Ollie Pope’s diving catches down the leg-side to dismiss Pakistan batter Saud Shakeel cost Pakistan and shouldn’t have been given out, according to Pakistan captain Babar Azam. A crucial decision goes against Pakistan as the umpire’s soft signal comes under scrutiny again. Babar said that the ball appeared to have touched the ground.
“The Shakeel dismissal cost us,” he said after Pakistan lost by 26 runs in Multan, confirming their series loss to England. We thought it looked like the ball had hit the ground. You must respect the decision of the umpire as a professional, but we believed the ball had been grounded.” Pakistan was well-placed to pull off their second-highest fourth-innings run chase when Shakeel was dismissed at a crucial point in the match, just before lunch.
Pakistan needed 64 more runs to win when Shakeel pulled at a short ball outside the leg stump. Getting a tickle on it, six runs away from a hundred. Even though replays suggested that the catch was not entirely clear, Pope dived to his right to catch it low above the ground. Aleem Dar softly signaled “out” to Joel Wilson. The third umpire, in order to arrive at the decision that resulted in Shakeel’s dismissal.
Which contributed to some of the annoyance caused by Shakeel’s dismissal. Wilson ultimately maintained his position to support the dismissal. The playing conditions themselves have not changed despite discussions among the ICC Full Members regarding the protocols for the on-field soft signal (the IPL has eliminated the soft signal). According to the regulations, the “on-field decision communicated at the beginning of the consultation process shall stand” in the event of “inconclusive replay evidence.”
After Shakeel’s dismissal was upheld, the Pakistan dressing room’s reaction was one of disbelief. Displaying both surprise and awareness of the significance of the moment. Once and for all, England took control of the match. Taking the final three wickets with Pakistan still far from the target.
Ben Stokes, captain of England, was more ambiguous about his opinion. He said right after the match that there were no doubts about the ball carrying. But he also said that decisions of this kind could go either way.
Rooty’s catch at his short leg, which may have touched the ground, could be considered comparable. Yet, you’ve quite recently got to go with what the umpire’s choice is. I’ve been involved in a few decisions where things like that have gone against us, but it went our way. That, however, cannot be altered. Despite the fact that the person at the center of the argument was certain that the ball had reached him in full. He admitted that it was difficult to be certain after that.