England v India, Champions Trophy, final, Edgbaston June 24, 2013

Stumpings bring implementation of laws into spotlight

It was not just Ian Bell's dismissal that demanded a careful look at the interpretations of the laws of cricket
45

The stumping of Ian Bell will remain a talking point of the Champions Trophy, but if you go strictly by the letter of the law, you may as well add Jonathan Trott's dismissal to it. Both were playing at their home ground, Edgbaston. Trott was done in by a superb delivery and stumping. R Ashwin went round the stumps, tossed the ball up, got it to dip, making it fall short of where Trott was expecting to, and leaving him stranded outside the crease. The dip beat him on length, but it was strange Trott didn't try to cover the line of this wide ball in panic. Caught inside the line of the ball, he didn't try to kick the ball away.

Anyway, Ashwin's team-mate, Virat Kohli, nearly cost him the dismissal. Standing at backward short leg, Kohli had started moving to his left by the time the ball pitched, and by the time the ball reached Trott, Kohli had no touch with the ground that he originally occupied. Laws 41.7 and 41.8 deal with the fielder movement pretty much clearly.

41.7. Movement by fielders 

Any significant movement by any fielder after the ball comes into play, and before the ball reaches the striker, is unfair. In the event of such unfair movement, either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball. Note also the provisions of Law 42.4 (Deliberate attempt to distract striker).



41.8. Definition of significant movement

 (a) For close fielders anything other than minor adjustments to stance or position in relation to the striker is significant.

(b) In the outfield, fielders are permitted to move towards the striker or the striker's wicket, provided that law 41.5 is not contravened. Anything other than slight movement off line or away from the striker is to be considered significant.

(c) For restrictions on movement by the wicket-keeper see Law 40.4 (Movement by wicket-keeper).

The movement in this case seemed significant, and would have created a stir had Trott glanced it straight to Kohli. However, this is not the first time such a movement has been overlooked by the umpires in recent times. This, like other cricket laws, is fascinating, as is its implementation and objections to it.

The batsman has had a look at the field - in Trott's case, a long look - before taking strike, and cannot monitor any changes once the bowler starts running in. It is unfair on him if a fielder moves other than towards the pitch in a straight line, once the ball comes in play and until he has had a chance to strike the ball. However, the umpires are of the view that they find this law highly difficult to implement. It takes a brief moment for the ball to leave the bowler's hand and reach the batsman. How do you tell when exactly did the slip fielder begin to run to leg to anticipate a paddle sweep?

There is also a philosophical resistance to the law, from players too. Ian Chappell, for example, will ask you to stuff the law book in this case. For him, and many others, it is just fielding brilliance to anticipate a shot and move along with it. This law limits a fielder's expression, many believe. Especially in the modern world where the batsmen play a lot of reverse sweeps and switch hits, it is argued it is only fair to allow the fielder a counter.

However, it can be argued at the same time that the fielding side is protected against premeditated movement by the batsman. A bowler is well within his right to pull out, and keep pulling out, of the delivery should a batsman change his stance before the ball leaves the bowler's hand. So, for all practical purposes, the batsman is allowed to change his stance only after the bowler has done his thing. It is only fair the fielder be allowed to change his position only once the batsman has done his thing.

It can also be argued that Kohli's movement didn't have any bearing on the result in this instance - Trott wouldn't even have realised it happened - but that is akin to saying that breaking into houses is fine if you do it quietly and don't steal a thing.

Having said that, if the umpires and the cricketers look at this anticipation as a fielding skill, it is time a playing condition was introduced to rule over this MCC law. There are many such precedents where the ICC breaks away from the MCC laws that might have lost their relevance.

Back to the more obviously questionable decision from the final. On given evidence, and after the first glance of the blue MCC book, the third umpire Bruce Oxenford needs to have seen something not shown on the public broadcast to have given that out. And that is not impossible. The third umpire sometimes gets that extra clear replay, but the chances of it are minuscule.

