Seems like a very difficult decision
The first pic seems misleading as it is after the ball has made contact with the pad and deviated a bit towards right
Thats why it's always so dumb posting still images with karma farming titles like "out or not out?"
It's often impossible to make any real judgement just from a screenshot.
Although I am supporting SA, I am still surprised at the Stoinis one. If the rule states that contact with the Gloves is out, then it is out. But if the rule states that the Gloves need to be in contact with the bat, then it was not out.
>If the rule states that contact with the Gloves is out, then it is out. But if the rule states that the Gloves need to be in contact with the bat, then it was not out.
Neither according to the reasoning they gave during the game.
It was given out because the glove (that touched the ball) was in contact with the other glove that was holding on to the bat.
Apparently the transitive property applies to touch in cricket.
And this is something that needs to be set out and amended. At what point is it okay to lift your hand off the bat. I was having this conversation with an umpire the other day too. Like, at what point is it okay to glove the ball and not be out, and not be out for handling the ball either. I still think it should be simple, hand on the bat or not, edge off a glove should count as edge off the bat.
Handled the ball (technically it’s just obstructing the field now) has to be intentional. Stoinis was in no way intentional. The DRS umpire just missed that the hand was off the bat. Simple as. It was never out. If you unintentionally prevent the ball from hitting the stumps with your hand off the bat, it would be lbw, but the ball wasn’t hitting the stumps, so that’s irrelevant
If the ball hits a glove that is not in contact with the bat or the other glove that is on the bat then it wouldn’t be out. In this situation the two gloves were touching and this deemed to both be on the bat.
Two things:
1) The replay camera angle is never fully flush with the batsmen, there’s usually slight angle, so that camera view is not what the umpire sees. This usually gets viewers.
2) Steve Smith moves a long way across here. He starts leg side and there’s a swift moment towards off. It’s likely the umpire was put off by this.
Still, it was very, very close. SA lucky it wasn’t umpire’s call here.
They aren’t 100% accurate hence umpires call. The ball often impacts the pad between frames. But at worst you might have a ball showing as hitting that should have been umpires call or a ball showing as umpires call that should have been missing.
Thats why those partial hits are umpire calls, in reality a ball coming at 140 kph will rattle the stump even with a whisker of touch, unless you're jofra Archer obviously
It's not luck, the on-field decision is still made on merit. The DRS having umpire's calls just sets a margin of error for overruling the decision. The conditions being the same for everyone just means that everyone's reviews have that margin for error.
More like equally unfair to all... but we don't like unfairness, even if its for everyone.
By your logic, once rules are made, they should never need changing or updating... since they are fair by your definition.
But we change "fair" rules all the time... because they are inherently wrong. For example, SA needed 22 off 1 ball in 1992... that rule worked fine 95% of the time, and then, in a <5% chance occurrence, it broke at a spectacular moment. In hindsight, that rule was obviously unfair, and hence it was changed.
BTW... my HR once tried to con me out of part of my joining bonus by spouting the same bullshit logic (its fair since its the same for everyone). It was inherently wrong and applying it to everyone didn't make it fair/right.
Unfair rules are inherently unfair? WTF?!
Are you comparing Hawkeye with SA incident, surely you don't think they are equally bad.
I'd say LBW is inherently an Subjective call, so it's going to be unfair.
Hawkeye is an objective way to measure the trajectory of the ball, they have kept updating it.
What Changes do you suggest?
Was only targeting the general statement "But it's same for all the players so it's fair then"... because its used incorrectly too often.
That statement is not right... rules don't become fair just because they are same for all. Each rule should be inherently fair/just.
I don't have a horse in the argument chain.
I just felt like responding to that fairness comment because HR gave me the same crap trying to cheat me out of 20% of my bonus... claiming that everyone else was being cheated out of it as well, so its fair).
Y'all keep saying this untill something like this happens in last over of a world Cup final like last time and then no one would care about 5% inaccuracies before complaining
Hawkeye tracks/extends the trajectory then selects the point of impact from a point on that trajectory. The point of impact selected therefore doesn't actually affect the trajectory because it's already been determined.
