@MaddMax247 LOOL u need to get ur facts right. cricket the 2nd most popular sport with the world's second largest fan base next to soccer. lol americans like this nerd needs to get out more!
No guys the correct answer is, the batsman had got OUT on previous ball but umpire and player later found it. So they mutually agreed to let the batsman face one more delivery and so this time the umpire gave his Official decision which was pending....
I had read this earlier but can't remember any more details
no, it's because in the last ball of the previous over, the batsmen had gotten out but the umpire only realised it in between overs. so they all agreed (umpires, fielders, batsmen) to let the batsman face one more delivery, and then he would go out. sorry i can't remember the details but hopefully that helps you guys a little bit.
no, it's because in the last ball of the previous over, the batsmen had gotten out but the umpire only realised it in between overs. so they all agreed (umpires, fielders, batsmen) to let the batsman face one more delivery, and then he would go out. sorry i can't remember the details but hopefully that helps you guys a little bit.
This is not mistake made by umpire. In this game 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.
@metalmulishaman89 Even if he did do that, it was not whilst making the shot, so it wouldnt be out, although he did seem to walk off without question, so something must have happened
@BobAndGeorgia02 Unless one of the umpires had indicated that the ball was dead, and the play was over, then it wouldn't matter when he walked into his stumps he would still be out "hit wicket".
@ythomitnellum No, thats not right. He needed to hit the wicket in the process of making his shot, either before it or after. He simply walked into the stumps walking backward well after the shot had been played. Its not a dead ball either. The umpire got it wrong, although easy mistake to make.
@BobAndGeorgia02 Law 35.1 of the Laws Of Cricket states "Out Hit wicket
(a) The striker is out Hit wicket if, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride and while the ball is in play, his wicket is put down either by the striker’s bat or by his person", thus if we accept, as you state "its not a dead ball" the ball is in play and the wicket was put down by the striker's person, therefore he was correctly given out Hit Wicket. (Ref: John Holder, "You Are The Umpire").
The striker is out Hit wicket if, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride and while the ball is in play, his wicket is put down either by the striker’s bat or by his person as described in Law 28.1` either (i) in the course of any action taken by him in preparing to receive or in receiving a delivery. Note: it says in the course of preparing to receive or recieving the delivery. He played the shot and was walking back. Not Out
@BobAndGeorgia02 I tell you what, we could go around in circles here, but go and buy the book You Are The Umpire by former Test and County Cricket umpire John Holder (I think he retired from the County Panel last year) in which he explains in great detail why this was out hit wicket. When you have his experience and qualifications, then I'll believe you, until then, I'm going with the guy who knows.
@ythomitnellum No, read the Laws of Cricket. It also says: Notwithstanding 1 above, the striker is not out under this Law should his wicket be put down in any of the ways referred to in 1 above if
(a) it occurs after he has completed any action in receiving the delivery, other than in 1(a)(ii), (iii) and (iv) above
You need to concede that you are wrong, it is very clear that it is not out.
@BobAndGeorgia02 I don't need to do anything thanks, that's a remarkably presumptious comment! When you've stood in 20+ Test matches and spent 25 years on the County panel, then I'll take your points on board, until then, as I said before, I'm listening to the guy that has. If you want to be so arrogant at to dispute his researched interpretation of the law contained in a book co-written by him then fine, but I'm not that arrogant.
@ythomitnellum Your interpretation of his book is flawed. That, indeed, makes you arrogant. You refuse to read the full law, and THAT is presumptious. Your method of text is written in a defeatist manner, attempting to justify the unjustifyable. Give it up, mate.
@BobAndGeorgia02 I quote: "The Umpire got this controversial decision absolutely spot on", not much room for misinterpretation there. I have read the full law, however I don't claim to have the expertise to know why Mr Holder believes that the decision was correct; I'm in no way defeatist merely tired at your arrogance when, without giving any basis for your superior knowledge to an international umpire, you seek to dispute what I presume was a researched interpretation of the law by Mr Holder.
@superman0905 the batsman is standing way ahead of the stumps, there is no possibility of him hitting the stumps...... just check his shadow to be sure...
I dont say the umpire is wrong, but if he is really right then its surely not hit wicket.
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ONTHE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DO NOT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READING THIS SO DUNT STOP. THIS IS SO SCARY. PUT THIS ON AT LEAST 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR LOVERS NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS.