However, the law 28, as it is worded, might give Oxenford a minor escape clause even if he didn't see any special pictures. Let's go back to the facts first. Bell lifted his foot while dragging it back for a brief moment, during which Dhoni hit the stumps hard. On the pictures the TV replays showed, the bail wasn't clearly and completely off its groove when Bell's toe touched the ground behind the crease. Law 28.1 says:

28.1. Wicket put down

(a) The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground

This sounds pretty clear, but later in the same law, MCC says, "The wicket is also put down if a fielder strikes or pulls a stump out of the ground in the same manner." It's open to interpretation, but does this mean that a stump's "being struck out of the ground" as in (a) above is not the same as "pulling the stump out"? Could the first part mean the disturbing of the arrangement of the stumps without actually completely removing the bail amount to putting the wicket down? It can, in rare instances, happen when the keeper has gone hard at the stumps, and the bail for some reason sticks to them.

However, in a practical world the umpires don't quite make that distinction. The laws have to cover all organised cricket played so this distinction might have been made just for lesser professional cricket where freshly varnished bails sometimes stick to freshly varnished stumps. In a practical world, Oxenford seems to have erred unless he was shown pictures we didn't see, or if the slightly confusingly worded law has given him something to hide behind.

Sidharth Monga is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • TRAM on June 25, 2013, 1:16 GMT

    Having a contact sensor at the bail-stump junction should cost less than $5. To describe, insert a metallic sleeve at the end of bails (the portion that sits on the stump's grooves) and put a metal sensor at the stump groove and let it switch on a light at the base of the stump when the contact is OFF. It can be viewed in the replay and will give exactly when the bail is off the groove. The contact can be metal or magnetic sensor. No need of complex wiring in to the ground and the arrangement can be within the stump's body.

  • Tolchard on June 25, 2013, 22:28 GMT

    A friend of mine, a former first-class cricketer who has worked in the business of cricket for 20 years, has developed & owns the relevant technology to get these decisions right. It's called the Zing system and was used in this year's BBL in Aus. It's visually impressive and the stumps and bails light up within 1/1000 of a second of the bails being dislodged to the laws of cricket. This way it can be used on high frame rate cameras and they light up instantly and we can keep the traditional laws of the game (ie we don't need to move to the wicket being broken on contact). He has a patent throughout the world for the technology and is dealing with all the cricket boards and broadcasters of the cricketing world about rolling it out soon. They all apparently want it and are working to implement it - not surprisingly. So we will have a solution to this situation very soon for all televised cricket. They are also producing versions of the system to use in club and school cricket.

  • richjhart on June 25, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    I have yet to ever see a law, interpretation, guideline or playing condition which states that the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt (I am happy to be corrected there). I haven't seen this incident, but if one frame is 'foot up, bail on' and the next frame is 'foot down, bail off', then as I read the laws it is the job of the umpire to interpolate between the two frames and determine what is more likely. If the umpire doesn't have a third umpire for a run out, he is not looking for proof of out or not out, he goes on what is more likely. Why should a third umpire call in this situation be different? Further, DRS is different to a normal third umpire decision. With DRS, there must be enough evidence to overturn a given decision, whether it be out or not out. With a third umpire decision such as this one, there is no presumption of not out from the umpires on the field. They are explicitly saying there is no decision.

  • BozoSri on June 25, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    Cricket is called a gentlemen's game because there need not be laws in every facet to the minutest detail and the players are expected to play by the general rules and ensure fairplay. Adding more laws to the smallest of onfield events makes it impossible to ensure that all the laws are abided by. Cricketers are sportsmen, dont expect them to become lawers to remember, follow and find a way around the innumerable number of laws being added every time there is a small inconsequential incident.

  • Jaggadaaku on June 25, 2013, 7:34 GMT

    Why they always crying? Is that because after coming in the final in many major tournaments, they have been always a beaten side? Never won any World Cup yet despite taught the whole world how to play cricket. Last time India re-called Ian Bell after umpires gave him out in tests, and Ian Bell blasted 159 runs, India never cried after the match. Alistair Cook is just an ordinary captain and human being crying for that only decision after the match. There are so many poor decisions occurred in Cricket, but some nice gentlemen captains never cried after the matches finish.

  • on June 25, 2013, 3:52 GMT

    Regarding putting the stump down once the bails are dislodged and there is a run out chance: Is it enough if the fielder kicks the stump out as it may be faster to kick the stump out sometimes. What to do in case all three stumps are uprooted and down due to some reason and there is a run out chance? Regarding movement by fielders- Scrap the age old laws to accomodate anticipation in fielding except when it disturbs the batsman's concentration in close fielding positions.

