Australia v England, 5th ODI, Adelaide January 26, 2014

Captains uncertain over Bopara stumping

ESPNcricinfo staff

Both Alastair Cook and Michael Clarke admitted to confusion about the pivotal stumping of Ravi Bopara during England's run chase. With England requiring nine runs from nine balls and two wickets still standing, Bopara was given out by the third umpire, after lengthy deliberation, as a delivery from Clint McKay rebounded off keeper Matthew Wade's gloves down on to the stumps, eventually dislodging the leg bail.

Replays were apparently inconclusive in proving whether the bail was fully out of the groove on middle stump before Bopara's foot, which had been raised, returned into contact with the ground. The Laws require the bail to be "completely removed from the top of the stumps" and Cook suggested the TV umpire, Kumar Dharmasena, might have erred when asked about the incident afterwards.

"I don't know if I'm being biased or not but I thought the rule was the bail had to leave both grooves and, looking at the TV screen, I thought there was enough doubt for it not to be given out," he said. "I'd love to be proved wrong in one sense, because it would make my mind rest a little bit easier, but I'm sure the third umpire can explain his decision.

"You don't want to look at that one isolated incident but with Ravi there, with eight needed off eight balls or whatever it was, you've got a very good chance. Ravi can clear the ropes when he wants to and he's obviously taken it deep and we feel in control, even though we're losing wickets at the other end. You don't blame one incident when there are 600 balls in the game but it was obviously a big call at a big time."

Clarke, Australia's captain, said it was his decision to have Wade standing up to the stumps during the penultimate over, adding that he hadn't been as confident as some of his team-mates about Bopara being given out. The dismissal left the last-wicket pair of Chris Jordan and James Tredwell too much to do as Australia wrapped up the series 4-1.

"I had an interesting conversation with Matthew Wade at the start of that over. He wanted to go back and I made it very clear I wanted him up to the stumps, so we went with that and fortunately [we were lucky]," Clarke said. "I couldn't really tell from the big screen [if it was out], there were probably mixed feelings out there, a lot of guys thought once the bail dislodged Ravi's foot was in the air, but I couldn't tell clearly enough, I probably felt 'has he just got his foot down' when the bail's dislodged, but I haven't had a chance to look at it closely on television, and I probably won't now either."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Liam on January 29, 2014, 3:54 GMT

    He was clearly out, according to the laws and in the endless replays. Cop it and move on and don't be like rednwhitearmy, Hammond, front-foot-lunge who can't handle defeat and make a fool of themselves.

  • Bren on January 28, 2014, 8:38 GMT

    Is it just Tests and ODI's or will the poms find something to whinge about in the T20's too?

  • SATISH CHANDER on January 27, 2014, 20:39 GMT

    @cricketsubh : "pert wicket has flattened out in last 10 years" - are you mad? Perth may have slowed down a bit but still remains one of the fastest wickets in the world (I would say still #1). If anyone can score in Perth he definitely is world class in playing pace. Similarly if someone can score well in say Premadasa Stadium or Mumbai, then he is is a great player of spin. That is how it works.

  • Patrick on January 27, 2014, 11:17 GMT

    I was surprised it was given but you make a simple and fair point @Shaggy076, from 20 metres away at square leg the foot was in the air when the stumps were broken, it's reasonable to think he'd have been given without use of a replay.

  • Dummy4 on January 27, 2014, 10:58 GMT

    You can only be run out if attempting a run, which Ravi was not. It was a stumping because the keeper broke the stumps with the batsman not in his crease. Whether it was intentional or not matters not.

  • udendra on January 27, 2014, 10:34 GMT

    That was clearly out. nothing to fuss about.

  • Mark on January 27, 2014, 10:27 GMT

    @Green_and_Gold The case where this actually happened in the match was, I believe, a bowled. For a stumping it is very hard to imagine that that bail can be displaced without later falling, hence the "completely out of the groove" rule.

  • Graham on January 27, 2014, 10:03 GMT

    The law says completely dislodged, as we can clearly see one bail dislodged and the bails are a rigi object physics dictates that the other end of the bail is also dislodged but by a smaller distance than the bail we can see. We only have to see one end of the bail dislodged before having conclusive proof to satisfy the law. Thus the rightdecision has been made.

  • Justin on January 27, 2014, 9:32 GMT

    @Disco_bob & Stargazer - I think there would be an argument for the wicket to be given out. From what i understand of the laws - the bail must be out of both grooves for the wicket to be taken thus if the bail is completely in the air then at that point the wicket is out (regardless of if it falls back into the grooves). If only one side of the bail is raised and the other side remains in contact then that would be not out. It does make for an interesting conversation though.

  • Jason on January 27, 2014, 8:56 GMT

    I have not seen the incident however reading the article is seems like the replays where inconclusive, in which case I thought that in the absence of definitive proof the batsman got the benefit of the doubt. Also to myknowledge if the if the keeper was not holding the ball it is not a stumping it is a run out as the bails need to be removed while the keeper is holding the ball.

    However the result is in the record books and theres no point in getting 'upset' at it. england have in their time had a number of decisions go in thier favour, now they're going against. Such is life.

  • No featured comments at the moment.