@AlokJaiswal07, I thought I saw a comment here ages ago about them agreeing before that the batsman would be dismissed on the next ball as the umpire made an error and failed to give the batsman out on the previous ball or something.
That actually was a wrong decision. The batsman can only be given out by hit wicket if he or she hits the wickets in the motion of hitting the ball. All the players in the field thought the ball was dead so it shouldve been. But not sure if this is a recent rule that got put in before this match. so eh.
It's clearly not an umpiring error - for starters, Ian Gould, the umpire in question, is now on the Test Panel and this decision wouldn't have been made incorrectly in Sunday League cricket. You could park a bus in the gap between bat and ball. Also, the batsman shows no sign of complaint whatsoever; surprising given he would've been certain he missed it by a very long way. The only sensible suggestion is it was pre-planned - as disgusting as that is (why not simply retire?), it's plausible.
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 (Ref: Unnikrishnan PJ)
cant remember exactly what happened, but the batsmen was suppose to be given out with the previous delivery. The umpire, bowler and batsmen agreed that he should be given out the next delivery. That's why he did not play at the shot and why the ball was bowled wide without any swing.
How can so many people be so blind? There's no way he dislodges the bails.
You can tell by the body language of the batsman and the fielders that that hasn't happened.
This is the best explanation I've heard. It's certainly the most logical:
Tom Merilaht's dismissal - Surrey v Leeds, The Oval 2007
Batsman Tom Merilaht could not have been the victim of a more terrible call. The ball delivered by Mohammad Akram is a clear foot away from his bat and...TBC
hardly anyone appeals but he is given out caught behind by the umpire. Some pundits have speculated that in the previous over the batsman had hit the wicket but the umpire had called over so it was mutually agreed he would be given out next delivery.
Hit wicket? But surely the ball's dead once the keeper has it? Or is it only once the keeper gives it to another player? Is that why he delays throwing...
I cant remember exactly what happened, but the batsmen was suppose to be given out with the previous delivery. The umpire, bowler and batsmen agreed that he should be given out the next delivery. That's why he did not play at the shot and why the ball was bowled wide without any swing.
@skippietjie that is the dumbest rule i have ever heard! i dont know where you play cricket, but the umpire decision is final is he fuckes up he fuckes up, where did this you guys agree to bowl a ball wide and he not play a shot that just stupid!
@sauzer65 Surrey vs Leeds/Bradford UCCE at The Oval, 15th April 2007. Doesn't really matter how it happened. The fact is at least they've got sportsmanship unlike those sheep shagging aussies.
the bails don't have to come off to be given out they just have to be seen to break their original position then they can sit back on the stumps as long as the umpire sees it then you are out
@robconnell68 That is completely incorrect - the bails must be permanently removed from the top of the stumps - if they jump up and return into the grooves the batsman is NOT OUT.
@dralbert657 No, sorry - you are incorrect: Law 28.1(b): 'The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps' - as they say in the trade, 'trust me, I'm an umpire'.
The top of the pad catches on the top of off stump, pause at 0:06 and then play, you will see the position of the off stump change. Bails come off, he is dismissed. There is a delay in the decision because it is only 3 seconds after the delivery when the batsman walks onto his stumps.
@jkoalaz There also has to be an appeal before the umpire gives the batsman out. Technically, even if all 3 stumps are flattened, if the batsman stays, and nobody appeals, the batsman remains not out. Of course, it never happens as it would make the batsman look stupid, but that is the rule.
But he's no where close to the wicket and as far as I could see no bails fell. Even if he had hit his wicket unless a bail is dislodged he cannot be given out.
@maxyboii93 Uh... he doesn't hit his own wicket. Look at the batsman's feet, there's a clear gap between him and the wickets. Also if he bumped into them then they wouldn't stay perfectly straight.
tht's called a "bat free" catch !
smartdon007 1 day ago
dude this is from an advertisement!
Solja2010 1 day ago
The title should be "BIGGEST MISTAKE IN A SPORT NO ONE CARES ABOUT!" lol
MaddMax247 1 day ago
@MaddMax247 LOOL u need to get ur facts right. cricket the 2nd most popular sport with the world's second largest fan base next to soccer. lol americans like this nerd needs to get out more!