  • kahvas on June 25, 2013, 3:48 GMT

    Frankly Bell struggles with spin. The more time he may have spent on the crease, the lesser time for bopara-morgan partnership. England were in position to comfortably win to get 21 odd in 16 balls w/ 6 wickets to spare. They had a panic attack and they are the one to be blamed for this loss.

  • godapola on June 25, 2013, 3:22 GMT

    there worse ever tournerment in cricket history

  • NoPitchIsDead on June 25, 2013, 2:20 GMT

    Giving Trott notout because Kohli moved some where!!! lol that would have been a headline news in India.

  • Whatsgoinoffoutthere on June 25, 2013, 0:20 GMT

    @hunksurat: TMS seemed to be saying that the more they saw the footage, the less secure a verdict of not out looked.

    @soumyas: It doesn't matter whether Trott's dismissal had anything to do with Kohli. The fact is that the Laws say Kohli shouldn't have moved, but he did. The debate here is whether the Laws are reasonable, and whether it's even possible for an umpire to consider them within a time period relevant to the match in progress. My take is that applying the Laws here is impossible without a significant delay (how long does a decision have to take?) and should be considered unworkable in their present form.

    For me, any innings with a middle-order implosion like that doesn't deserve to get a win.

  • TRAM on June 25, 2013, 1:16 GMT

    Having a contact sensor at the bail-stump junction should cost less than $5. To describe, insert a metallic sleeve at the end of bails (the portion that sits on the stump's grooves) and put a metal sensor at the stump groove and let it switch on a light at the base of the stump when the contact is OFF. It can be viewed in the replay and will give exactly when the bail is off the groove. The contact can be metal or magnetic sensor. No need of complex wiring in to the ground and the arrangement can be within the stump's body.

  • Tolchard on June 25, 2013, 22:28 GMT

    A friend of mine, a former first-class cricketer who has worked in the business of cricket for 20 years, has developed & owns the relevant technology to get these decisions right. It's called the Zing system and was used in this year's BBL in Aus. It's visually impressive and the stumps and bails light up within 1/1000 of a second of the bails being dislodged to the laws of cricket. This way it can be used on high frame rate cameras and they light up instantly and we can keep the traditional laws of the game (ie we don't need to move to the wicket being broken on contact). He has a patent throughout the world for the technology and is dealing with all the cricket boards and broadcasters of the cricketing world about rolling it out soon. They all apparently want it and are working to implement it - not surprisingly. So we will have a solution to this situation very soon for all televised cricket. They are also producing versions of the system to use in club and school cricket.

  • richjhart on June 25, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    I have yet to ever see a law, interpretation, guideline or playing condition which states that the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt (I am happy to be corrected there). I haven't seen this incident, but if one frame is 'foot up, bail on' and the next frame is 'foot down, bail off', then as I read the laws it is the job of the umpire to interpolate between the two frames and determine what is more likely. If the umpire doesn't have a third umpire for a run out, he is not looking for proof of out or not out, he goes on what is more likely. Why should a third umpire call in this situation be different? Further, DRS is different to a normal third umpire decision. With DRS, there must be enough evidence to overturn a given decision, whether it be out or not out. With a third umpire decision such as this one, there is no presumption of not out from the umpires on the field. They are explicitly saying there is no decision.

  • BozoSri on June 25, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    Cricket is called a gentlemen's game because there need not be laws in every facet to the minutest detail and the players are expected to play by the general rules and ensure fairplay. Adding more laws to the smallest of onfield events makes it impossible to ensure that all the laws are abided by. Cricketers are sportsmen, dont expect them to become lawers to remember, follow and find a way around the innumerable number of laws being added every time there is a small inconsequential incident.

  • Jaggadaaku on June 25, 2013, 7:34 GMT

    Why they always crying? Is that because after coming in the final in many major tournaments, they have been always a beaten side? Never won any World Cup yet despite taught the whole world how to play cricket. Last time India re-called Ian Bell after umpires gave him out in tests, and Ian Bell blasted 159 runs, India never cried after the match. Alistair Cook is just an ordinary captain and human being crying for that only decision after the match. There are so many poor decisions occurred in Cricket, but some nice gentlemen captains never cried after the matches finish.

