Joe Root dismissal

An absolute howler. Ball clearly not in the guys hands and bounced into them. I dont need 20 replays to see that soft decision needs over turning, so why does a guy with slow mo and various angles?

 

it was out mate !

 

You been to Specsavers? Explain the image above. Ball is on the turf, not in his fingers. In your own time.

 

Funnily enough I have . well not Specsavers but the posh equivalent . It's out mate , it's **** but it's out .

 

It's one of those decisions where it depends on which side you're supporting. If that was England taking the "catch", we would be demanding it was given out...

 

I haven’t seen the footage, but the above certainly doesn’t look out.

 

He's looking directly at the ball and it's clearly on the floor. That's cheating I'm afraid.

 

Also, you have to take into consideration how DRS works. The umpires gave the soft signal as "out"(so would I in real time), so the DRS has to provide conclusive proof that the umpire has made a mistake. Unfortunately, with the way the slow-motion camera works, it couldn't conclusively prove the ball didn't carry. If the umpire gave the soft signal as "not out" the DRS would have given the decision as not out too, as it could not conclusively prove he had made the wrong decision...

 

Looks not out to me. Ball appears to be sunk in the turf when you do a close up. His fingers do not appear to be far enough under the ball. 7 (inc. thumb's ) clearly not under. I suspect plobby is stating the fact he was given out. Suppose he will put me right on that one.

 

it blatantly touched the turf before I went into his hands for me, as you see the ball was on an upward trajectory when it went into his hands. However I agree with the above about DRS but the evidence points to the ball hitting the grass, the third umpire must be able to ignore the soft signal and make a not out or out decision similar to a run out.

The fielder is usually the key as here kohli celebrates and claims the catch, in that case umpire says soft signal out, if the fielder says he’s unsure 99% of the time it’s soft signal not out. Just let the third umpire decide!

 

The soft signal ting is rubbish. If the Umpires aren't sure then giving any signal is purely a guess. Why not have no soft signal and the decision is chosen through DRS. This didn't look out to me as even if his fingers were under the ball it still clearly hit the grass. However the shot before this one shows a gap where the ball lands ie no fingers. If the umpire gave a soft not out then that would have stood in this case making a mockery of the whole soft signal thing.

 

Shouldn't have been out. Clearly bounced into this hands. But it's not that decision that's cost us this test. It's changing a winning team that won their last match within two and a half days of overs, to bring back a thug who got no wickets and ten runs.

 

The original idea behind the "soft signal", was to ensure the umpire's still had to make a decision, rather than becoming reliant on the DRS system. DRS is to provide conclusive proof a decision is wrong, not to make a decision for the umpires(barring the run out appeal, which they don't have to give a soft signal for some reason).

There is a few things with DRS that does not sit well with me as a fan. The "umpires call" bit of an LBW for one. If the ball is shown to go on to hit the stumps, it shouldn't matter is it in 1% or 100% of the ball that would hit, it is LBW. I understand why the system is like it is though, so at the very least the batting team should not lose their appeal is an LBW is given out under "umpires call".

On the subject of the Root dismissal though, the sky pundits all seem to think it was out. Their reasoning seems to be that 2D pictures can not provide conclusive proof the ball did not carry. Personally, in real time I would have given it out, but I really would not like to be the third umpire having to look at the appeal...

 

Give it a rest of course it wasn’t. Stick to WWE you obviously know very little about cricket

 

The so-called 'thug' has got one of the two wickets to fall in their second knock. The England top order collectively throwing their wickets away isn't the fault of one man.

 

If you really want to know whether it was out or not just look in the book.

 

So its down to one man is it ? what a load of tripe

 

Curran if he'd got given 15 overs I am sure he will have got a wicket. He probably would have got more than ten runs too. Players aren't going to jepodise their place in the national team. But behind closed doors such as to family and friends, I am sure some of the players won't have wanted Stokes back. It's spoilt the harmony

 

How do you know it’s spoilt harmony? Stokes has played in this team for years. How do you know Curran would have scored more than one of the worlds leading all rounders? All conjecture for non cricketing reasons. just so you understand it was the batting units failure to score runs against a moving ball that has cost us

 

It's out.

TV more often than not creates an optical illusion with catches like this - the visual impression of it 'bouncing' is actually the ball just settling in the palm of the hand as catches are never taken 100% cleanly - there is always a bit of a deviation before the ball settles in the hand properly.