New Zealand’s routine victory was marked by a moment of controversy, with TV umpire Joel Wilson criticised for his decision on a Tom Latham stumping appeal.
Contrary to much of the discussion online and in the comments, here’s why Wilson made the right decision.
What happened – The Tom Latham stumping appeal and the review
Chasing 323 points for victory, the Netherlands were 197-7 in the 41st round. ODI debutant Shivland Engelbrecht advances on the track to Rachin Ravindra, who sees the batsman coming and shoots the ball to the offside, during which Latham catches the ball and takes it away. Ta.
On the field, umpires Paul Reifel and Rod Tucker signaled “wide” and then went upstairs to consider the surprising call. While Engelbrecht was clearly off track, Wilson focused on the wicketkeeper position. “Bring him back. Looks like he collected the ball in front of the stumps,” he said during the review. “Let me check, where are the gloves when he retrieves them? He hasn’t gone behind the stumps, so it’s going to be a no-ball and the batsman won’t be out.”
New Zealand won with 99 points.
Why was there controversy?
In the background of the Wilson review, the ICC’s official commentators could be heard expressing regret at the decision at hand, and former New Zealand wicketkeeper Ian Smith returned to the microphone to make his displeasure clear. I made it.
“Well, as a former turnstile keeper, I have to say, this is the strangest thing I’ve ever seen,” he said. “This is really crazy. When the ball went into the gloves, the gloves were clear well behind the stumps. Initially they had the upper hand, but when the ball went into the gloves they were behind the stumps. There they were. Look at some gloves. Are you saying it’s not a ball? Well, if you look at the newspaper tomorrow, it’ll probably be there, but it’s not there for me. ”
There was also criticism of the decision on social media, with many agreeing with Smith’s assessment that Wilson had made a mistake. “This is becoming a bit of rugby union,” Smith added, referring to a series of controversies during the ongoing Rugby World Cup. “Authorities cannot escape this problem.”
Did Wilson make a mistake? Here’s what the laws say
Much of the research has focused on Latham’s position when the ball enters the glove, but when you look at the rules of cricket it’s clear that that’s not the only thing that matters.
Law 27 concerns the turnstile keeper and section 27.3 deals with the position to be taken by the gloveman. “The wicketkeeper shall keep the ball at the batsman’s end from the moment the ball enters play until the ball played by the bowler touches the batsman’s bat or body or passes through the wicket at the batsman’s end or the batsman attempts a run. He must remain completely behind the wicket.” “If the wicketkeeper violates this rule, the umpire on the striker’s side shall give the instruction by saying ‘no ball’ as soon as possible after the ball has been sent. ”
Whether Latham was behind the stumps when the ball entered his glove is debatable, but as Smith himself pointed out, when the ball came down it was actually in front of the stumps. It happened in Therefore, the decision was correct.
It is debatable whether Mr. Wilson’s words were helpful, as he specifically mentioned the location of the gloves at the time of collection, but there is no doubt that Mr. Engelbrecht was duly pardoned. there is not.
For the remainder of the game, comments did not clarify the cricket rules in question.