  • on June 25, 2013, 3:52 GMT

    Regarding putting the stump down once the bails are dislodged and there is a run out chance: Is it enough if the fielder kicks the stump out as it may be faster to kick the stump out sometimes. What to do in case all three stumps are uprooted and down due to some reason and there is a run out chance? Regarding movement by fielders- Scrap the age old laws to accomodate anticipation in fielding except when it disturbs the batsman's concentration in close fielding positions.

  • kahvas on June 25, 2013, 3:48 GMT

    Frankly Bell struggles with spin. The more time he may have spent on the crease, the lesser time for bopara-morgan partnership. England were in position to comfortably win to get 21 odd in 16 balls w/ 6 wickets to spare. They had a panic attack and they are the one to be blamed for this loss.

  • godapola on June 25, 2013, 3:22 GMT

    there worse ever tournerment in cricket history

  • NoPitchIsDead on June 25, 2013, 2:20 GMT

    Giving Trott notout because Kohli moved some where!!! lol that would have been a headline news in India.

  • Whatsgoinoffoutthere on June 25, 2013, 0:20 GMT

    @hunksurat: TMS seemed to be saying that the more they saw the footage, the less secure a verdict of not out looked.

    @soumyas: It doesn't matter whether Trott's dismissal had anything to do with Kohli. The fact is that the Laws say Kohli shouldn't have moved, but he did. The debate here is whether the Laws are reasonable, and whether it's even possible for an umpire to consider them within a time period relevant to the match in progress. My take is that applying the Laws here is impossible without a significant delay (how long does a decision have to take?) and should be considered unworkable in their present form.

    For me, any innings with a middle-order implosion like that doesn't deserve to get a win.

  • rp1106 on June 24, 2013, 22:39 GMT

    If Cook is cribbing about Bell's decision then he should remember about New Zealand's game too. Did Brandon McCullum crib about the Williamson wicket?

  • johnstanley on June 24, 2013, 22:32 GMT

    As an Indian fan, I would like to pretend that there was no controversy in yesterday's ICC Final when we beat England. The truth is that Sid is right and the Umpire made a blunder. Worst is that the same Umpire has made many blunders that have affected the result of the game. The truth is those two decisions mad a big difference to the England batting and allowed us to win. I for one would have liked to see India win without significant help from the Umpire. India all the three games before the Final, where we won the toss and there is no doubt it had favorable impact. Here is a key question. Why was a 50 over tournament decided by a 20 over game. I thought we already have a T20 Championship. It is utterly that Organizers did not have reserve day for rain.

  • on June 24, 2013, 20:07 GMT

    "A bowler is well within his right to pull out, and keep pulling out, of the delivery should a batsman change his stance before the ball leaves the bowler's hand." The same can be argued for batsman as well. He can also pull out of a delivery if he perceives a fielder moving. Stating "So, for all practical purposes, the batsman is allowed to change his stance only after the bowler has done his thing. It is only fair the fielder be allowed to change his position only once the batsman has done his thing" based on the stated argument is just naive.

  • noble on June 24, 2013, 19:37 GMT

    The author has missed a point on interpretation here! I think that where the law states "a stump is struck out of the ground" should be interpreted as when a stump is up-rooted by a ball striking it rather than when the arrangement is disturbed as the author states. For instance, if a fielder throws the ball, strikes the stumps and the bails are dislodged after the batsman has made his ground and thereafter, the batsmen proceeds to leave the crease in order to make another run. The fielder in order to run the batsman out will have to either remove the stump completely with the ball in hand or strike the stump down with the ball.

  • SinSpider on June 24, 2013, 19:21 GMT

    I agree with the idea of this article that clarity is required in the mentioned laws. However, in case of Trott's dismissal, the allegation that Kohli moved significantly before the "ball came into play" is absolutely false. I have frame-by-frame photographic proof that Kohli's feet did not move an inch until the ball almost passed Trott's bat. He leaned to his left when Trott was on his front foot expecting him to flick the ball to the leg side. Thats all!

  • RameshRayaprolu on June 24, 2013, 18:40 GMT

    Agreed, Bell should NOT have been given out. Some unfortunate decisions always bound to happen, and to ENGs fate, it happened against them on the D-Day.

    I don't agree that this decision was the cause for ENGs losing the game. India definitely played well throughout the tournament, and they deserve this championship.

