☰  Help  Calendar  Member List  Search  Portal
 Portal  Search  Member List  Calendar
Hello There, Guest!  Register  Login

Strange dismissal


#1




Batsman didn't even touch the ball. It didn't hit stumps or anything. No one appealed. But umpire gave him out.
 Reply
#2
یہ کیا کہانی ہے؟
 Reply
#3
(11-13-2017, 12:16 PM) adnan12 Wrote: یہ کیا کہانی ہے؟


The batsman was already out on last ball of last over but umpire didn't gave him out and gave call for over finishing. But then realized his mistake and then according to rules he gave out on first ball of next over. I don't remember it exactly but this is how it happened i read somewhere long time back.
 Reply
#4
Quote:This is a match from Surrey vs Leeds/Bradford UCCE at the Oval, 15th March 2007. The batsman is Tom Merilaht. Bowler is Mohammed Akram. Umpire is Ian Gould. It seems the batsman was hit wicket in the last ball of the previous over but by then the umpire had called over up. The batsman cannot be given out until a legal ball is bowled. So after the first ball of the next over, he was given out.
 Reply
#5
میں نے ایک ویب سایٹ پر پڑھا تھا کے ضروری نہیں کے یہ ویڈیو کاونٹی کرکٹ کی ہی ہو۔ کیوں کے کیمرے کا فوکس بہت قریب کا ہے آس پاس کی کوی چیز نظر نہیں آرہی جیسے کے گراونڈ یا باونڈری اور نا کھلاڑیوں کی یونیفارم پر کوی ایسا نشان ہے جس سے پتا چلے۔

نا کیمرے میں کسی بھی کھلاڑی کا چہرہ صاف نظر آتا ہے تو یہ کہنا بہت مشکل ہے کے یہ کاونٹی کے میچ کی ہی ویڈیو ہے۔ لیکن بہرحال اس کی تفصیل نیچے درج ہے۔


Quote:This video, which has been circulating on YouTube and various fan forums, shows a ball passing well outside off stump; the batsman missing it  by about a foot; the keeper collecting it; the fielder at second slip appealing when neither the keeper, bowler nor any other member of the fielding side did so; the umpire initially ignoring the appeal before raising his finger in response to a shrug from the fielder a few seconds later; the batsman not only refrains from questioning the decision, but walks off as though he can't wait to get out of there; the fielders celebrate the wicket without looking at all surprised at the decision. To suppose that this happened in any match at all involves a series of unlikely assumptions: that second slip would bother appealing when there appear to be no reason for the batsman to be given out by any method; that the umpire would give it; and that both batsman and fielders were clearly so used to such a standard of umpiring that none of them were in the least surprised by it.

If the video itself seems strange, the explanation offered for it goes beyond the merely bizarre, into the realms of the completely and utterly ludicrous. This was posted by one YouTube member, and judging from the number of "likes" it received, believed by many others:

"This dismissal is from Surrey vs Leeds/Bradford UCCE at The Oval, 15th April 2007. The batsman is Tom Merilaht, the Surrey wicket-keeper is Jon Batty, and the bowler is Mohammad Akram. The umpire at the bowler's end is Ian Gould.Some pundits... speculate that in the previous over, the batsman had hit the wicket but the umpire had called over.So it was mutually agreed that the bowler would bowl a ball and then he be given out next delivery."

Even to consider that this might possibly be true requires an exceptional degree of credulity. The supposition encounters objections even at the outset: the wicket must have been broken in such a manner that none of the fielders noticed before the umpire had called over, yet when they did, they were convinced that it must have been the batsman who broke it; and that Ian Gould, despite being on the international umpires' panel at the time, was unaware that Law 27.3 states that "the call of Over does not invalidate an appeal made prior to the start of the following over", and that therefore, if the fielding side had appealed before the bowler began his run-up at the start of the next over, he could still have given the batsman out. These, however, pale in comparison to the hurdles which must be overcome in order to accept the suggestion that there was collusion between the batsman, fielders and umpires to give a dismissal when there appeared to be no grounds for one. In the era of match- and spot-fixing it has become common for some fans to suspect that anything unusual which happens on the field must have some dishonest motive behind it, but in all instances of fixing uncovered to date there has been a common theme: two or three players were persuaded to risk their careers and reputations for a sufficient sum of money. There's a simple reason for that: if those few players are carefully selected, they may accept the offer and keep quiet about it, but the more players are involved, the more likely it is that some of them will not only refuse the offer, but report the approach to the relevant authorities. In this instance anyone viewing the video is being asked to believe that all eleven fielders, both batsmen and both umpires agreed to the 'arrangement' - all putting their reputations on the line, without any financial incentive - and that none of them reported it. Although the match was not first class, it involved several current or former international players and one international umpire; it is unlikely that any of them would have agreed to such collusion, and utterly inconceivable that they all did. The above quote is referenced "Unnikrishnan PJ", but there is no clue as to who this is, or who the "pundits" are whose speculation he refers to. There is no mention of such an incident in any report of the match in question, including the following year's Wisden (which does, however, mention the somewhat unusual stadium announcement "Will the cigarette please sit down" - a man had been hired to dress up as a cigarette to promote Surrey's anti-smoking campaign and, evidently not familiar with cricket, he was moving behind the bowler's arm) - so the commenter is claiming that the incident was captured on video, "some pundits" speculated as to the explanation without leaving a record of their speculation other than to the commenter himself... and the rest of the cricketing world failed to notice. Hardly likely!

An alternative explanation offered by several YouTube members - that the batsman was out hit wicket - also falls down on several counts, although none involving accusations of fixing: adjudicating on an appeal for hit wicket is the responsibility of the umpire at the striker's end, not the bowler's end; no part of the batsman's bat or body is anywhere near the stumps at any point during the video; and the bails can be clearly seen still in place as the batsman walks off.

At no point during the video does the camera zoom close enough to any player's or umpire's face to be able to identify them beyond doubt, nor does it zoom far enough out to identify any distinguishing features of the ground - so there is nothing to prove that it definitely involves Mohammad Akram, Tom Merilaht, Jon Batty and the Oval, rather than some unknown club players and a minor ground. There are several possible explanations for the video: it was shot as part of an advertisement (as is also suggested in one or two comments); it was originally a genuine piece of footage from a match, but has been edited to make the decision look incorrect (as one more acute observer pointed out, the ball appears not to cast a shadow); or simply that someone persuaded a few of his mates to stage the 'incident' in order to put it on YouTube and have a good laugh at everyone trying to work it out. Whichever is really the case, it certainly does not show an incident which really took place in a top level match.
کام جوان کی موت ہے، باپ کما رہا ہے یہی بہت ہے
 Reply
#6
پہلے ہی اتنی الجھن تھی اب ایک اور وضاحت سامنے آ گیی ہے کہ یہ ایک چیریٹی میچ تھا جو ۲۰۰۷ میں کھیلا گیا تھا اور اس میں ایک اصول تھا کے اگر بلے باز نے ایسی دو گیندیں لگاتا چھوڑ دیں جو کے وہ کھیل سکتا تھا تو امپایر اسے آوٹ دے سکتا ہے۔
 Reply
#7
لو جی ایک نیا کٹا کھل گیا ہے
 Reply
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: