Weird, Strange and Funny bowled out in India vs NZ ODI at Hyderabad

The 3rd umpire mistakenly thought that the ball hit the stumps and
declared the batsman out when in reality THE BAIL FELL on its own
SOMEHOW (wind may be) just AFTER ball passed the stumps into keeper's
hands OR latham's gloves touching the bails.

Watch the REPLAY

============

Hardik Pandya - bowled or not bowled?

The third umpire felt there was no conclusive evidence to rule that the
bail had been dislodged by the wicketkeeper's glove

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/hardik-pandya-given-out-bowled-against-new-zealand-in-debatable-circumstances-1354546

Hardik Pandya was dismissed in debatable circumstances in the first ODI
against New Zealand in Hyderabad, with the third umpire deciding he had
been bowled even though it might have been the wicketkeeper's glove that
dislodged the bails.

The dismissal occurred in the 40th over of India's innings, when Hardik
tried to dab a delivery from Daryl Mitchell to deep third but checked
his shot at the last moment. The off bail was dislodged as the ball
passed extremely close to the stumps and the decision was referred by
the on-field umpire to the TV umpire K Ananthapadmanabhan.

Replays showed that wicketkeeper Tom Latham, who was standing up to the
stumps, also had his gloves very close to the bails; the bails seemed to
light up a fraction after the ball had passed over the top of the stumps
and into Latham's gloves.

The TV umpire checked whether Latham's gloves were behind the stumps
before he collected the ball - which they were, so it was a legal
delivery - and he was satisfied that there was no conclusive evidence
that the bail had been dislodged by the wicketkeeper's gloves.

Ravi Shastri, who was on commentary at the time, wasn't convinced. "Oh,
it's been given out! Daryl Mitchell should be happy," Shastri said.
"Should really be happy, because that, if you take a look again as to
where the keeper's gloves are, where the ball is as it passes the
stumps, it looked as if the ball was at least an inch, inch-and-a-half
above the stumps ... Ball clearly looks to be above the bail. You can
see as it goes past into the gloves, there's no red light, it's only
after that. There you go. From that angle you can see that the gloves
are closer to the bails than the ball."

On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 15:33:18 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Weird, Strange and Funny bowled out in India vs NZ ODI at Hyderabad
>
>
> The 3rd umpire mistakenly thought that the ball hit the stumps and
> declared the batsman out when in reality THE BAIL FELL on its own
> SOMEHOW (wind may be) just AFTER ball passed the stumps into keeper's
> hands OR latham's gloves touching the bails.
>
> Watch the REPLAY

It definitely looks like the bail was dislodged by the glove.

> Hardik Pandya - bowled or not bowled?
>
> The third umpire felt there was no conclusive evidence to rule that the
> bail had been dislodged by the wicketkeeper's glove
>
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/hardik-pandya-given-out-bowled-against-new-zealand-in-debatable-circumstances-1354546
>

If that was the case (which the 3rd umpire does not say in the clip on the page above), I cannot see how "no conclusive evidence" should lead to an Out decision. There is no soft signal in the case of an umpire referral for Bowled, so surely the 3rd umpire should need conclusive evidence that the bail was dislodged by the ball?

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:48:04 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet..co.uk wrote:
> If that was the case (which the 3rd umpire does not say in the clip on the page above), I cannot see how "no conclusive evidence" should lead to an Out decision. There is no soft signal in the case of an umpire referral for Bowled, so surely the 3rd umpire should need conclusive evidence that the bail was dislodged by the ball?

Umpire Reviews for Bowled don't have a soft signal. The 3rd ump decides authoritatively.

In this case, I think we have to infer a bit - that "no conclusive evidence keeper's glove dislodged the bails" means "it could only have been the ball. My decision is Out Bowled".

On 1/19/2023 5:48 AM, David North wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 15:33:18 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Weird, Strange and Funny bowled out in India vs NZ ODI at Hyderabad
>>
>>
>> The 3rd umpire mistakenly thought that the ball hit the stumps and
>> declared the batsman out when in reality THE BAIL FELL on its own
>> SOMEHOW (wind may be) just AFTER ball passed the stumps into keeper's
>> hands OR latham's gloves touching the bails.
>>
>> Watch the REPLAY
>
> It definitely looks like the bail was dislodged by the glove.
>

There was NO conclusive evidence, though it can probably be inferred.

Later during NZ innings, Ishan Kishan played a prank and deliberately
dislodged the bail with his glove when the batsman was deep inside the
crease and asked the umpire howzzat, and laughed.