  • nilaksh on June 24, 2013, 18:37 GMT

    Height if nitpicking. If and buts don't win you games England, you can cry foul and point out rules but fact of the matter remains that India were the better team. Also, it is kind of diabolical to have articles like these whereas there were none when other teams got howlers. Somehow its part and parcel of the game and should be taken i the stride if its not England. You know the best thing about the win was to imagine the cribbing and cringing we'll see here by the "neutral" writers.

  • on June 24, 2013, 18:36 GMT

    Put a pressure pad under the crease

  • DC75 on June 24, 2013, 18:26 GMT

    All said and done what about when a bowler hits the stumps and the bail does not fall - as per the current law it is not out, which I think is wrong. If the ball hits the stumps whether the bails fall or not, the batsman should be given out. The whole Hotspot thing is based on that, even if there is a very very thin edge that normal eye cannot register, you use Hotspot and Snicko to give the batsman out, similarly the batsman is adjudged not out for LBW appeals when there is a very thin edge that could be spotted only by Hotspot, then why not stumps being disturbed without bails falling off, this happened quite a few times in recent matches;

  • hunksurat on June 24, 2013, 18:07 GMT

    With respect to Ian Bell dismissal, Mark Butcher said he saw replays from sky sports that indicated he was out. I think the fact is India was the strongest team in this tournament and deserved to win as they did.

  • pothulagaurav on June 24, 2013, 17:35 GMT

    Simple solution for this is to use the stumps which blink at the time of ball or keeper gloves or fielder contacts them like the ones used in Big Bash League.........

  • segga-express on June 24, 2013, 17:09 GMT

    The MCC in their guidance on how to interpret the laws state that the wicket is down from the moment a bail leaves its groove, if that bail subsequently falls below the level they were originally placed. The position of the batsman is to be judged the at the exact moment when the bail is disturbed, not when the bail has been completely dislodged. If the bail then settles back on the stumps it is not out.

  • Gurram on June 24, 2013, 17:02 GMT

    Regarding Ian Bell's dismissal, replay is inconclusive and benefit of doubt must be given to batsman. Bruce Oxenford has a history when it comes to stumping dismissals. The controversial India tour of Australia, where Steve Bucknor is forced to stay out, Bruce oxenford was third umpire and he did say NOT OUT for a crystal clear replay that showed Andrew Symonds is stumped out. I guess it is not about reviewing laws, it is sad that bruce oxenford is allowed to continue.

  • soumyas on June 24, 2013, 16:59 GMT

    First of all why do you want to make mountain out of molehill ? Trott's dismissal has nothing to do with kohli, forget abt that, it's genuine. Because best fielders in the world have achieved the name because of anticipation, AB devilliers move too much before the shot is played, Jonty Rhodes used to move sideways a lot while anticipating the angle. That doesn't mean running sideways is OK, but anticipatory move is OK. Again ball never went to Kohli and movement never affected Trott's concentration or the shot he played. About Ian Bell, umpires have 6 camera angles before giving out and we are shown maximum of 3 angles by the broadcasters. So it was out according to 3rd umpire.

  • sweet2hrme on June 24, 2013, 16:24 GMT

    If u cannot apply these laws on the ground when its happens actually than its worst to discuss these laws when the match is finished. Than u simply ask what is the role umpires ??? What is the role of third umpire ???

  • on June 24, 2013, 15:24 GMT

    after all that, england could still have won it. its their own mistake to loose it from 21 off 15 balls. bell's decision may not have make that much of difference. england was in good position to win it. but we often say SA are chokers but england really beat SA yesterday for that.

  • on June 24, 2013, 15:18 GMT

    I like this article. We may agree or may not agree to Sid's views - that's a personal choice. But I like the amount of research and analysis that has gone into composing this article. Good one!

  • Vijay_P_S on June 24, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    I agree with cricindia4life. I always felt the rule "bail should be completely removed" rather ambiguous. Sometimes it is hard to say whether part of the bail is still in contact with the stumps or not. What is not ambiguous however is the first movement of stumps/bails on impact. May be they should amend the law. Complex laws lead to controversial decisions. As Dhoni would say keep it simple.

  • thedreamer on June 24, 2013, 15:08 GMT

    I wonder if ever there was such hue and cry when India has always been on the receiving end of such dubious decisions. Bell's LBW in the WC 2011, India withdrawing appeal against Bell's run out in a Test match in 2011, Dravid's shoe lace incident in the series against England 2011, the infamous 2007-08 Test series against Australia, back in 2006 in a one day game against SA when de Villiers clearly edged it to FIRST slip and was unbelievably given not out and so on. Looks like Karma has its say after all. Yesterday, Bell deserved what he got if he deserved the not out decisions listed herein. And not to mention the Kane Williamson-Broad incident.