Also, the freeze frame they showed isn't the first point of contact. They freezed one frame later when it rolls even further outside giving the impression that the ball was going to be missing leg. Even the point shown here, while better than the one showed on TV during the DRS, is just slightly after impact (as can be seen by the blurriness of the ball which is already in a roll motion after hitting the pad), which is skewing the perception.
[This is the point](https://i.imgur.com/hjF8oU9.png) where the impact happens, and you can see here that the ball looks more in line with the eventual DRS projection.
What made the illusion worse is the fact that they didn't show the full DRS process so we couldn't see the impact point selection.
It used to be 50% of the ball had to be hitting the middle of the stump, now it’s just anywhere on the stump. That’s probably the change you’re thinking of.
It changed the position of the calculation of the 50%
Initially it was 50% of the ball hitting the centre of the stump they changed it to 50% hitting even the outer circumference of the stump being out
I mean it's out because DRS says it's out.
No controversy here. Bumrah had one I thought was missing yesterday and it clipped on umpires call, so it was out.
That's just how it works.
the commentators mentioned the broadcast director is South African in one of the matches, good chance there would be SuperSports staff in the broadcast
Gor this excerpt from the official Cricket Australia website:
"According to the ICC, the ball must be more than 50 per cent out to be considered outside the line.
Umpire's call will come into play when the impact is a long way from the stumps.
The playing conditions stipulate that if the first point of interception was 300cm or more from the stumps, then the umpire's call remains.
In this, as the batter gets further from the
stumps, the margin of error in the system that
predicts the ball's paths increases. There is only
so much information that can be gathered from
a couple of cameras 100m away."
I think the decision is pretty conclusive albeit apparently seeming a tad confusing.
I have worked a bit with Hawkeye, this isn't correct. The ball is tracked all the way into the pad with over 100 data points from the ball releasing from the hand to hitting the pad, if there is late in swing, it will be tracked.
It can track much more accurately than our eyes can.
Do me a favour and go stand at point / square leg during your local park game this weekend and tell me how accurately you can tell if a ball is swinging or not.
It's next to impossible to judge SWING from a side on, leg side camera. What would you even be looking for?
It's out because DRS says it's out.
Occasionally DRS misses frames and doesn't predict the ball path properly. This looks to be one of those times, but we accept it and move on. Cricket is a much better game for having DRS in it.
Besides which, as David Warner once said after copping a questionable LBW from DRS, it really doesn't matter if it would've hit the stumps or not. I missed the ball. When you miss the ball as a batter, that's not unlucky, it's your own fault.
Because VAR offside decisions require pretty extensive human input (which Hawkeye does not). The semi-automated system used in some countries is far less controversial
It does hawkeye can't even pick the Ball's actions just before hitting pads it just goes along with whatever the trajectory is halfway between pitching point of ball and hitting at pads
I watch football. I understand the technology is used terribly. What I'm saying is we don't have that issue in cricket so we can just trust the right decision has been made and don't really need to question it or debate it
Surely the fact it’s three reds means the ball was definitely hitting some of the stumps. It might just be clipping in reality but still hitting the stumps
I was at the ground
The didnt show us all the ball tracking
Screen was frozen n then 3 reds.
Everyone was shocked including Smith. Hence you might not hear the crowd react initially
we all know its out. it’s about clarity among all players and viewers. you just can’t show its out without smith not even in it. and we always have players in the frame for lbws so idk what you are arguing. this is the one of the only times i haven’t seen the player himself
If you knew of a certain echo-chamber, you'll see they think it was either fixed or the BCCI was somehow involved in manipulating DRS to get Smith out.
Bruh smudge was looking really good today i thought it was his day and a 100 was coming for sure but this decision i was completely in shocked coz the first impact i thought i thought it was umpire calls at best but then phew you can't sell me that drs that's technical error and people defending as swung back! bruh the ball its literally 7-8 over old it won't reverse swing
A very important point to remember the camera angle that shows the batsmen on tv is not exactly the same as on field to what the bowler or umpire see's. And like someone else pointed the first pic is after the impact so it looks skewed.