Solja2010 1 day ago
wall of text nerds below me
eznoob1v1 1 week ago
its a tv ad not real
anandsrikumar007 2 weeks ago
"Biggest mistake made by a batsman in cricket" more like.
stratocaster1986able 2 weeks ago
this is an add for a glasses company
Minecraftrules101 2 weeks ago
@pakistan1947love WHAT IS FAKE & WHERE IS THAT ?
virgobefikar 2 weeks ago
@Mrgladiator82 GREAT OBSERVATION, IT MEANS THAT WASN'T A MISTAKE.
virgobefikar 2 weeks ago
fake video. it may be two clips
pakistan1947love 2 weeks ago
Are you all retarded? He doesn't go near his stumps. This video is set up
dunsta69 3 weeks ago
its not a real match but a promotional advertisement to use good quality contact lenses
prashant893 3 weeks ago
see, he is hit wicket at 0.07
MegaManindar 3 weeks ago
he knocked the bails of the stumps he was out hit wicket
rmon101 3 weeks ago
what the fuck the stupidest umpire ive ever seen
i think hes got blind eyes
SuperRockiee 4 weeks ago
@SuperRockiee Or maybe you have blind eyes and can't see him walk into his stumps
SneakySodomiser 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mshoaibm1 1 month ago
@mshoaibm1 God I hope that's a joke.
WillandJesse 3 weeks ago
Mohammed Akram is the bowler playing at the oval v Bradford/Leeds uni. in 2007
Ian Gould (umpire of the year) is the umpire. 1 person appealed from the gully - R Clarke.
Robcuk 1 month ago
HAHAHA HOWSSSAAAAAAA
unitmx64 1 month ago
which countries r playing?
kowsala2praveen 1 month ago
hit wicket
ha2madqaz 1 month ago
last time i checked, whenever the ball during the delivery or whenever the bat and or batsmen hits his stumps he is out...learn the laws of cricket
behappyproductions09 1 month ago
how stupid this is
this is jst match fixing
attocrigtec 1 month ago
Good call by the umpire. He walked into his stumps...
coxycallin 1 month ago
he walked into the wicket idiots
LittleRobbo11 1 month ago
This is taken from an ad for Specsavers. At the end there's voiceover and banner that says "Should've gone to Specsavers", but it's been removed.
libertyordeaf 1 month ago 13
@metalmulishaman89 check the vid. he doesn't walk on his stumps if u watch his feet.
FUCKlNGLEGEND 1 month ago
@FUCKlNGLEGEND not his feet, back of his legs
MeAgain998 1 month ago
eaaccountrecovery.weebly.com
Mfcadams02 1 month ago
idiot he crowned himself
Aquuuaaa 1 month ago
how the fuk is that hit wicket
nkd254 2 months ago
No guys the correct answer is, the batsman had got OUT on previous ball but umpire and player later found it. So they mutually agreed to let the batsman face one more delivery and so this time the umpire gave his Official decision which was pending....
I had read this earlier but can't remember any more details
vishwanath2986 2 months ago 6
kya hai ye dbt understand
abhishekchandigarh 2 months ago
This is a clip from a contact lens ad...
PranjalGupta1 2 months ago
WHOS THE BATSMAN
aman1234567890star 2 months ago
IT WAS A HIT WICKET U FOOLS
aman1234567890star 2 months ago
BATSMAN HITWICKETED
khaleelkanakal 2 months ago
FUCK THE UMPIRE
MrSheffy123 2 months ago
Only because it's cricket....
VRY112 2 months ago
WTF
DJlachlan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
no, it's because in the last ball of the previous over, the batsmen had gotten out but the umpire only realised it in between overs. so they all agreed (umpires, fielders, batsmen) to let the batsman face one more delivery, and then he would go out. sorry i can't remember the details but hopefully that helps you guys a little bit.
ThatTomataMan 2 months ago
isnt the bowler is'' muhammad akram'' from pakistan?
faizymalik2 2 months ago
no, it's because in the last ball of the previous over, the batsmen had gotten out but the umpire only realised it in between overs. so they all agreed (umpires, fielders, batsmen) to let the batsman face one more delivery, and then he would go out. sorry i can't remember the details but hopefully that helps you guys a little bit.
EmGeeification 2 months ago 3
what the fuck is going there.batsmen, umpire, fielding team playing rehearsel.
