The LBW loophole that cost Bangladesh |  

You know this shit is deep when jarrod brings out white board and starts drawing circles

What’s more annoying about that particular game was that the umpires failed to give a couple of wides too!

Why don't umpires wait for the ball to be dead before giving their decision? Similar to how linesmen wait to raise their flag for offside until the play is completed in football.

My problem with the whole situation is that how quick the umpire was on giving the outs on multiple occasions. When Amir bowled that huge no ball people had their eye brow raised(rightfully so). Why can't we raise a question on umpire's integrity? They are not angels and they were far too inclined to give out and decision was absolute howler.

Bangladesh is the biggest victim of the wrong decision. I saw that many times. I can feel it 😢

If it makes sense, the ICC aren't interested! Making it more complicated may have a chance!

How the hell did he give that out on field ???

not only LBW but umpairs also didn't give two wide call for Bangladesh what cost two runs and two balls

MAN....U ARE A TREASURE FOR ANALYSIS BETTER THAN LOW SUBSTANCE ON COMMENTARY AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU COMMENTATE ON LIVE STREAM IN SOME ONLINE PORTAL

The same was done in football with offside decisions. Now they let the scene play out, then the linesman raises the flag (or not) and the decision can be checked by VAR. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Fantastically chaotic white board

It was the biggest flow, no one is noticing it... Wait for it to happen in a knockout world Cup match

A similar situation happened in this IPL, right? Bhuvi bowled last ball to Rowman Powell when 2 needed off 1. In that case, it was umpire's call. But thr match was practically over when Ump raised the finger

We got SA geting lucky before GTA6

The only problem is, from a South African point of view, they are working on the assumption that the ball is dead when the umpire gave the batter out and wouldn't have moved to cut the ball off like they otherwise would. If they assumed the ball was live the fine leg may well have covered the ground to cut the ball off before it reached the boundary.

This has been an issue for 10 years now. Wild that it hasnt been changed.

Remember the 2019 IPL final? That Malinga over? CSK needed 2 of the final ball. Malinga bowled a yorker to Thakur and it was given LBW. CSK used up all the reviews that night so it wasn't a big deal and it was pretty clearly out. It easily could have been a wider, still been given and caused a massive issue. Something like this is far more likely than scenario where the ball goes for four.

You mentioned the no-ball calls being deferred to the TV umpire (as in the IPL), but I believe the wide rule still needs a lot of fixing. Currently it’s still a judgement call based on whether the TV umpire feels that the batter has moved enough across such that the line is no longer the marker. But I feel like they’re too reluctant to overturn a decision based on that alone. They need to bring in some measurements just like they have for the no-balls

Something that has been floating around my head in relation to this is how it relates to a similar rule that *also* decided a T20WC game not that long ago: the free hit. In the last over of the India/Pakistan game in 2022, Kohli was bowled off a free hit and they ran three byes. So we clearly have a provision in the playing conditions to allow play to continue to be live in certain scenarios. (Whether that is fair is its own question! I'd actually love to see a free hit be a dead ball if there would otherwise have been a wicket.) But I think the proposed solution could *only* work on LBW decisions or the whole thing gets very messy. If, for example, an outfield catch is taken and is later found to be a no ball, the batting team would get any runs scored on that ball as well as a free hit, so the correct thing for the batting team to do would be just take off on any high ball and try and get as many runs as possible until the ball is returned, and the fielder, no matter how difficult the catch, should be trying to get up and immediately return the ball to one end of the wicket. I don't think that's inherently bad per se, but it sure would look weird at first. The alternative solution, perhaps, might be that if an LBW (or perhaps anything else too) is given out and is then overturned on DRS, then not only is the ball dead, but it has to be re-bowled (with the same field, as per a free hit). Then neither team is disadvantaged because there wasn't a wicket, and both teams still have an opportunity to take advantage of that ball. It just gets scratched. I've tried to war game this as much as I can by myself but I'm sure other people having a look at it will see it from a different angle!

Loving the white board explanations. Really helpful. Perhaps a lesson on what is the difference between the Laws of Cricket and the Playing Conditions

Even if batting team need 1-2-3 runs in last ball or last over and same thing can happen. ICC is waiting for that.

coming here after the match against Nepal of SA and now we can surely say SA was so lucky in these group matches

Very good video jarrod, you're absolutely right that introduction of new technology should make changes in the laws of the game as well. You can't just introduce new tech and leave the rest of the game rules as it is. Same thing happened in champions league semi-final when the linesman raised flag for an offside very quickly when bayern scored a goal and through VAR it was found that the offside was very tight. The goal didn't count because madrid players stopped playing at whistle

I find Leg byes a bit of a strange concept too. We say that a batsman cant block the wickets with their body but we do allow them to score runs off it. Effectively, if the bowler beats the batsman and hit the body it still works in favour off the batsmen even though they were beaten

I've never seen anyone who extracts so much pleasure out of drawing ellipses....

