. It is the way it is supposed to work these days. The third umpire clearly got it wrong. If the on-field decision was out it then becomes a little more tricky to decide. "Pick the bones" out every single umpiring decision of the whole game and you will probably find other errors. And for the record, I believe that Maxwell was probably out (I can't say 100% precisely) but the way these things are supposed to be judged these days he should have been given the benefit of doubt.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
Just because a controversial incident happens near the end of the game, doesn't make it any more or less important than a similar incident near the start of the game. So looking at this in isolation really isn't that useful. What about Maxwell's dismissal for Australia? There is no way there was enough certainty to over turn the on field umpire's decision.