WATCH : Arrogant Aussies allege robbery by umpire for their own cardinal sin


After triumphing in the first T20I, Australia amassed an imposing 241 runs propelled by Glenn Maxwell’s scintillating century (120). Despite early setbacks, the Windies’ middle and lower order displayed resilience, vigorously striking the ball.

As the match seemed to sway in favor of the hosts towards its climax, an unexpected spectacle unfolded, leading to a heated verbal exchange between the Australians and the umpire.

In the 19th over, Spencer Johnson, bowling from over the wicket, delivered a full-pitched ball outside the off stump. Alzarri Joseph drove it towards extra cover and hustled for a single. Skipper Mitch Marsh swiftly retrieved the ball inside the 30-yard circle and attempted a direct hit at the non-striker’s end.

Though the bowler had the opportunity to gather the ball and dislodge the bails with Joseph near the crease, Johnson proceeded with the game without delay.

With no appeal from the home team and after a cursory glance around the field by umpire Gerard Abood, the decision was not referred to the TV umpire. However, replays on the stadium’s large screen promptly revealed that the batter was short of the crease when the bails were dislodged.

Subsequently, Tim David and Mitchell Marsh confronted the umpire, expressing their frustration. David criticized the decision as “ridiculous” and vehemently argued, “I appealed, I appealed,” in response to the official’s assertion that there was no appeal from the players.

Marcus Stoinis and Josh Hazlewood joined in, pleading for a dismissal. The situation escalated to the point where a composed Marsh intervened, taking David aside to calm the situation and allow the game to proceed.

In accordance with law 31.1 of the MCC Laws, “Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batter who is out under any of the Laws from leaving the wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 31.7.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here