Australia v England, World Cup 2015, Group A, Melbourne February 14, 2015

ICC accepts umpiring error on Anderson run-out

370

Play 01:15
Dobell: An embarrassment for ICC

James Taylor was denied a maiden international century by an umpiring error as Australia opened their World Cup campaign with a crushing defeat of England.

"Following Australia's 111-run win over England in the Group A ICC Cricket World Cup clash at Melbourne Cricket Ground on Saturday night, the Playing Control Team (PCT) met and reviewed the final ball of the game which resulted in James Anderson being given run out," an ICC statement said.

"Article 3.6a of Appendix 6 of the Decision Review System Playing Conditions states that the ball should have been deemed dead when the batsman (James Taylor) was given out LBW. No further runs or dismissals were possible.

"The PCT spoke to the England team management and acknowledges that the game ended incorrectly and that an error was made."

The confusion arose when Taylor was given out by umpire Aleem Dar following a leg before appeal from Josh Hazlewood. However, Taylor called for a review which suggested the ball was passing down the leg side. Dar's original decision was therefore overturned. But as England attempted a single from the same delivery, Glenn Maxwell hit the stumps before Anderson could make his ground. After some confusion and a number of replays, the square leg umpire, Kumar Dharmasena gave Anderson out.

But the playing conditions suggest the ball should have been declared dead at the time and Anderson should have been reprieved. While the decision had no bearing on the result - Australia were in a position of overwhelming dominance - it did deny Taylor the chance to register a century on World Cup debut.

Aaron Finch, the Australian opener who was awarded the Man-of-the-Match award for his century, admitted the players had "no idea" what the playing conditions were.

"We had no idea what was going on," he said. "We appealed for an lbw, we appealed for a run out. We would have taken anything at the time.

"I honestly still don't know the rule. Maybe it was a dead ball, but I still haven't seen a rule."

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • eranda on February 20, 2015, 6:13 GMT

    Think Its the last ball of the Innings; One run to win; Batsmen take a run (Leg bye) on that ball while fielders appealing; eventually umpire give the decision OUT; Batsmen complete the run and asking for REVIEW, Though decision will over turn Match should be TIE. What the hell of rulers

  • mick on February 18, 2015, 23:36 GMT

    because of kumara Dharmasena's ego and he thought who the hell is this batsmen for me to teach rules.. and he did not want to change his initial decision ..

    So even after batsman showed the correct rule, if umpire do not want to change his decision because of his ego, then he is not a good umpire and not suitable for umpiring World Cup.

  • Nikhil on February 18, 2015, 17:14 GMT

    Once the on-field umpire gives out by raising his finger, play has to stop, both in reality and in spirit. How do the players know if the 3rd umpire will uphold or decline the appeal in DRS? If there's an over throw by mistake after there's a genuine dismissal and umpire raises his finger to give out, it's not given as runs to the batting team, as play has "stopped".

    So James Taylor definitely should not have been given out.

    @Bouncer709: A single or a second run initiated BEFORE the on-field umpire gives an out will have to be counted. Regardless of what the DRS says, those runs will then be counted, as they were initiated before the umpire "stopped" play by raising his finger.

  • Dummy4 on February 18, 2015, 3:25 GMT

    @DHILIPARUN The Rule states that: The ball should have been deemed dead when the batsman was given out LBW. No further runs or dismissals were possible This in my understanding means that, there will NOT be another delivery; its just that "no further runs are possible".

  • Izmi on February 18, 2015, 0:34 GMT

    I think this is where the third umpire should have stepped in and overuled umpire Dharmasena's decision. Either the third umpire was also not aware of Article 3.6a Appendix 6 or he didn't have the authority to do so other than judging the run out decision. There have been several instances in the past where according to replays wrong decisions have been made by the on field umpires but for some reason or the other left uncorrected by the third umpire who has all the facilities available at his disposal. Whether the DRS is available or not it is important that the correct decision is made that really matters.

  • Richard on February 17, 2015, 21:46 GMT

    @bouncer709...While I do understand what you are saying and why you see it is unfair, but try to look at it this way. Remove the idea that DRS is in use. The same situation arises and the umpire gives the batsman out. The ball is dead once the umpire raises his finger. This law applies if the first wicket falls or it's the 10th wicket. Upon watching the replays we all see that the decision was incorrect and that the batsman should not have been given out. That is a decision we have accepted many times before the introduction of DRS, even if it causes anger or disappointment. When you introduce DRS, (and the reason it was introduced) you are correcting the umpires decision but not the runs gained after the appeal. It is impossible to allow the runs after the dismissal as the fielding side believes the batsman is out and would therefore no longer need to field the ball as it is a dead ball. This maintains consistency in the laws.

  • Dummy4 on February 17, 2015, 20:58 GMT

    Umpire Dharmasena is 100% correct to give Anderson run out.Law 23 ('dead Ball') in action goes into lenghts and states that' The ball does not become dead merely because there is an appeal or even if the batsman was OUT But not DISMISSED. The ball becomes dead only after the batsman is DISMISSED.It shows that there is a difference between being out and being dismissed. With the advent of the decision review system (DRS),( vice' versa too should apply), a batsmen is maybe dismissed or not ONLY after A DRS review if availed of, as in the Taylor case.UNTIL the DRS review the batsman was NOT dismissed and the DRS gave further vindication.THE BALL WAS THEREFORE NOT DEAD upto the DRS decision and even after. Dharmasena is 100% right. This problem has come to light due to the short sightedness of the ICC in not reviewing the LAWS OF CRICKET after the advent of the DRS.

  • Lakmaal on February 17, 2015, 20:06 GMT

    What Sri Lanka need is strength training. Every player is out of shape. Past world cups fielding saves about 30-35 runs per game. this teams gives up 30 runs. They should try dilshan as opening bowler.

  • Richard on February 17, 2015, 18:36 GMT

    @bouncer709...While I do understand what you are saying and why you see it is unfair, but try to look at it this way. Remove the idea that DRS is in use. The same situation arises and the umpire gives the batsman out. The ball is dead once the umpire raises his finger. This law applies if the first wicket falls or it's the 10th wicket. Upon watching the replays we all see that the decision was incorrect and that the batsman should not have been given out. That is a decision we have accepted many times before the introduction of DRS, even if it causes anger or disappointment. When you introduce DRS, (and the reason it was introduced) you are correcting the umpires decision but not the runs gained after the appeal. It is impossible to allow the runs after the dismissal as the fielding side believes the batsman is out and would therefore no longer need to field the ball as it is a dead ball. This maintains consistency in the laws.

  • Dummy4 on February 17, 2015, 12:02 GMT

    If anything this will help clarify the rules with this possibility. Sure it wouldn't have made much difference in terms of the result of the game but it was unfortunate that James Taylor was denied a possible maiden international century.

    But as somebody who played the game myself (all be it Saturday Afternoon park cricket) whilst I think I know most of the I can't honestly say I know the MCC Laws of cricket back to front either.

  • No featured comments at the moment.