  • Harpreet on June 24, 2013, 15:07 GMT

    I agree that Bell was and should have been "NOT OUT" but where was the similar article against umpire when ENGLAND were beneficial against NEW ZEALAND .... Remember Kane Williamson given out by 3rd Umpire of No Ball at the crucial junction ....... Had NZ won that match .... ENGLAND would not have played the final in the first place ..... So the law of accounts is .. Every Debit has an equal Credit.

  • on June 24, 2013, 14:56 GMT

    All points well made and worth debating over the looking at. However, players also have the responsibility to play the game in the right spirit. Trott blatantly claimed a catch in the last Test series in India that was floored and nothing was done about it. Ramdin was rightly suspended and fined. The point is that we need consistency. The players adhere to the spirit and the laws/rules lay down comonsense directves. The Bell dismissal was marginal and perhaps should have been given not out. On the other had Broad got the benefit as h looked out. Things even out in cricket.

  • cricindia4life on June 24, 2013, 14:45 GMT

    Fielding rule: Going forward, if the intent is to allow the fielder to "counter" what the batsman is doing (sweep/switch hit, etc), since the batsman is allowed to do that as soon as the ball is released, the fielder should be allowed to counter as soon as he sees the batsman move. In other words, the fielder should be allowed to move as soon as the ball is released as well.

    Stumping rule: The whole thing about the bail being off the groove and stumps being struck out of the ground introduces a gray area about when event occurs. The one thing that is clear and cannot possible be argued against is the instant the stumps/bail system is disturbed. This is the point they should use to adjudicate stumpings and run outs. For the cases of a bail being previously disturbed and a second attempt for a run-out is made, the stump being pulled out is fair. In that instance, as soon as the umpire sees the tip of one of the stumps, that should be the point at which an out is judged.

  • heathrf1974 on June 24, 2013, 14:42 GMT

    The bails should be completely dislodged whether or not the stump is detached from the ground. This would make the rules simpler. If a stump is detached from the ground it stands to reason the bails would be dislodged as well.

  • class9ryan on June 24, 2013, 14:41 GMT

    This was sure to happen to England, we all know what happened when India toured England in 2011. Ian Bell walked away towards pavilion for lunch thinking the ball had gone for 4, it wasn't 2 be and he was legally out but Dhoni showing his calmness in a game where India needed 2 win withdrew the appeal which gave Ian Bell a second chance. What I mean that its just payback time.

  • Nemesis2050 on June 24, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    There was no hue and cry when Kane Williamson was given out of a No ball when the benefit of doubt should've gone to the batsman, So I believe Oxenford used the same logic to give Bell out, Karma caught with England. Also I think in the WIvSA game West Indies players were moving all over the place when they were fielding and not much was talked about after the game...

  • CricketingStargazer on June 24, 2013, 14:33 GMT

    It is interesting to recall that the Shakoor Rana/Mike Gatting standoff came after a no ball was called under the provision of laws 41.7/41.8 above when Gatting appeared to move the fielder behind square after the batsman had entered his stance.

  • debugger on June 24, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    All I can add is Karma is a beautiful world. What goes around comes around. Remeber the Test match in England where Bell was clearly run out and Dhoni recalled him back on sportsmanship grounds. Obviously Dhoni and Bell got what they deserved yesterday.

  • on June 24, 2013, 14:24 GMT

    BY the letter of the law as described in this article, it appears that the 3rd umpire had a valid ground to give Bell out. The close up on the replay showed that Bell's foot was not grounded when the leg stump had first started moving. The bell was disturbed but not dislodged at that moment. However, I agree with Santosh - this was probably payback for Bell for the 2.5m reprieve during the World Cup game last year!