>> Hardik Pandya - bowled or not bowled?
>>
>> The third umpire felt there was no conclusive evidence to rule that the
>> bail had been dislodged by the wicketkeeper's glove
>>
>> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/hardik-pandya-given-out-bowled-against-new-zealand-in-debatable-circumstances-1354546
>>
>
> If that was the case (which the 3rd umpire does not say in the clip on the page above), I cannot see how "no conclusive evidence" should lead to an Out decision. There is no soft signal in the case of an umpire referral for Bowled, so surely the 3rd umpire should need conclusive evidence that the bail was dislodged by the ball?
>

Correct.

There was NO conclusive evidence the ball hit the bail/stumps.

There was clear 1 - 1.5 inch space when the ball passed the bail/stumps.

3rd Umpire made a mistake.

On 1/19/2023 6:50 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:48:04 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> If that was the case (which the 3rd umpire does not say in the clip on the page above), I cannot see how "no conclusive evidence" should lead to an Out decision. There is no soft signal in the case of an umpire referral for Bowled, so surely the 3rd umpire should need conclusive evidence that the bail was dislodged by the ball?
>
> Umpire Reviews for Bowled don't have a soft signal. The 3rd ump decides authoritatively.
>
> In this case, I think we have to infer a bit - that "no conclusive evidence keeper's glove dislodged the bails" means "it could only have been the ball. My decision is Out Bowled".

Nope.

The replay clearly proved that the ball DIDN'T hit the bail/stumps.

Since the batsman is inside the crease, he cannot be ruled out STUMPED
either.

So, the ruling should have been NOT OUT.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:48:03 -0800 (PST), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 15:33:18 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Weird, Strange and Funny bowled out in India vs NZ ODI at Hyderabad
>>
>>
>> The 3rd umpire mistakenly thought that the ball hit the stumps and
>> declared the batsman out when in reality THE BAIL FELL on its own
>> SOMEHOW (wind may be) just AFTER ball passed the stumps into keeper's
>> hands OR latham's gloves touching the bails.
>>
>> Watch the REPLAY
>
>It definitely looks like the bail was dislodged by the glove.
>
>> Hardik Pandya - bowled or not bowled?
>>
>> The third umpire felt there was no conclusive evidence to rule that the
>> bail had been dislodged by the wicketkeeper's glove
>>
>> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/hardik-pandya-given-out-bowled-against-new-zealand-in-debatable-circumstances-1354546
>>
>
>If that was the case (which the 3rd umpire does not say in the clip on the page above), I cannot see how "no conclusive evidence" should lead to an Out decision. There is no soft signal in the case of an umpire referral for Bowled, so surely the 3rd umpire should need conclusive evidence that the bail was dislodged by the ball?

Looks as if the ball was already in the glove before the wicket is
broken.
That's not out from what I can see.

max.it

On 19/01/2023 14:50, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:48:04 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> If that was the case (which the 3rd umpire does not say in the clip on the page above), I cannot see how "no conclusive evidence" should lead to an Out decision. There is no soft signal in the case of an umpire referral for Bowled, so surely the 3rd umpire should need conclusive evidence that the bail was dislodged by the ball?
>
> Umpire Reviews for Bowled don't have a soft signal. The 3rd ump decides authoritatively.
>
> In this case, I think we have to infer a bit - that "no conclusive evidence keeper's glove dislodged the bails" means "it could only have been the ball. My decision is Out Bowled".

To arrive at "it could *only* have been the ball" by a process of
elimination, I'd really need conclusive evidence that the keeper's glove
did not dislodge the bail.

--
David North

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:40:43 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co..uk wrote:
> On 19/01/2023 14:50, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:48:04 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> >> If that was the case (which the 3rd umpire does not say in the clip on the page above), I cannot see how "no conclusive evidence" should lead to an Out decision. There is no soft signal in the case of an umpire referral for Bowled, so surely the 3rd umpire should need conclusive evidence that the bail was dislodged by the ball?
> >
> > Umpire Reviews for Bowled don't have a soft signal. The 3rd ump decides authoritatively.
> >
> > In this case, I think we have to infer a bit - that "no conclusive evidence keeper's glove dislodged the bails" means "it could only have been the ball. My decision is Out Bowled".
> To arrive at "it could *only* have been the ball" by a process of
> elimination, I'd really need conclusive evidence that the keeper's glove
> did not dislodge the bail.

https://www.bcci.tv/videos/5558858/out-or-not-outhardik-pandyas-strange-dismissal?tagNames=2023
around 46 seconds.
It's absolutely clear the keeper's glove hits the stump. The ball is around 20cm from the stumps.
It's not clear if that contact knocked the bail off.

I'd have given it Not Out. Due to the implied Benefit of Doubt in the Laws w.r.t Bowled decision.