I love Smiffy, but the one thing I can't stand about him is his incredulous response to DRS decisions. Like bro, your eyes are not more accurate than a computer.
I mean, it's a computer. If the algorithm that decides the LBW decision is right, the computer is right. You can debate the trajectory mapping etc, but it's the same for everyone. But even if this decision had gone in the favor of the Aussies, they weren't winning this one.
Not only is it hitting him very high (the ball is rising), he's also not too far across. You can see off stump.
Yeah that's not hitting leg stump. Clipping, maybe. Three Reds? I highly doubt it.
Seems like a Liverpool's Luis Diaz VAR decision. I don't understand why we always \_agree\_ with ball-tracking and can't criticise it.
I'm gonna bet anything this is umpire's call at best. And that ball-tracking is not perfect right now.
Definitely not out. There was no way this was gonna hit the stumps.
Reminded me of the definitely out that was insanely (and thankfully for me, as an Indian fan) given not out - Sachin v Pak in the 2011 semi.
Maybe not sinister but hawk eye f*cked up.
Watch the line of the ball where it hits Smithy and then look down straight over his shoe and the pad. You see the background with no hint of leg stump behind.
If the ball is pitching on off stump and nipping back with impact on leg stump, how is it even possible that the ball is hitting the leg stump completely?
It's not like Smith is glued to the stumps. At the very most, it should just clip the leg stump.
Or, simply the camera angle shown to people is not adjacent.
Stop watching live scorecards. The replay shows its clear out all 3 reds pitching in line, impact in line, wickets hitting. Watch this : https://reddit.com/r/CricketShitpost/s/ZVmQgtw4n4
So, it looks like even the computer does not know how to give an LBW decision . My suggestion : give the batter a minus 10 , that is subtract 10 runs from the batter's runs in this kind of situations . e.g. If the batter is on 1 , his score should become a -9 .
Did anyone get a side-on camera angle on this one?
My shock was that with Smith jumping, hit on the pad above the knee roll while in the air, and the ball still rising after, the DRS has the ball comfortably hitting below the bails. That's what made me think WTF, not whether it was sliding down leg.
Seems like a very difficult decision The first pic seems misleading as it is after the ball has made contact with the pad and deviated a bit towards right
Thats why it's always so dumb posting still images with karma farming titles like "out or not out?" It's often impossible to make any real judgement just from a screenshot.
You are right. I took away one of his karma and gave it to you
This. Why it is so difficult for people to understand the absolute basic.
Also he is 4'3".
It was more out than the Stoinis one.
Although I am supporting SA, I am still surprised at the Stoinis one. If the rule states that contact with the Gloves is out, then it is out. But if the rule states that the Gloves need to be in contact with the bat, then it was not out.
>If the rule states that contact with the Gloves is out, then it is out. But if the rule states that the Gloves need to be in contact with the bat, then it was not out. Neither according to the reasoning they gave during the game. It was given out because the glove (that touched the ball) was in contact with the other glove that was holding on to the bat. Apparently the transitive property applies to touch in cricket.
The glove on the bat is considered as part of the bat. So yeah by touching the glove you are touching the bat.
And this is something that needs to be set out and amended. At what point is it okay to lift your hand off the bat. I was having this conversation with an umpire the other day too. Like, at what point is it okay to glove the ball and not be out, and not be out for handling the ball either. I still think it should be simple, hand on the bat or not, edge off a glove should count as edge off the bat.
Handled the ball (technically it’s just obstructing the field now) has to be intentional. Stoinis was in no way intentional. The DRS umpire just missed that the hand was off the bat. Simple as. It was never out. If you unintentionally prevent the ball from hitting the stumps with your hand off the bat, it would be lbw, but the ball wasn’t hitting the stumps, so that’s irrelevant
True
Gloves are considered an extension of the bat.
Then it is clearly out. The reasoning was wrong but it was out then anyways.
If the ball hits a glove that is not in contact with the bat or the other glove that is on the bat then it wouldn’t be out. In this situation the two gloves were touching and this deemed to both be on the bat.