I thinks umps should allow the ball cross the boundary or if a run out opportunity is there let it get executed then take a decision because the fielding team can also get unlucky and miss out on run out right if it is a dead ball. The umps should delay the call till the ball is in play on certain occasion right?

If the player was not given out, then it means the fielding side would have attempted to save the boundary (maybe the batting team runs 2 or 3 runs). However, since the player is given out, the fielding team gives up on chasing the ball. Then in that case, the batting team cannot be given 4 runs if the decision is overturned.

Okay so bowler may appeal but rest of the team should go after ball and throw it to the keeper or bowler then ball should be considered dead and after that Umpire gives the decision

I don't think it is due to DRS if there was no DRS the ball would have ended in a wicket and no run either way...

Why can't the ball be rebowled when out changes to not out? That's a small enough cost here, slightly unfair to the bowler, but the alternative is way unfair to the batting team.

Another possible solution would be to rebowl the ball if an onfield dismissal is overturned.

Agree that the ball should be allowed to be played out. However, then we must also remove the requirement that the bowling team have to appeal to get a batsman out. You cannot let the ball play out fairly if the fielding team is required to appeal. Even if only the bowler is appealing, that is one less fielder involved - which means that it is still not a fair continuation of that particular play.

Something similar happened in a Pakistan match last year i think. Ball hit the pad everyone appeals fielder throws and hits the stump but the umpire has given it LBW out, Batsmen reviews, decision got overturned and rum out was not given because umpire raised his finger before the ball hit the stumps.

Also two wide balls were not given by the umpire.

i would pay terrible money to watch the drama unfold if this happened in an eng aus game. bonus points if its an ashes decider or a wc final

Basically you're saying that an umpire giving an LBW out should be treated in the same manner as the umpire not giving it out i.e. the balls plays out and then the decision/ review happens. Makes perfect sense!

Umpiring was sub par. I don't have any special love for Bangladesh (because they post hateful content against India), but you have to admit the mistakes of umpire. One of LBW that was given even though no one appealed properly. (DRS turned out to be umpire's call). It was as if umpire was ready to raise his finger. This is simply unacceptable.

We have hard done by. If that 4 was given we would have finished the group as the group champion resulting in easier group at the super 8.

I stayed out of home to watch that match 1 at night, and it cost me to see the loss of the match at last

I saw that decision and said the same thing, glad you made video about it.

Am i the only one who believes the current rule is ok? But the umpiring in Bangladesh vs South Africa match was horrendous. How can an umpire give this out is out of this world. Let alone the lbw of Hridoy, both umpire didn’t give two wides too. There is nothing wrong with the ICC rule. But in 2024, we have Joel Wilson in Elite Panel & It tells you how much icc cares about umpiring.

Thank you for covering this.I can bet you on my life if it had happened to some other privileged team,the backlash and reaction would have been totally off the charts and different.This discrimination isn’t new but as there are more angles to it,lets just hope that this wakes up some form of rearranging of the law.You do not ever want that last over last ball situation whether or not you are England,India or Nepal.

I think there is one more solution. The fielding team and batting team are held still responsible for what happens after decision is overturned. This will ensure both bowling and batting team play out each ball until it is dead before reacting to umpires decision (esp when it is close call decisions while ball is still in play)

ok, If ball is dead then why they count the ball?

What if it was an inside edge and umpire gave it out mistakenly? Why would that be dead ball? Because it would not be just leg by runs, it would be solid legal runs by the bat.

How about not considering ball dead if the decision is reversed? So batsman gets runs in such scenarios and bowling team will keep the ball under control due to possibility of decision being overturned even after appeal and out decision.

Say the ball went legside and the batsmen ran for leg byes and got run out. Now can we still argue that the rule is unfair. 🤔🤔🤔

Similar thing happened in 2021 in a bilateral series between India v England. Pant glanced the ball for 4 but umpire gave him out. After DRS he was given not out but pant and India didn't get 4 runs. The 2019 final was still fresh in my head and I thought exactly what Jarrod mentioned. What if this was a world-cup final.

