This incident happened during the 3rd Test of England’s tour of India 2001-02. England’s Michael Vaughan missed an attempted sweep against Sarandeep Singh, and the ball trickled along the ground after striking his pads. Vaughan brushed the ball away with his hand, despite the fact that it was not travelling towards the stumps. Initially, he claimed that he was attempting the give the ball back to the fielder at short leg, but he later admitted that he got it all wrong.
@New Jersey Devils
29 Comments
Looked not out, We ain't gentleman.
he is handling the ball , why is he amazed ? Michael Vaughan is out.
Unfair
That is straight up out every day of the week – he pressed down on the ball to stop it in case it went back to the stumps.
Why is it always team india playing dirty?
Unfair play at this situation … Indiian cricket captian should have revoked the appeal just like how Bangla Mushfiqur got out vs NZ and Angelo against Bangla ššš, some times you cannot apply text book rules blindly when reality is different
Wow…look at the narrative building by the commentators!š
Before even looking at the replay
Vaughn thought hes being gentleman by giving the ball to tye wk!
As soon as replayed…
Commenator 1: Oh the ball was in play and it was his reflex that stopped the ball
Thats out.
Not out
Itās a throw ball
As usual, it's all India's fault in the eyes of the english commentatorsš¤£š¤£š¤£
Consider this scenario..batsman is trying to hit a cover drive but the ball nipped back in and he is trapped LBW. The intention of the batsman doesn't matter whether he deliberately had his leg between the ball and stumps or not. If the umpire thinks the ball would've hit the stumps if not for the legs in between, its out. Exactly the same situation here, the umpire thinks the ball would've gone onto the stumps if he didn't handle the ball. If the batsman wants to help the fielder, he could use his bat or legs. Rules are there for a reason.
Ball wasnt dead. Indians were right.
The fact that the Indians are defending the appeal says a lot.. Indians go on and om about the spirit of the game and troll eng for the wc final or cry and call aussies cheats but as soon as their players do it its fine??? Hypocrisy at its peak
He touched the ball before it was dead
Thats the only way sarandeep singh could get wicket
If you can't sweep Sarandeep singh then you deserve to be given out
Unfortunately he touched it a bit too early. Cynical appeal , the ball wouldn't have rolled back onto the stumps.
Commentator is so naive
No argument with the umpire simple walking off š®š®
After inventing the game of cricket, the Englishman seems to forget the rules. Even in modern days they do the simply idiotic things, take it whether Ian bell controversy, the Ashwin Buttler controversy, Johnny Bairstow alex carrey controversy and the best of them is in the video itself. You can't expect spirit of the game from opposition if you are not following rules.
Iām a Yorkshire man through and through. But Vaughan was out. He knows the rules and he couldnāt even argue that the ball was stationary. Personally, I think a batsman isnāt there to be nice to the fielders. Let them do their own fielding and the batsmen do the batting. That way, there is no way chance that this sort of thing can occur. And the commentators were wrong to try and turn the scrutiny on India. How about being honest and blaming Michael for his own mistake and being a bit of a chump, because they didnāt do anything that isnāt allowed in the rules?
Arrogant batsman, Excellent decision…
He is like…. " ą¤¤ą„ą¤®ą„ą¤¹ą„ ą¤¦ą„ą¤ą¤Øą¤¾ ą¤²ą¤ą¤¾ą¤Ø ą¤¦ą„ą¤Øą¤¾ ą¤Ŗą¤”ą„ą¤ą¤¾… "
Indian ą¤Ŗą„ą¤²ą„ą¤Æą¤°ą„ą¤ø "ą¤ą¤² ą¤Øą¤æą¤ą¤² ą¤ą„ą¤ø..ą¤ą„"
The Brits never do anything wrong. It's they who are always wronged. ššš
Who was the genius commentator here who suggested Vaughan go up to Gangulyā¦and claim he was a gentleman..? š Heād be a good used car salesman!
Commentator must be blind
In the first place bowler chucks and canāt be given out any ways.
Even If opposition team was China, it is still out š
Handling the ball is a fair way of getting out, but clearly this should not have been given out. The ball wasnt going to go to hit the wicket, nor was he obstructing the fielding.