Virat reviewed his dismissal. I'll bet he was surprised at the
outcome.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1466691937889628160

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Again the 3rd umpire, and DRS by extension, are being blamed.
The on-field umpire gave it out.

It's clear the ball hit the edge. What's not 100% clear is WHEN it hit the edge. That twitter page has a side on shot showing where the bat was at the time. The ball could have hit the pad first or at the same time.

Having said that, I do think it should have been overturned.
And again, I would much rather benefit of doubt go to the batsman rather than the on-field umpire.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 8:11:33 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Yes, it was a VERY CLOSE decision

I agree

> BUT the DEVIATION of the ball from
> left to right,

I agree

> AND "benefit of doubt" should have been the CLINCHERS for
> the third umpire.

As I said - I wish this way the way.
But the current DRS regs says, in effect, that if there's doubt the 3rd umpire can't overturn.
I obviously think it's fair to criticise today's DRS *regulations*. I don't think it's fair to criticise the 3rd umpire in this case. If the on-field ump had given it out and the fielding team had referred it, it would have remained Not Out.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:14:42 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 6:38 AM, max.it wrote:
> >
> >
> > Virat reviewed his dismissal. I'll bet he was surprised at the
> > outcome.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/i/status/1466691937889628160
> >
> > max.it
> >
> People/Umpires have become "robots" in their thinking, logic and analysis.
>
> It is a very close decision BUT should have been REVERSED.
>
> The ball moved from left to right from bowler/umpire's angle after
> hitting the bat, which MEANS it hit the bat first.
>
> If it hit the pad first, it would have moved from right to left.

Unless it clipped the pad then hit the bat and then hit the pad again.

On 12/3/2021 7:04 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:14:42 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/3/2021 6:38 AM, max.it wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Virat reviewed his dismissal. I'll bet he was surprised at the
>>> outcome.
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/i/status/1466691937889628160
>>>
>>> max.it
>>>
>> People/Umpires have become "robots" in their thinking, logic and analysis.
>>
>> It is a very close decision BUT should have been REVERSED.
>>
>> The ball moved from left to right from bowler/umpire's angle after
>> hitting the bat, which MEANS it hit the bat first.
>>
>> If it hit the pad first, it would have moved from right to left.
>
> Unless it clipped the pad then hit the bat and then hit the pad again.
>

IF it hit the pad a second time, the ball deviation from left to right
wouldn't have happened.

On 03/12/2021 21:30, jack fredricks wrote:
> Again the 3rd umpire, and DRS by extension, are being blamed.
> The on-field umpire gave it out.
>
> It's clear the ball hit the edge. What's not 100% clear is WHEN it hit the edge. That twitter page has a side on shot showing where the bat was at the time. The ball could have hit the pad first or at the same time.

The UltraEdge trace shows a soft sound just before the sharp sound of
ball on bat, which suggests that it was probably pad-bat-pad.

--
David North

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 10:12:38 PM UTC+11, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 21:30, jack fredricks wrote:
> > Again the 3rd umpire, and DRS by extension, are being blamed.
> > The on-field umpire gave it out.
> >
> > It's clear the ball hit the edge. What's not 100% clear is WHEN it hit the edge. That twitter page has a side on shot showing where the bat was at the time. The ball could have hit the pad first or at the same time.
> The UltraEdge trace shows a soft sound just before the sharp sound of
> ball on bat, which suggests that it was probably pad-bat-pad.
>
As the umpire I'd give it not out because I'm not certain whether it took the pad or bat first.

As the 3rd umpire I'd confirm the decision because I think I don't think it's certain that the ball didn't hit the pad first
https://wwos.nine.com.au/cricket/virat-kohli-dismissal-india-v-new-zealand-test-daniel-vettori-on-third-umpire/a1b6dea7-4d7d-4d0d-99ac-362a0bf17415
the video here at about 20 seconds in looks like it could have just kissed the pad before it hit the edge and then hit the pad again.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:12:38 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 21:30, jack fredricks wrote:
> > Again the 3rd umpire, and DRS by extension, are being blamed.
> > The on-field umpire gave it out.
> >
> > It's clear the ball hit the edge. What's not 100% clear is WHEN it hit the edge. That twitter page has a side on shot showing where the bat was at the time. The ball could have hit the pad first or at the same time.
> The UltraEdge trace shows a soft sound just before the sharp sound of
> ball on bat, which suggests that it was probably pad-bat-pad.

Completely possible. Anyone (not you!) who says they know for certain what happened is kidding themselves.

I think it would have been just as controversial if it was given Not Out and then overturned on appeal. Probably more so, actually, based on the number of fans who would complain.

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 7:28:06 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> The benefit of doubt to the batsman, also should have been a FACTOR.

As I've tried to explain, the DRS rules don't give BoD to the batsman. Doubt means "stay with the on-field call". In this case, the on-field call was Out.

I do think this will eventually change to BoD to batsman, as the current way results in inconsistent (to the viewer who doesn't fully understand DRS) results. 2 identical deliveries will result in 2 different outcomes (one Out, the other Not Out) based on on-field calls. Ultimately, this inconsistency leads to distrust of DRS.