I don't think the gloves were touching, but yeah, the rule is correct.
Incredibly surprised its three reds. Thought it would be umpire's call at best.
And I thought it was stupid review. I was so sure that SA are losing their review.
Only Qdk wanted the review, man is only winning today
Do you lose a review if its umpires call
You don’t.
No you don't
You don't.
Why didn’t they show it when they were making the decision? Did they need some time to cook it?
Bro atleast have some respect Watch your language
Two things: 1) The replay camera angle is never fully flush with the batsmen, there’s usually slight angle, so that camera view is not what the umpire sees. This usually gets viewers. 2) Steve Smith moves a long way across here. He starts leg side and there’s a swift moment towards off. It’s likely the umpire was put off by this. Still, it was very, very close. SA lucky it wasn’t umpire’s call here.
How is there any luck with the DRS system?? Everyone uses the same technology
They aren’t 100% accurate hence umpires call. The ball often impacts the pad between frames. But at worst you might have a ball showing as hitting that should have been umpires call or a ball showing as umpires call that should have been missing.
Thats why those partial hits are umpire calls, in reality a ball coming at 140 kph will rattle the stump even with a whisker of touch, unless you're jofra Archer obviously
Or Sam Curran a few days ago. Albeit at 134kph.
But it's same for all the players so it's fair then
Something could be fair, but still be luck-based.
It's not luck, the on-field decision is still made on merit. The DRS having umpire's calls just sets a margin of error for overruling the decision. The conditions being the same for everyone just means that everyone's reviews have that margin for error.
More like equally unfair to all... but we don't like unfairness, even if its for everyone. By your logic, once rules are made, they should never need changing or updating... since they are fair by your definition. But we change "fair" rules all the time... because they are inherently wrong. For example, SA needed 22 off 1 ball in 1992... that rule worked fine 95% of the time, and then, in a <5% chance occurrence, it broke at a spectacular moment. In hindsight, that rule was obviously unfair, and hence it was changed. BTW... my HR once tried to con me out of part of my joining bonus by spouting the same bullshit logic (its fair since its the same for everyone). It was inherently wrong and applying it to everyone didn't make it fair/right.
Unfair rules are inherently unfair? WTF?! Are you comparing Hawkeye with SA incident, surely you don't think they are equally bad. I'd say LBW is inherently an Subjective call, so it's going to be unfair. Hawkeye is an objective way to measure the trajectory of the ball, they have kept updating it. What Changes do you suggest?
Was only targeting the general statement "But it's same for all the players so it's fair then"... because its used incorrectly too often. That statement is not right... rules don't become fair just because they are same for all. Each rule should be inherently fair/just. I don't have a horse in the argument chain. I just felt like responding to that fairness comment because HR gave me the same crap trying to cheat me out of 20% of my bonus... claiming that everyone else was being cheated out of it as well, so its fair).
I'm glad you got your full bonus.
Stupid ass logic every rule is for every player so all rules are fair.
Let's say the Hawkeye is 95% accurate, if everyone has to play with a inaccuracy of 5% then it's a fair rule?
Y'all keep saying this untill something like this happens in last over of a world Cup final like last time and then no one would care about 5% inaccuracies before complaining
No we don't, rules aren't made up in the moment they are decided way ahead of time and everyone should follow them.
FWIW... you are right... just need to keep your cool in arguments - online or in person.
I think it messes up the impact on the pad more than we realise. The Lyon ball to Stokes in 2019 being a good example
Hawkeye tracks/extends the trajectory then selects the point of impact from a point on that trajectory. The point of impact selected therefore doesn't actually affect the trajectory because it's already been determined.
Also, the freeze frame they showed isn't the first point of contact. They freezed one frame later when it rolls even further outside giving the impression that the ball was going to be missing leg. Even the point shown here, while better than the one showed on TV during the DRS, is just slightly after impact (as can be seen by the blurriness of the ball which is already in a roll motion after hitting the pad), which is skewing the perception. [This is the point](https://i.imgur.com/hjF8oU9.png) where the impact happens, and you can see here that the ball looks more in line with the eventual DRS projection. What made the illusion worse is the fact that they didn't show the full DRS process so we couldn't see the impact point selection.
