Explain this umpiring decision

[SJS]

Th interesting thing about the catch is that everyone infront of the wicket had no doubt about the dismissal, whereas the keeper and first slip seem to have no clue. Maybe if we got a view from the other side we might see something else. But it does look like from the angle we saw that he clearly missed it, but their was a lot of talk from the bowl, away from the bat.

1. BowledLaw 30
2. Timed Out Law 31
3. Caught Law 32
4. Handling the ball Law 33
5. Hitting the ball twice Law 34
6. Hit Wicket Law 35
7. Leg Before Wicket Law 36
8. Obstructing the field Law 37
9. Run Out Law 38
10. Stumped Law 39

Can you tell which form pf dismisal from all the possible ones it could be in this case which was better seen from the front and maybe not from behind ?

[Dissector]

My hunch remains that it is some kind of comedy sketch or ad made with real players. If it was a case of match fixing it would be easy to make it look it a lot more genuine.

[andyc]

that LBW looked out to me, why is Gatting reacting like that? He missed the sweep, the ball hit his back leg and was going on to hit the stumps.

edit: juz saw it more closely again, it did hit his front foot, poor decision.

Plus the fact that it pitched on off stump and was turning away.

[bond21]

my god, its so blatantly set up.

1. Noone appeals.

2. Batsman is not shocked to get out

3. Bails didnt come off so hit wicket is impossible

4. Camera angle is never used anymore

5. No sound or commentary

6. Slip fieldsman looked like a complete amateur

[Richard]

my god, its so blatantly set up.

1. Noone appeals.

2. Batsman is not shocked to get out

3. Bails didnt come off so hit wicket is impossible

4. Camera angle is never used anymore

5. No sound or commentary

6. Slip fieldsman looked like a complete amateur

I wish some people would read the thread before commenting...

4 - the footage was taken by some guy in the "crowd" (likely to have been 100 or so at best) with a video-camera

5 - the game is a non-First-Class UCCE game - of course there was no commentary

[Richard]

My hunch remains that it is some kind of comedy sketch or ad made with real players. If it was a case of match fixing it would be easy to make it look it a lot more genuine.

If that was the case, YouTube would hardly be the premier place to put it would it? Nor would the YT poster place it the way he did.

Unless he went up to the players before play started and said "hey, do you guys fancy having a bit of fun?" Even this is virtually inconceivable as the Umpire would have known he was risking his reputation.

[SJS]

I have sent a message to the original poster of that video at you tube asking for the source of the video. Lets see if he responds.

[cover drive man]

Dire decision.