News and Analysis Current cricket in focus

Poor decision? Yes, absolutely. But did it cost England the match? No, not at all. England were cruising when Morgan and Bopara were batting. England lost because they panicked or Indians bowled well.

So I think time will tell that the umpire made the right decision.

My friend, a former first-class cricketer who has worked in the business of cricket for 20 years has developed and owns the relevant technology to get these decisions right.  It is called the Zing system & was used in this years Big Bash League in Australia.  Basically 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 look to 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 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.

Completely agree with stealers_123: Umpires decision is final - time to move on with the game and make the best of it.Too much controversy for no reason.

Here is my question. I hope one of the CricInfo staff can answer. Do the 3rd umpires have a video replay that has frame rates higher than 24/30 fps? That is the most a tv viewer can get. If video replay, for example, has a frame rate of 60fp or 120fps, the third umpire may have had more information than they could relay/replay on tv for the viewers.

@stealers_123 I am a professional umpire at the national level. I think the days are gone when an umpire in his home country can adjudicate all ten batsmen out in favour of one bowler. The use of technology is to enhance the precision of the decision in favour of the players. If the umpire does the mistake after watching several replays, then he should be questioned as if he does not know the rule or any thing else...

Hey all, I might not be 100% correct whether or not the bails were out of the grove, but here is what I say, when the umpire has given out, it means that he is out no matter the bails are in or out. Let's say if umpire has given out for lbw though it was not, do we still have to investigate why umpire has given out or not. The bottom line is, what the umpire has decided at that momemt is the final call. It is all about how good you play to bring your team on top.

@BobMartin - I understand, have seen & experienced many bowled attempts and direct hit attempts where the ball shaves the stumps and the bails jump up and fall back in place, that doesn't mean the bails didn't come off the grove. I can't recollect a stumping or at the stumps collected hit for a runout, where the bails didn't fall off. You can point me to one such instance if you can :) I agree with your statement "idea of referring situations such as this to the 3rd umpire, was to clear up any doubt and alleviate unfair dismissals", but stating it failed is the perception of the self. Are saying that people stating that it failed are more experienced than the ump? or for that matter the ICC, don't you think if it was wrong, the ICC would have made an inquiry with the ump. It would be beneficial, if you have read first part of my earlier comment, rather than just the later part

Benefit of doubt should be to the batsman, but when there is no doubt he does not get the benefit.

@ MrCricketFan1981 "Oh, by the way, the bails was definitely out of the grove, we all know the law books, but only if you play the game you will know that once the stump is disturbed, the bail will be off the grove." MrCricketFan1981, quite clearly you haven't watched too many cricket so-mo replays, or if you have you have only seen what you want to see, not what has actually happened. There are many recorded incidents of a stump being disturbed and the bail has stayed in place. In fact there was just such an incident in the one we are discussing here. Several paused replays clearly showed the leg stump not in alignment with the centre stump and the bail had not been completely removed, and as I said earlier, that is the criteria; completely removed. Furthermore the idea of referring situations such as this to the 3rd umpire, was to clear up any doubt and alleviate unfair dismissals. In this case it failed, as far more experienced people than you and I have stated.