Champions Trophy

[Paul McKeown]

I watched the better part of the actual play today from a pub, where unfortunately I couldn't hear a damn word, firstly because of live music, then later extremely loud music from some bleeding 80's CD. Frankie Goes to Hollywood and Yazz. FFS.

So I have a few questions:
1) what was Bell out for? I assume stumping, but I couldn't see it?
2) was the delivery Morgan got out not simply another wide, which he should have just left?
3) was the delivery Bopara (my MOM btw) also not simply a way over his head wide that he should have left?
4) were Ishant Sharma's consecutive wides actually some diabolical last throw of the dice?

I struggle to believe England didn't win that match, but there are few English batsmen who can play spin of international quality. Morgan, errr, and that's it. And he's Irish really. Oh, and the tail, who used to be lauded for their useful contributions with the bat, really need to spend more time in the nets, bat in hand.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It was a pretty bad collapse at the end. Ishant Sharma was their worst bowler and won it for them! (Read the report on the BBC or another website to find out what happened with each wicket). Still, at least the rugby (Lions) didn't go too badly, though that was only because their kicker slipped over!

[Alex Holowczak]

1) what was Bell out for? I assume stumping, but I couldn't see it?

From the match scorecard:

IR Bell st †Dhoni b Jadeja 13 38 16 1 0 81.25

The stumping was controversial. The commentators on TMS were explaining how it was very tight and you had to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsmen, and then suddenly the decision of Out appeared.

I await a video of the incident on YouTube or something to comment on whether or not the umpire was right.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I felt the Bell stumping had considerable doubt, so should have been "Not Out". http://www.espncricinfo.com/ is a great source of, er, cricket info.

Bopara could certainly have left the one that got him out, but they are not always called, so I don't blame him for having a go, and it should have been a free 4 or 6, but sadly he hit the fielder.

In the Indian innings, I think one chap stood on his stumps as he played the shot, but the bails stayed on.

[Alistair Campbell]

I felt the Bell stumping had considerable doubt, so should have been "Not Out". http://www.espncricinfo.com/ is a great source of, er, cricket info.

I was astonished that Bell was given out. Yet the stumping of Broad in the last over wasn't given.

I hadn't considered the possibility that Ishant Sharma had deliberately bowled wides. If he had, it's on a par with Panenka's penalty in 1976

[Alex Holowczak]

Just had a look at the stumping on a sound-less YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yCAuT89Og8

Law 28.1 is relevant:
1. Wicket put down
(a) The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps[...]

So the bail has to be completely removed. If half of the bail is touching top of the stumps and half of the bail isn't touching the top of the stumps, the wicket has not been put down.

I don't know which frame the umpire has given it out on. I reckon Bell's foot is on the ground in the frame shown at the start of 0:38. I can't see if the bail has been dislodged or not from that camera angle.

Is there a frame where:
(1) Bell's foot is in the air, and
(2) The bail has been dislodged?

If not, then it's not out. I can't see such a frame, so I'd have given it not out. Which isn't to say it's the wrong decision - he might have seen such a frame. My only comment is that I can't.