For less influential teams, umpires are just too casual to give out decisions like this. It works on the back of their mind that the pushback would be kiniimal.

missing out on 3 full tosses in the last over is what costed Bangladesh

I observed this for the first time during IPL final between MI and CSK. There was LBW appeal on the the last ball and umpire raised his finger. And eventually MI won that match by 1 run. Had it been not out....CSK would have lost that match anyway.

The umpiring was exceptionally horrible in that game. Totally unacceptable in such a big tournament.

It should be made similar to an offside in football, where the flag would be up only after ball goes out or the active play gets completed, so they don't blow the whistle early and screw up a situation where there's a potential goal

Bangladesh should not have appealed. If u appeal, Umpire should take a decision. And if he takes a decision ball has to be dead. If not there will be several other problems that could arise. Bangladesh is unfortunate in this case, but solution is appeal carefully

1 possibility could be to re-bowl the delivery completely. Not the best solution, but somehow still seems fair.

it was deliberate from the umpire given how fast he raised his finger. It was like a gun slinger!

Totally agree with this.

Hey Jarrod. I have been waiting for this to happen in an important world cup game off the last ball. I have always found it weird that the batting team gets penalised (dot ball) for an umpire's fault. However while your suggestion in theory is great and logical, I have 2 issues with it 1. Cricket, including umpiring, is instinctive. By making the umpire wait till the ball is "dead", he would start second guessing himself and if it's an important game or a crucial passage of play you just increase the pressure on him exponentially. 2. This new law would now have to be extended to not just lbws but caught behind or an appeal for caught where the ball has probably come off the shoulder rather than the bat and the batsmen are running for byes/leg byes. Thus the game gets more complicated. And as technology evolves, who knows how many playing conditions would need amendment Simple Solution : (While not ideal) Just re-bowl that delivery.

There are 11 players on a team. It only takes 1 player to field a ball. That still leaves 10 capable of appealing. There is no disadvantage to the fielding team if they have to wait for the play to complete before the ball becomes dead and the umpire can make their decision.

It have coated RR a match too if Roman povel was given not our by umpire when 2runs was needed in 1 ball against SRH and bhubaneswar was bowling

I was wondering what would happen if instead of a 4 , there was a run-out ? Will still then BAll would have been become Dead,once Umpire raises a finger and Run-out wont be considered.

ICC surely would have considered if that incident occurred to India instead of Bangladesh. Cause, India rules according to H.Pandya

All that needs to change is when the umpire makes the decision after that ball has been played out and to change the rules there is no dead ball, a bit like in football letting play continue then going back to give a yellow card or freekick. If out and then reviewed and it wasnt out, the previous ball would count with any runs scored off that ball.

Small amendment to fix further issues, no appeal until the ball is dead. Lets say there is a nick to the keeper, throws the ball up and he appeals and the batters sneak a single in that moment. Should mandate that appeal and decision for everything should happen after the ball is dead.

What if we just remove runs for leg byes itself?

I like Jarrod's solution, but there is one problem with it - when an appeal is made, it's not just the bowler but the entire team! By postponing umpire's decision the team won't be encouraged to appeal together, and the reason why I point this out is that umpires may be influenced by strong appeals. In short, there's lesser chance of the umpire favoring the bowlers appeal (not to mention, that umpires would need to be trained to restrain from making a decision real time and waiting - easier said than done!)

Thanks man for supporting us❤

Quinny stopped chasing behind the ball. What if he would have not appealed for LBW and instead chased the ball? Bangladesh might have got 2-3 runs considering that it is a very slow outfield. They still would have lost the game by 1-2 runs. My point is umpires are humans and they do mistakes too. My point is even if umpire's decision was overturned and let's suppose that Bangladesh was given 4 runs, won't it be unfair for SA as they didn't went to stop the ball and appealed for LBW? Won't the other scenario be unfair for bowling side?

What happens if a batter plays at a wide delivery ,is judged to have nicked the ball and given out? DRS reviewed shows him not out but the ball was clearly a wide eg well down the leg side? The batter would clearly be given not out but would the wide be given? (Im presuming it would be.)

Re-bowl the delivery if this happens

Onus should be on the bowling team to keep the ball in play even if the umpire gives it out. Simple as that.

We are living in an era where technology can make our life easier and give better decision with precision, but some naive authority don’t let it happen in the name of conservation of tradition. Bureaucracy at its best !!!

What I think the umpires should do, instead of having a long awkward pause while giving (wrong) decision; is give the players a middle finger! It could be the new rule that doesn't make the ball dead, and if he's proven wrong by the DRS, his apology is justified. Think about it.

There is loophole in your solution. Basically your solution applies to all lbw appeal and umpire takes a bit of time to call it a wicket or not. This provides lot of time to dugout of batting team to review the reply and give signal to batters to take a review or not.

