Tom Hartley’s dismissal was overturned on ‘umpire’s call’ upon reviewing – despite the original decision being out – leading to confusion, a conversation between Rohit Sharma and the umpires, and a re-review on day four of the India-England Visakhapatnam Test.
Hartley ruled not out: What was the original decision?
The incident occurred on the fifth ball of the 63rd over when Ravichandran Ashwin tried to catch Hartley with a reverse sweep. The ball flew behind the wicketkeeper and Rohit Sharma took a brilliant diving catch at first slip. Umpire Chris Gaffani ruled him out and awarded R. Ashwin his 500th Test wicket, but Hartley was quick to address the criticism.
The decision was sent upstairs, and replays showed the ball missed Hartley’s intended swing, missed his glove, hit his forearm, and flew backwards. The referee checked Ultra Edge before confirming there was no stick.
As per protocol, the third umpire also checked the LBW and analyzed the tracking of the ball to see if the impact of the forearm contact with the ball occurred in front of the stumps. The ball bounced in a straight line, but the umpire ruled that it had “impacted” and “hit the wicket”. The original decision was “not out” and Hartley was pardoned.
The ball lobbed off Hartley’s forearm, confirming he was not caught
What do the Playing Conditions say?
Rohit then chats with the umpire and wonders why the ball tracker shows “original call not taken” when the call has already been taken on the field. It might have been. However, according to ICC rules, the original decision only applies to the type of dismissal for which the decision was considered, in this case dismissal.
According to Appendix D of the World Test Championship Playing Conditions, communication between the on-field umpire and the third umpire includes determining the nature of the sending-off.
The umpire checked ball tracking for lbw, with the ‘original decision’ now ‘not out’
3.3.3.2 The field umpire should initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming the type of exclusion determined by the field umpire regarding the appeal
3.3.4 If the third umpire considers a disqualification and believes that the batsman could be eliminated by another form of disqualification, he will notify the field umpire accordingly. Have to. The consultation process described in this paragraph regarding such substitute dismissals will be conducted as if the batter had received a not
out.Clause 2 clarifies the decision against Hartley. The third umpire considered whether Hartley could have been out due to another form of sending off (lbw), but the discussion took place “as if the batter had not been out.” Ta. Further confusion then ensued when the referee resumed the review, only to see if Hartley had hit the ball with the back of his racket on the follow-up. Once this was resolved, the game continued.
Ashwin had to wait for his 500th scalp. Hartley eventually fell last against Jasprit and he was dismissed by Bumrah, giving India a victory for his 106 runs.