PATLIPA 2 months ago
The umpires descion was correct. The batsman was out hit wicket. He stepped back and broke his own wicket. That is out
farodealer 2 months ago
W T F ......
meinkimpf 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is not mistake made by umpire. In this game 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.
iforyou11 2 months ago
thats why baseball is a real sport
sills66 2 months ago
@sills66 Get fucked
ThunderStruckBeast69 2 months ago
@ThunderStruckBeast69 once ur mom gets off work i will lol
sills66 2 months ago
@sills66 Trust my mum wouldn't fuck any fat lazy americans
ThunderStruckBeast69 2 months ago
@ThunderStruckBeast69 well she should have then maybe she wouldn't have a retarded child
sills66 2 months ago
@sills66 Americans = Retarded, so either way she loses according to you
ThunderStruckBeast69 2 months ago
@ThunderStruckBeast69 well if she was smarter she would have gotten an abortion
sills66 2 months ago
@ThunderStruckBeast69 What you should have said to sills66 was: "Get fucked, or you'll regret it". it sounds better bro and it keeps 'em up at night.
dingoDogMan 2 months ago
@dingoDogMan lol sure
ThunderStruckBeast69 2 months ago
@dingoDogMan oh ya im gonna lose sleep over THAT ONE! whooaaaa lol
sills66 2 months ago
@sills66 haha, u have no idea lol
dingoDogMan 2 months ago
@dingoDogMan lol simmer down there badass lol what a joke
sills66 2 months ago
i really dont get it
wolfclaw2654 2 months ago
I think the batsman was fat and the umpire was getting annoyed so he said'eh,get the hell outta here'and he pulled a finger.
nausherwanbabry 2 months ago
the batsman walks into his own stumps...
metalmulishaman89 2 months ago 82
@metalmulishaman89 after the ball was caught and the out was shouted from the ppl
TehKoalaPenguin 2 months ago
@metalmulishaman89 wuts the OUT for?? HIT WICKET??EDGE? confused!!
TheBiztekian 1 month ago
@TheBiztekian LBW
ronaldraygoon 4 weeks ago
@metalmulishaman89 Even if he did do that, it was not whilst making the shot, so it wouldnt be out, although he did seem to walk off without question, so something must have happened
BobAndGeorgia02 4 weeks ago
@BobAndGeorgia02 Unless one of the umpires had indicated that the ball was dead, and the play was over, then it wouldn't matter when he walked into his stumps he would still be out "hit wicket".
ythomitnellum 3 weeks ago
@ythomitnellum No, thats not right. He needed to hit the wicket in the process of making his shot, either before it or after. He simply walked into the stumps walking backward well after the shot had been played. Its not a dead ball either. The umpire got it wrong, although easy mistake to make.
BobAndGeorgia02 2 weeks ago
@BobAndGeorgia02 Law 35.1 of the Laws Of Cricket states "Out Hit wicket
(a) The striker is out Hit wicket if, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride and while the ball is in play, his wicket is put down either by the striker’s bat or by his person", thus if we accept, as you state "its not a dead ball" the ball is in play and the wicket was put down by the striker's person, therefore he was correctly given out Hit Wicket. (Ref: John Holder, "You Are The Umpire").
ythomitnellum 2 weeks ago
@ythomitnellum You needed to continue reading rule 35.
The striker is out Hit wicket if, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride and while the ball is in play, his wicket is put down either by the striker’s bat or by his person as described in Law 28.1` either (i) in the course of any action taken by him in preparing to receive or in receiving a delivery. Note: it says in the course of preparing to receive or recieving the delivery. He played the shot and was walking back. Not Out
BobAndGeorgia02 1 week ago
@BobAndGeorgia02 I tell you what, we could go around in circles here, but go and buy the book You Are The Umpire by former Test and County Cricket umpire John Holder (I think he retired from the County Panel last year) in which he explains in great detail why this was out hit wicket. When you have his experience and qualifications, then I'll believe you, until then, I'm going with the guy who knows.
ythomitnellum 1 week ago
@ythomitnellum No, read the Laws of Cricket. It also says: Notwithstanding 1 above, the striker is not out under this Law should his wicket be put down in any of the ways referred to in 1 above if
(a) it occurs after he has completed any action in receiving the delivery, other than in 1(a)(ii), (iii) and (iv) above
You need to concede that you are wrong, it is very clear that it is not out.