Speaking of technology, do we need the bails to come off the stumps to make a decision anymore? The point of the bails back then was to know if the ball grazed the stumps. We have cameras to do that now. WHy is it still a stupid law that makes the batsman not-oout as long as the bails have not dislodged yet? The usefullness of the bails are merely for run-outs now

Everyone says Bangladesh team cant play a good game.We also know Bangladesh is a bad team. But Even if they plays well they cant win for these discrimination 😢😢

The umpires were too eager to make s Africa winner.

The real time replay simply makes you question the umpires' integrity. Anyone with a basic understanding of the LBW can tell that the ball grazed his pad and clearly missed the leg stump. Even the deflection was minimal. But the way they were raising fingers like a bullet at everything hitting the pads ..... Simply Terrible!! ICC match officials aren't saints. We do remember the likes of Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor.

I have a question. What happens if the umpire calls a batsman out for LBW, but the ball actually touches the bat slightly (without anyone noticing) and is caught by a fielder ? The batting team reviews the decision, and it turns out that the ball missed the wickets, so the batsman is not out. However, upon replay, it is seen that the ball did touch the bat. In this case, is the batsman considered caught out, or is it a dead ball and the batsman resumes batting as usual?

It's been over a week now so I'm finally calm enough to watch this and comment. That rule is stupid and should've been changed at least 5 years ago. Umpiring was piss poor, suspicious and should be investigated. Sam Nogajski should never have been given a World Cup game based on his qualifications.

But frankly why we have still have "Leg Byes" in Cricket? This requires no skill from the Batsman and unfair to the Bowlers. Just because we have this for last 100 years doesn't mean it should continue. It's a game of bat & ball, if you miss it don't ask for a run. "Byes" are okay because it involves keeping skill.

Clearly, umpires play with the South African team. And the peace of shit of the rules of ICC. Shame on umpires! #SAvsBAN #ICCWorldCup2024

Bertus de Jong has suggested that the ball is dead, same as now, but the ball has to be re-bowled.

Bangladesh didn't won due to that decision but rather it was Jaker who was playing a lot of dot balls, hard hands, couldn't play with more soft hand, and even pushing offside balls to legside, resulting 5-6 dot balls. Can't rely on the rules because it will always be against us, at least players should stand up to the task

What would happen to a batsman given out LBW if the review showed that the ball was missing but came off the bat after the pad and was caught? Would the batsman survive because the ball was dead after hitting the pad?

Reason why the umpire can't wait for the ball to be dead before making the call: You see, the fielding side has to make an appeal to stake a claim for any dismissal and while doing so, they lose a bit of control. So, imagine all the fielders are really invested in the appeal and umpires give it out and the batter keeps running and takes his runs, it would be mighty unfair on the fielding side too. Now the only fix that one may argue would be, to not allow anyone to appeal before the ball is dead, but in that case, the umpire is so out of position to make the call, and so is the fielding side to make an appeal. It would invariably eliminate the role of on field umpires as every call would need to be referred to upstairs to the third umpire. Also, you cannot have different rules for different kind of dismissals as it would further complicate it in case of an appeal which is made for a combination of two dismissals, for e.g. an appeal for both caught behind and stumping or an appeal for both lbw and bat-pad catch

Amazing analysis !

Won’t we be able to solve this issue if umpires waits till ball is dead before giving decision.

Another alternative solution is if the decision is overturned, the batting team is awarded another ball.

How is that even fair to not give them the runs? If the umpire is wrong as it was proven, then it means the ball was not dead and the runs should count.

I think that the rule should be that the ball is dead in these cases. Just bowl it again. I'm of two minds about this case specifically though. It was leg byes. I don't really think a 4 leg byes not given is that unfair. Now, if it was off the bat, I think I'd be more onboard with the outrage. The rules need to be changed though, no questions asked.

I think there should be a system like var so that every ball event is reviewed by the tv umpire and players dont need to worry about reviewing or losing reviews

I think they should remove dead ball entirely. double plays would be awesome

What about runouts? Should play continue indefinitely?

The issue with the solution is, there will be enough time for the disadvantaged team to look at their dugout if they need to review it or not.

Until one of the big three is on the wrong side, nothing will change

That's a great suggestion actually

Jarrod forgot one factor in his horror last-ball scenario: it would be New Zealand batting :(

Umpire was ready to give out even if the ball had hit the helmet,,,Rabada wasn't sure he should appeal or not,but the aussie umpire was waiting for chance,even he didn't give 2 wides Ashwin was right

Leg byes shouldn't be runs anyway