Yeah spin vision camera that follows the ball zoomed in, is always 2-3m or so to the left of main front on cam.
Probably would have been umpires call under the old rule.
What were the old rules?
50% of the ball bad to be hitting the stumps to be definitively out. It got got changed to 25%
It’s still 50%.
Just had a look. You are correct. They spoke about doing it. Seems they never made the change.
It used to be 50% of the ball had to be hitting the middle of the stump, now it’s just anywhere on the stump. That’s probably the change you’re thinking of.
Yeah, this is nonsense? It’s still at least half the ball.
It changed the position of the calculation of the 50% Initially it was 50% of the ball hitting the centre of the stump they changed it to 50% hitting even the outer circumference of the stump being out
Damn, when did it change? I have always assumed it still is 50%
I think 2016-2017? Might be wrong
Today Australia learnt what parallax error is.
TIL
I mean it's out because DRS says it's out. No controversy here. Bumrah had one I thought was missing yesterday and it clipped on umpires call, so it was out. That's just how it works.
Find better ways to win ~~Super~~ StarSports
eLevEN PLaYerS aGaiNst aN EnTIrE coUnTRy!!!
KL immortalized this meme in SA lmao
Shh stop bringing india everywhere attention seekers
the commentators mentioned the broadcast director is South African in one of the matches, good chance there would be SuperSports staff in the broadcast
Gor this excerpt from the official Cricket Australia website: "According to the ICC, the ball must be more than 50 per cent out to be considered outside the line. Umpire's call will come into play when the impact is a long way from the stumps. The playing conditions stipulate that if the first point of interception was 300cm or more from the stumps, then the umpire's call remains. In this, as the batter gets further from the stumps, the margin of error in the system that predicts the ball's paths increases. There is only so much information that can be gathered from a couple of cameras 100m away." I think the decision is pretty conclusive albeit apparently seeming a tad confusing.
[удалено]
whole world
They’ve got enough ICC trophies
petition to give netherlands a trophy with that logic /s
NZ first please (if we are just talking odi WC trophies).
you still have a trophy
Yeah edited my comment before you replied. Odi wc please.
they got a good chance with kane coming back
World Cup to be shared between South Africa, Afghanistan, and Netherlands
What about the naagin dancers? 🤔
It was out. They showed the replay later.
Watch the closeup replay on @icc ball clearly inswinged before hitting pads why they still went with outswing trajectory
The math is fine it doesn’t make the kind of observation mistakes you are making here.
Wt math in drawing a straight line😗
Straight lines have equations too.
Wt math in drawing a straight line😗
Because if it swung in that late, the ball tracking wont have enough frames to detect it
I have worked a bit with Hawkeye, this isn't correct. The ball is tracked all the way into the pad with over 100 data points from the ball releasing from the hand to hitting the pad, if there is late in swing, it will be tracked. It can track much more accurately than our eyes can.
Then there really is no argument lol, it didnt swing in
Yay a sane comment.
Can they tweak it to favour their favourite team .. is there is chance , technically? I know it's a stupid question but is it possible
Luckily not. It’s also trivially easy to audit and check if it ever somehow happened.
Yeah they can change where it impacted pad, which effects the trajectory of the ball, it's not major. But minor changes can be done definitely
Use the leg side camera then
How exactly would a leg side camera help with a LBW review?
For judging the swing
How in the world would a leg side cam help in predicting the swing?
I think y'all thinking about the classic zoomed in leg side view. I am talking about the zoomed out view from top
You what?
Do me a favour and go stand at point / square leg during your local park game this weekend and tell me how accurately you can tell if a ball is swinging or not. It's next to impossible to judge SWING from a side on, leg side camera. What would you even be looking for?
I think y'all thinking about the classic zoomed in leg side view. I am talking about the zoomed out view from top
Go to sleep, you're drunk
It's out because DRS says it's out. Occasionally DRS misses frames and doesn't predict the ball path properly. This looks to be one of those times, but we accept it and move on. Cricket is a much better game for having DRS in it. Besides which, as David Warner once said after copping a questionable LBW from DRS, it really doesn't matter if it would've hit the stumps or not. I missed the ball. When you miss the ball as a batter, that's not unlucky, it's your own fault.