BobAndGeorgia02 1 week ago
@BobAndGeorgia02 I don't need to do anything thanks, that's a remarkably presumptious comment! When you've stood in 20+ Test matches and spent 25 years on the County panel, then I'll take your points on board, until then, as I said before, I'm listening to the guy that has. If you want to be so arrogant at to dispute his researched interpretation of the law contained in a book co-written by him then fine, but I'm not that arrogant.
ythomitnellum 1 week ago
@ythomitnellum Your interpretation of his book is flawed. That, indeed, makes you arrogant. You refuse to read the full law, and THAT is presumptious. Your method of text is written in a defeatist manner, attempting to justify the unjustifyable. Give it up, mate.
BobAndGeorgia02 1 week ago
@BobAndGeorgia02 I quote: "The Umpire got this controversial decision absolutely spot on", not much room for misinterpretation there. I have read the full law, however I don't claim to have the expertise to know why Mr Holder believes that the decision was correct; I'm in no way defeatist merely tired at your arrogance when, without giving any basis for your superior knowledge to an international umpire, you seek to dispute what I presume was a researched interpretation of the law by Mr Holder.
ythomitnellum 1 week ago
@metalmulishaman89 Holy crap, well spotted.
stratocaster1986able 2 weeks ago
The batsman had hit the bells. Thats why umpire delayed in making decision. It was not a catch out.
Watchcomments 2 months ago 2
yaaru antha adhirstasali................
senthil0077 2 months ago
i think batsmen had biological emergency.
theaish 2 months ago
if u ppl see properly his foot hit the stump so hes out hit wicket! watch properly beore blaming the umpire!!!
superman0905 2 months ago
@superman0905 the batsman is standing way ahead of the stumps, there is no possibility of him hitting the stumps...... just check his shadow to be sure...
I dont say the umpire is wrong, but if he is really right then its surely not hit wicket.
MrBestpost 2 months ago
I don't know what is going on..
cbcnate 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ONTHE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DO NOT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READING THIS SO DUNT STOP. THIS IS SO SCARY. PUT THIS ON AT LEAST 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR LOVERS NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS.
sibimdhn 2 months ago
Guys .! That was the one rule of ICC in which if batsman missed 3 ball continuously then he will be dismissaled ..!
Now Rule were removed from icc rules book .
Harkirat3 2 months ago
kya ho raha hai ?
rhndas87 2 months ago
y would he just walk off id throw the bat at the fucker
in white
TheHakka23 2 months ago
this is not a real match this is commercial of GLASSES
saad984 2 months ago
The match certainly is seeming fixed and particularly this dismissal.
Respect the 'spirit' of the batsman for respecting the umpire and his decision,though it was wrong.
#Shameful decision.
AlokJaiswal07 2 months ago 9
@AlokJaiswal07, I thought I saw a comment here ages ago about them agreeing before that the batsman would be dismissed on the next ball as the umpire made an error and failed to give the batsman out on the previous ball or something.
depor23 2 months ago
@AlokJaiswal07 man he walked on his stumps.....watch it
MrGladiator82 2 weeks ago
batsman doesnt say any thinG!
MrNabeelrdx 3 months ago
oh no
96daud 3 months ago
Wtf
emnotnuub 3 months ago 2
That actually was a wrong decision. The batsman can only be given out by hit wicket if he or she hits the wickets in the motion of hitting the ball. All the players in the field thought the ball was dead so it shouldve been. But not sure if this is a recent rule that got put in before this match. so eh.
MrMikeyyc 3 months ago
It's clearly not an umpiring error - for starters, Ian Gould, the umpire in question, is now on the Test Panel and this decision wouldn't have been made incorrectly in Sunday League cricket. You could park a bus in the gap between bat and ball. Also, the batsman shows no sign of complaint whatsoever; surprising given he would've been certain he missed it by a very long way. The only sensible suggestion is it was pre-planned - as disgusting as that is (why not simply retire?), it's plausible.
villafan001 3 months ago
idk what just happened...?
Fukarichief 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 (Ref: Unnikrishnan PJ)
vivek0chaubey 3 months ago
cricket huh? is it eatable?
ManBuriedUnder 3 months ago
a stupid umpire
hamza0552084636 3 months ago
@hamza0552084636 sorry..its hit wicket..
dralbert657 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEASE LIKE SO EVERYONE CAN SEE!
cant remember exactly what happened, but the batsmen was suppose to be given out with the previous delivery. The umpire, bowler and batsmen agreed that he should be given out the next delivery. That's why he did not play at the shot and why the ball was bowled wide without any swing.
iu6h6h6h6h 3 months ago
How can so many people be so blind? There's no way he dislodges the bails.
