GarlicJam wrote:Well I disagree with both your views on these. In Kohli's dismissal, the ball very possibly hit pad, bat, then pad again. It possibly hit pad and bat at the same time. Either way, out. But, the 3rd umpire was faced with finding evidence that Kohli was not out. This evidence was not clear, so he remains out. Maybe bad luck, but this happens in cricket
The actual rule works totally in the opposite way to that suggested widely, and is a misunderstanding of the rules of the game.
Law 36 in the MCC laws requires the ball to clearly hit the pad first, or it is not out. The same law in the ICC regulations goes further by suggesting the umpire has to be "satisfied" that the ball hit pad first, or he must default the decision to not out. The dictionary definition of "satisfied" reads..." provide (someone) with adequate or convincing proof about something".... the batsman is therefore given the benefit of the doubt, and the umpire has the burden to prove the ball struck pad first. The rules are very clear - no proof, it has to be given not out. This is backed up by the DRS regulations. Simon Doull can rant on about inadequate proof to overturn all he wants, all he succeeded in doing was proving he has inadequate understanding of the rules.
Appendix D on DRS usage states, when a batsman refers an lbw to the DRS, the third umpire must do two things before going on to question the on field umpires decision - check the legality of the ball, then decide if the ball hit the bat. These are independent from the original decision and are the third umpires solely judgement. The rules refer to the third umpire having to decide on law 36.....
In this case, the third umpire said he thought it was simultaneous striking, and then for some unknown reasons erroneously decided he could not overturn the decision based on clear proof - he could, and actually, should have overturned it based on what he said. It was not clear, so the batsman had to be given not out under the rules, and he could not prove the counter. Additionally, the umpire on field should have also overturned his own decision as per the rules. The third umpire indicated it could not be proved the bat was second, so the rules state he must used the additional information and reset his decision - he was told he could not be sure to have given it, so he should not have given it.
The rules are written purposefully to make sure rules of law are superior to rules of fact, which is essential for any decision making procedure. I mean, the fact a jury finds someone guilty based on a bad understanding of the law doesnt make the juries decision right, and never should. This is the same here - a decision was made not following the law of the game, and despite the umpire being the decider of fact, his decision should be overturned on a point of law.
And thats before we get to snicko and the clear registering of a sound before it hits the pad.
Its 100 percent not out. Its not even debatable.