  • jackiethepen on June 24, 2013, 14:16 GMT

    Let's get this clear. The replays didn't show the bails in motion at all when Bell's foot was grounded. It was in the next frame when the bails started to fly. Bell was clearly in, much as Oxenford might search for proof otherwise. What is puzzling is why the umpire game him out against all the visible evidence. There may be a psychological reason. Bruce Oxenford made a similar mistake over a stumping by Dhoni giving out Hussey in a recent ODI match v India. He retracted his mistake and got the on field umpire to recall Hussey. Dhoni was livid and had a public row with the on field umpires. Maybe the wrath of Cook was preferable to the wrath of Dhoni? The unseemly truth may be that he possibly bottled it rather than rightfully reprieving Bell. He had a full partisan house as well to give him grief. When Bell was (rightly) reprieved in India in 2011 Dhoni led a media campaign against DRS in the media about his anger with the umpire. Oxenford should worry about his reputation more.

  • on June 24, 2013, 14:00 GMT

    No point in ruing on this decision. It is the same Ian Bell who was given not out for LBW in the ICC World Cup against India when it was clearly visible the that point of impact was on the stumps. That time the decision nearly costed us the match. Probably, Dhoni is right in calling DRS as not a full proof system.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on June 24, 2013, 13:55 GMT

    i cant get ur points. Say in two words, was that are really OUT or NOT by rules?

  • VA47992 on June 24, 2013, 13:39 GMT

    I do not agree with the point on fielder moving before the ball pitches - For instance, it hardly takes just about 0.6 secs(in case of a spinner) for the ball to leave the bowler and come to the batsman. A fielder is not expected to wait and observe(in 0.6Sec) when the ball pitches and then start moving. That is absolutely rubbish!!! If the fielder starts moving before the bowler delivers the ball, then I agree it distracts the batsman. Once the ball is delivered, the batsman goes by his instincts and so should a fielder!!! If the bowler bowls a full toss, then is the fielder expected to stand still until the batsman plays a shot just because the ball has not pitched??? Also, if a batsman is allowed to premeditate a shot, why is the fielder stopped from the same premeditation?? If the fielders instincts clicks, good for him, else he will look like a fool...so please scrap this 41.7 rule...

  • JohnnyRook on June 24, 2013, 13:24 GMT

    I don't think anything unfair happened to Trott. Kohli's movement was not visible to him. Batsman has to anticipate such fielder movements just like he anticipates bowling variations and bowlers anticipate the batsman's shots in today's world with reverse sweeps and dilscoops and switch hits. However the law should have a clause that fielders behind the wickets can move but not in front of it so that batsman doesn't get distracted. Having a law and then ignoring it is a recipe for disaster. Some day some Mike Deniss will come along and apply the law to the letter and then there will be a catastrophe.

    Bell's however was an entierly different story. He has every reason to be angry. Benefit of doubt goes to batsman. I have no clue how third umpire was sure that stumps were broken before Bell's foot got grounded when nobody else was. In fact, it looked more not out rather than out. Funny it was Bell who got the 2.5m reprieve in World Cup and DRS rules got changed around it due to that.

  • philly_bluenose on June 24, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    Surely 'in the same manner' applies to the fielder striking. Therefore the bail still needs to be completely removed.

    In this case, the 3rd umpire made a mistake, as the batsman should have the benefit of the decision.

    However, for LBW there is the 'umpire's decision' category, where the evidence is insufficient to overrule the umpire. Given the ambiguity of some decisions even given excellent high speed cameras, shouldn't umpires be forced to make a decision for stumping, run-outs etc before calling for the 3rd umpire. Then in cases of ambiguity, the 'umpire's decision' holds. Surely a simple rule change to make?

  • sharidas on June 24, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    The thing about Cricket is that a controversy can be created out of thin air. In these modern times, everything is caught on TV and re-runs contribute to unending theories for discussions afterwards. The modern game is played vastly different from the times in the past and a win is a win and thats all that matters. Even with DRS and what not, controversies will be part and parcel of cricket and perhaps that is what makes it so interesting.

  • sharidas on June 24, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    The thing about Cricket is that a controversy can be created out of thin air. In these modern times, everything is caught on TV and re-runs contribute to unending theories for discussions afterwards. The modern game is played vastly different from the times in the past and a win is a win and thats all that matters. Even with DRS and what not, controversies will be part and parcel of cricket and perhaps that is what makes it so interesting.

  • philly_bluenose on June 24, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    Surely 'in the same manner' applies to the fielder striking. Therefore the bail still needs to be completely removed.

    In this case, the 3rd umpire made a mistake, as the batsman should have the benefit of the decision.