You can tell by the body language of the batsman and the fielders that that hasn't happened.
This is the best explanation I've heard. It's certainly the most logical:
Tom Merilaht's dismissal - Surrey v Leeds, The Oval 2007
Batsman Tom Merilaht could not have been the victim of a more terrible call. The ball delivered by Mohammad Akram is a clear foot away from his bat and...TBC
usernameemanresu 3 months ago
hardly anyone appeals but he is given out caught behind by the umpire. Some pundits have speculated that in the previous over the batsman had hit the wicket but the umpire had called over so it was mutually agreed he would be given out next delivery.
usernameemanresu 3 months ago
Comment removed
usernameemanresu 3 months ago
Cricket...wow...ZZzzzzzzz
lissalives1 3 months ago
Dumb
Howdy20004 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ha relax and enjoy my company
95annieStowers95 3 months ago
Hit wicket? But surely the ball's dead once the keeper has it? Or is it only once the keeper gives it to another player? Is that why he delays throwing...
JPH1138 3 months ago
it is not mistake, just see it carefully that the batsman hit the wicket by his leg
while he was come back after leaving the ball.
MrShahzadlatif 3 months ago
Can't believe he missed it, that was cleary ball 4
PXS731 3 months ago
what a siily decision?
8820608165 3 months ago
This isnt a mistake you twat
arsenalonraet 3 months ago
@arsenalonraet say cunt, twat makes you sound like a bitch
1990smithers 3 months ago
i don't understand cricket because im from america but it seems like a fun and active game :)
cearty 3 months ago
Who cares about cricket
benabeln505 3 months ago
lol at skippie
ShingokenX 3 months ago
what the fuck is cricket
thewordbird87 3 months ago
thats not a mistake thats father of mistake
MyFaaaaa 3 months ago
You are the one who is the moron. Don't blame the umpire!
sns413 3 months ago
Test cricket is kinda boring anyway, gimme 20/20 any day
quentinmehana 3 months ago
what the hell is this game? lol its so strange.
KimoCollins 3 months ago
no mistake at all mate- learn the rules
rockingrocker347 3 months ago
MAY BE HE IS AN UMPIER FOR BASEBALL ....FOR WITHOUT TOUCHING 3 BALLS CONSECUTIVELY WHO GOES FOR OUT .....
navintrendy 3 months ago
the wrong umpire gave it out, it should have been the square leg umpire
TheGhosthorror 3 months ago
I cant remember exactly what happened, but the batsmen was suppose to be given out with the previous delivery. The umpire, bowler and batsmen agreed that he should be given out the next delivery. That's why he did not play at the shot and why the ball was bowled wide without any swing.
skippietjie 3 months ago
@skippietjie that is the dumbest rule i have ever heard! i dont know where you play cricket, but the umpire decision is final is he fuckes up he fuckes up, where did this you guys agree to bowl a ball wide and he not play a shot that just stupid!
sauzer65 3 months ago
@sauzer65 Surrey vs Leeds/Bradford UCCE at The Oval, 15th April 2007. Doesn't really matter how it happened. The fact is at least they've got sportsmanship unlike those sheep shagging aussies.
skippietjie 3 months ago
@skippietjie Sheep shagging Kiwi's.... If your going to make an insult then at least get it right.... Lol...
MRvf1000re 3 months ago
@MRvf1000re Only because you are an aussie, mate? Search Urban dictionary for sheep shaggers
skippietjie 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skippietjie I guess then it must be true... Lol... Knob....
MRvf1000re 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skippietjie Sheep shagging KIWI'S.... If your going to make an insult then at least get it right... Lol...
MRvf1000re 3 months ago
Look at the batsmans shadow... He is no where the stumps.... Look at his bat, it's in front of his body.....
MRvf1000re 3 months ago
what happened?