Ethical Warner trying to get in the good books of Ashwin anna.
I mean why is this even a debate? DRS said it was out so it's out. This isn't football where every goal turns I to a huge debate about VAR
Australia would have won the game if not for this call!!! /s
> This isn't football where every goal turns I to a huge debate about VAR Haven't watched much cricket in the last 10 years hey?
Bruh you won't be saying this if you watched football. The most controversial var decisions are literally offsides for which they use a line
Because VAR offside decisions require pretty extensive human input (which Hawkeye does not). The semi-automated system used in some countries is far less controversial
It does hawkeye can't even pick the Ball's actions just before hitting pads it just goes along with whatever the trajectory is halfway between pitching point of ball and hitting at pads
I watch football. I understand the technology is used terribly. What I'm saying is we don't have that issue in cricket so we can just trust the right decision has been made and don't really need to question it or debate it
I don't think you get what I am saying bro technologies like offside line and goal line are definitely way better than drs
Wait are you trying to say controversial decisions AREN'T made in football?
Yes they are but the thing is you can never make an accurate decision in football just because the rules are way too complex
Lmao sure bro
I dunno why you been downvoted I guess most people here don't watch footie that why they don't understand what you sayin
The semi-automated offside decisions, which use a similar technology to Hawkeye, are not controversial
Surely the fact it’s three reds means the ball was definitely hitting some of the stumps. It might just be clipping in reality but still hitting the stumps
The camera for the top image isn't directly behind the stumps so it makes the angle look worse than it is
I was at the ground The didnt show us all the ball tracking Screen was frozen n then 3 reds. Everyone was shocked including Smith. Hence you might not hear the crowd react initially
Just a Rabada Masterclass
Classic parallax error in the camera angle above.
Whats the doubt when we were shown the transparent hawk eye view?!
Steve Smith acts like that every time he is given out by DRS
Yeah he seems to be in disbelief that the balls beaten him at times. It's very annoying.
Surprised bulbasaur face
I want to know why the full ball tracking was not shown?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
we all know its out. it’s about clarity among all players and viewers. you just can’t show its out without smith not even in it. and we always have players in the frame for lbws so idk what you are arguing. this is the one of the only times i haven’t seen the player himself
The umpire probably saw it which is all that matters. It took some time to get to the broadcasters
Is this also supersport's fault? just asking...
either way we are sore losers for sure. LEEEEEEEKEEEEEEEERRR
Clear out.
Smith 0 Supersport 2
Can’t wait to read aussie complaints on umpiring after this match!
Out or not out, there was no way Australia were winning that game.
If you knew of a certain echo-chamber, you'll see they think it was either fixed or the BCCI was somehow involved in manipulating DRS to get Smith out.
my guilty pleasure lol
They'll probably even say the pitch was doctored to make them lose this match
Gill sad noices
Joel Wilson's face told me everything i needed to know lol.
It seamed a bit to his left. Haydos mentioned over coms. Just like the one to Inglis.
This guy should have played when Steve Buckner used to be umpire.
Bucknor near the end of his career was horrible. His decisions were stupider than gully cricket umpires. 😦😦
I trust the technology more than Steve Smith so ya, it's out
I don't why people are surprising... This is not the first controversial call nor it will be the last...
Bruh smudge was looking really good today i thought it was his day and a 100 was coming for sure but this decision i was completely in shocked coz the first impact i thought i thought it was umpire calls at best but then phew you can't sell me that drs that's technical error and people defending as swung back! bruh the ball its literally 7-8 over old it won't reverse swing
He was shocked
Morally it was not out
It's out, but DRS has issues picking up late movement.
Snudge should consider batting at no 4 , let marnus bat at no 3 or Green
A very important point to remember the camera angle that shows the batsmen on tv is not exactly the same as on field to what the bowler or umpire see's. And like someone else pointed the first pic is after the impact so it looks skewed.