    However, for LBW there is the 'umpire's decision' category, where the evidence is insufficient to overrule the umpire. Given the ambiguity of some decisions even given excellent high speed cameras, shouldn't umpires be forced to make a decision for stumping, run-outs etc before calling for the 3rd umpire. Then in cases of ambiguity, the 'umpire's decision' holds. Surely a simple rule change to make?

  • JohnnyRook on June 24, 2013, 13:24 GMT

    I don't think anything unfair happened to Trott. Kohli's movement was not visible to him. Batsman has to anticipate such fielder movements just like he anticipates bowling variations and bowlers anticipate the batsman's shots in today's world with reverse sweeps and dilscoops and switch hits. However the law should have a clause that fielders behind the wickets can move but not in front of it so that batsman doesn't get distracted. Having a law and then ignoring it is a recipe for disaster. Some day some Mike Deniss will come along and apply the law to the letter and then there will be a catastrophe.

    Bell's however was an entierly different story. He has every reason to be angry. Benefit of doubt goes to batsman. I have no clue how third umpire was sure that stumps were broken before Bell's foot got grounded when nobody else was. In fact, it looked more not out rather than out. Funny it was Bell who got the 2.5m reprieve in World Cup and DRS rules got changed around it due to that.

  • VA47992 on June 24, 2013, 13:39 GMT

    I do not agree with the point on fielder moving before the ball pitches - For instance, it hardly takes just about 0.6 secs(in case of a spinner) for the ball to leave the bowler and come to the batsman. A fielder is not expected to wait and observe(in 0.6Sec) when the ball pitches and then start moving. That is absolutely rubbish!!! If the fielder starts moving before the bowler delivers the ball, then I agree it distracts the batsman. Once the ball is delivered, the batsman goes by his instincts and so should a fielder!!! If the bowler bowls a full toss, then is the fielder expected to stand still until the batsman plays a shot just because the ball has not pitched??? Also, if a batsman is allowed to premeditate a shot, why is the fielder stopped from the same premeditation?? If the fielders instincts clicks, good for him, else he will look like a fool...so please scrap this 41.7 rule...

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on June 24, 2013, 13:55 GMT

    i cant get ur points. Say in two words, was that are really OUT or NOT by rules?

  • on June 24, 2013, 14:00 GMT

    No point in ruing on this decision. It is the same Ian Bell who was given not out for LBW in the ICC World Cup against India when it was clearly visible the that point of impact was on the stumps. That time the decision nearly costed us the match. Probably, Dhoni is right in calling DRS as not a full proof system.

  • jackiethepen on June 24, 2013, 14:16 GMT

    Let's get this clear. The replays didn't show the bails in motion at all when Bell's foot was grounded. It was in the next frame when the bails started to fly. Bell was clearly in, much as Oxenford might search for proof otherwise. What is puzzling is why the umpire game him out against all the visible evidence. There may be a psychological reason. Bruce Oxenford made a similar mistake over a stumping by Dhoni giving out Hussey in a recent ODI match v India. He retracted his mistake and got the on field umpire to recall Hussey. Dhoni was livid and had a public row with the on field umpires. Maybe the wrath of Cook was preferable to the wrath of Dhoni? The unseemly truth may be that he possibly bottled it rather than rightfully reprieving Bell. He had a full partisan house as well to give him grief. When Bell was (rightly) reprieved in India in 2011 Dhoni led a media campaign against DRS in the media about his anger with the umpire. Oxenford should worry about his reputation more.

  • on June 24, 2013, 14:24 GMT

    BY the letter of the law as described in this article, it appears that the 3rd umpire had a valid ground to give Bell out. The close up on the replay showed that Bell's foot was not grounded when the leg stump had first started moving. The bell was disturbed but not dislodged at that moment. However, I agree with Santosh - this was probably payback for Bell for the 2.5m reprieve during the World Cup game last year!

  • debugger on June 24, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    All I can add is Karma is a beautiful world. What goes around comes around. Remeber the Test match in England where Bell was clearly run out and Dhoni recalled him back on sportsmanship grounds. Obviously Dhoni and Bell got what they deserved yesterday.

  • CricketingStargazer on June 24, 2013, 14:33 GMT

    It is interesting to recall that the Shakoor Rana/Mike Gatting standoff came after a no ball was called under the provision of laws 41.7/41.8 above when Gatting appeared to move the fielder behind square after the batsman had entered his stance.