TheSkillzkills 3 months ago
i dont get this sports and i also dont know what the hell is wrong with that^^
StefanKahler 3 months ago
good editing putting that text balloon right where the ball was going
prac2 3 months ago 20
@prac2
lunaadmi click DON'T SHOW ANNOTATIONS and this is not editing this is realLun
uza1r 3 months ago
@prac2 that i s gay
MyCatDog12345 2 months ago
@prac2 u can cut the text balloon den check it
SANJEEVANization 2 months ago
the shadows of the stumps and the batsman never meet that means no contact with the stumps therefore not out this might be an ad as suggested
tigre1857 3 months ago
he is out he walks onto his stumps
Tenna342 3 months ago
what !!!#$%^&
abhijeet2628 3 months ago
Gareth Bail.
>:-P
fappercino 3 months ago
ROFLing at all your retarded comments. this was an ad in new zealand
pwnominator 3 months ago
Da comments are wayy to serious :/
TheOllie171 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol I do everything for your satisfaction
katrinakaif20111 3 months ago
The only thing I am wanting to know, is "were the bails dislodged?" shame you have your text in the way on a crappy resolution
NZrukus 4 months ago
idiot
jarrodclarke1 4 months ago
salay
ana thaaa
azharriaz14 4 months ago
The man who is apealing: "What the heck man, didn't I tell you to give out for this batsman in this over?"
The Umpire: "Ohh shit!!! I just forgotten, here you are"
The batsman: "ok ok! this is what you wanted no.. but please remember to come and screw my ass this evening!"
ckrathnayake 4 months ago
the bails don't have to come off to be given out they just have to be seen to break their original position then they can sit back on the stumps as long as the umpire sees it then you are out
robconnell68 4 months ago
@robconnell68 that it untrue. The bails must be dislodged. Many times a bail has moved and sat back down. That is NOT out.
cabbab666 3 months ago
@robconnell68 That is completely incorrect - the bails must be permanently removed from the top of the stumps - if they jump up and return into the grooves the batsman is NOT OUT.
villafan001 3 months ago
@villafan001 wrong..if bails return back to groove,even den its out..
dralbert657 3 months ago
@dralbert657 No, sorry - you are incorrect: Law 28.1(b): 'The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps' - as they say in the trade, 'trust me, I'm an umpire'.
villafan001 3 months ago
What the fukk have you being a paki got anything to do with it?
Englandsbestlover 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thumbs up if you get what the mistake is...
marcopolo6931 4 months ago
i am indian , and i dont understand way umpire given out,
8808Rajan 4 months ago
The top of the pad catches on the top of off stump, pause at 0:06 and then play, you will see the position of the off stump change. Bails come off, he is dismissed. There is a delay in the decision because it is only 3 seconds after the delivery when the batsman walks onto his stumps.
jkoalaz 4 months ago 18
@jkoalaz There also has to be an appeal before the umpire gives the batsman out. Technically, even if all 3 stumps are flattened, if the batsman stays, and nobody appeals, the batsman remains not out. Of course, it never happens as it would make the batsman look stupid, but that is the rule.
TheExecutee 3 months ago
@jkoalaz you are right
CricketMaster45 3 months ago
@jkoalaz keen eyes buddy :)
MrEz1231 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
! DELETE ALL HIS RECORDS!SHANE WARNE TOOK DRUGS! DELETE ALL HIS RECORDSddddddd
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
england0715 4 months ago
the people sayin that he walked on to his stumps r dumb he doesnt touch them and if he did the bails didnt fall off :L
MrDrawesome44 4 months ago
very bad decisonts the bails didnt come of so it cant be out
8londi6irl 4 months ago
@8londi6irl And how would you explain being out caught if that is your definition of 'out'?
villafan001 3 months ago
But he's no where close to the wicket and as far as I could see no bails fell. Even if he had hit his wicket unless a bail is dislodged he cannot be given out.
RoscoeStar 4 months ago
2 annotations:
1'st annotation: SPOTLIGHT. *says: ENTER YOUR TEXT HERE*
2'nd annotation: NOTE. *says: ENTER YOUR TEXT HERE*
WTF!
PsnGamingSkillz 4 months ago
u guys are FUCKIN STUPID. look carefully he hit his wicket
zahinster 4 months ago
THIS IS NO MISTAKE. if you look carefully you'll see the batsmen walked back onto his stumps. that;s why he was given out..
maxyboii93 4 months ago 103
@maxyboii93 Uh... he doesn't hit his own wicket. Look at the batsman's feet, there's a clear gap between him and the wickets. Also if he bumped into them then they wouldn't stay perfectly straight.
SlipKoRn4life 4 months ago