Kohli was declared out for a duck after the third umpire upheld the on-field umpire’s call. anil chaudhary, The Indian captain had asked for a review of the LBW decision.
TV umpire Virendra Sharma Watched several replays, some of which showed angles that the ball could have hit the bat first, then passed through the front edge to the pad. Others suggesting that the bat was behind the pad at the point of contact. Even the Snickometer showed a clear edge.
Sharma was heard saying, “Ball and bat and pad seem to be together. I don’t have any conclusive evidence to back it up.”
rules of Drs Says that if there is no conclusive evidence, the third umpire has to live with the on-field umpire’s decision. This is the same argument as the umpires say. In such a situation, if the on-field umpire had given not out, then the third umpire would also have given not out.
TimesofIndia.com ran a poll to ask our readers and fans as a whole to give their opinion on it. The five questions we were asked were:
1. Virat Kohli was not out and it was clear that the ball touched his bat before hitting the pad – yes or no
2. It was not clear in real time and the on-field umpire was right to give it out as the bat seemed to be behind the pads – yes or no
3. Replays clear that Kohli was not out and third umpire should not have said ‘inconclusive evidence’ – yes or no
4. The DRS rules should be changed so that the umpire’s call can be overturned. It should be clear or not out – yes or no
5. The quality of umpiring in India is poor and getting worse – yes or no
1st question (Virat Kohli was not out and it was clear that the ball was touching his bat before hitting the pad – yes or no):
6,686 votes were cast in favor of Kohli, which was considered not out by the fans. Some replays seemed to suggest that the ball had moved from the bat to the pad and this was the most popular reaction. 2088 votes were cast which said that the Indian captain was out.
Second question (this was not clear in real time and the on-field umpire was right to give it out because the bat seemed to be behind the pads – yes or no):
4775 votes were given to give the on-field umpire the benefit of the doubt, where voters agreed that he was right in dismissing Kohli as the bat looked as though it was behind the pads at the time of impact. Meanwhile, by 4000 votes, it was said that the on-field umpire had made a mistake in dismissing Kohli.
Third question (replays made it clear that Kohli was not out and the third umpire should not have said there is ‘inconclusive evidence’ – yes or no):
6,724 votes were cast by fans who thought Kohli was not out after repeated replays and the third umpire should not have said there was ‘inconclusive evidence’ to overturn the on-field umpire’s decision. 2051 voted no substitute in favor of the third umpire, saying that he was well within his rights to say that there was no conclusive evidence.
Fourth question (DRS rules should be changed to overturn the umpire’s call. It should be clear or not out – yes or no):
Do DRS rules need to be changed? The 7383 votes polled were in favor of the need for a change in the rules. If replays show that the on-field umpire was wrong, the third umpire must have the authority to dismiss the on-field umpire’s ‘human error’. Either way it should be a clear or not out decision. Only 1392 votes were cast to say that the DRS rules should not be changed.
5th question (quality of umpiring in India is poor and getting worse – yes or no):
On the question of quality of umpiring in India, 5596 votes agreed that it is bad and getting worse. Meanwhile 3177 votes were cast to say the opposite.
Many times in this series, the third umpire has overturned the on-field umpire’s decision after watching the replays. The big question is in a case like Virat Kohli’s dismissal, if there is no conclusive evidence in doubt, should the batsman be given the benefit of the doubt?