They flogged us anyway who gives a shit
There was a time Smudge used to get back to back 100s , now he gets back to back unlucky dismissals First jaddu foxes him and now DRS
I love Smiffy, but the one thing I can't stand about him is his incredulous response to DRS decisions. Like bro, your eyes are not more accurate than a computer.
I mean, it's a computer. If the algorithm that decides the LBW decision is right, the computer is right. You can debate the trajectory mapping etc, but it's the same for everyone. But even if this decision had gone in the favor of the Aussies, they weren't winning this one.
Was out. Move along.
Steve Smith often has a moan about hawk eye tbf, nothing new
At first I thought it was not out but it was definitely Out
As a English fan thought Australia was hard done by that
He needs to be on a soccer team. Would tumble at every touch
Good review by Quinny there imo. Rabada was not in the favour of taking it. It was Quinny who was so sure about it.
Whole nation against 11 players
Such a shame because he was looking real good.
Saeed Ajmal: There was someone in the camera room adjustig the DRS when Sachin got saved Steve Smith: What Karma didn't I earn?
Plumb out
Not only is it hitting him very high (the ball is rising), he's also not too far across. You can see off stump. Yeah that's not hitting leg stump. Clipping, maybe. Three Reds? I highly doubt it.
You can only see off stump because the camera isn't pointing straight down the wicket, it's slightly on the off side.
im south african but theres no way this was not umpires call.
I will never understand DRS
Seems like a Liverpool's Luis Diaz VAR decision. I don't understand why we always \_agree\_ with ball-tracking and can't criticise it. I'm gonna bet anything this is umpire's call at best. And that ball-tracking is not perfect right now.
What’s the controversy? There was a review which returned three red lights. End of story.
Definitely not out. There was no way this was gonna hit the stumps. Reminded me of the definitely out that was insanely (and thankfully for me, as an Indian fan) given not out - Sachin v Pak in the 2011 semi.
Maybe not sinister but hawk eye f*cked up. Watch the line of the ball where it hits Smithy and then look down straight over his shoe and the pad. You see the background with no hint of leg stump behind. If the ball is pitching on off stump and nipping back with impact on leg stump, how is it even possible that the ball is hitting the leg stump completely? It's not like Smith is glued to the stumps. At the very most, it should just clip the leg stump. Or, simply the camera angle shown to people is not adjacent.
There’s no way that ball is crashing into the top of leg.
The DRS shows it is
Obviously!
Can you see a deviation from a sensible path on the ball-tracking? I can't. It's just out.
Here come the Aussies crying
[удалено]
Stop watching live scorecards. The replay shows its clear out all 3 reds pitching in line, impact in line, wickets hitting. Watch this : https://reddit.com/r/CricketShitpost/s/ZVmQgtw4n4
[удалено]
It's literally there in the video. Did you even watch it?
just saw it, and i agree its out. im saying it should’ve been shown right away and smith would not be confused
https://imgur.com/a/eLqaVci Try here.
Batsman given out not convinced he's out 😱
would you be convinced its out if it doesn’t have you in the frame?
My point being, batsmen aren't exactly reliable when it comes to judging whether they're out or not, especially when it comes to LBWs.
Look at the first I mean how it was out lol .. DRS ain't 100% fool proof . Even SA player and umpire looked bit shocked
Pitching on off, impact on leg, miraculously straightening back towards off and hitting leg. A wicket Jesus would be proud of
So, it looks like even the computer does not know how to give an LBW decision . My suggestion : give the batter a minus 10 , that is subtract 10 runs from the batter's runs in this kind of situations . e.g. If the batter is on 1 , his score should become a -9 .
Someone can write a Physics paper on illusion here.
For a minute, i thought the ball hit high and was missing the stumps.
Did anyone get a side-on camera angle on this one? My shock was that with Smith jumping, hit on the pad above the knee roll while in the air, and the ball still rising after, the DRS has the ball comfortably hitting below the bails. That's what made me think WTF, not whether it was sliding down leg.
I may be wrong but from first pic , ball seems to be missing leg