Originally Posted by
Hot Shot Hamish.
When it flicked the bail, they showed the snickometer which proved that Gayle hadn't hit it, and that it had flicked the stump. But the next step is to go to ball tracking. If they had gone to ball tracking that would have shown that Gayle had been bowled.
Seeing as an appeal is for all forms of dismissal rather than just the one and the umpire had already given him out, the Gayle should have been given out by the third umpire as bowled. The umpires initial decision was out, so even though flicking the bails would have been "umpires call", they couldn't have changed the umpire's decision.
If the umpire hadn't given him out caught behind and Australia had appealed he wouldn't have been out bowled as the "umpires call" would have been not out to start with.
Yes, I know the bails have to fall off to be given out. But as Gayle had been given out what I.m trying to say but not very successfully, is that as it was referred to the third umpire if they had used the ball tracking feature, I assume that as the ball hit the stumps Hawkeye would have shown the bails falling off even though in reality they somehow didn't. So would the third umpire have to have given him out bowled seeing as his original decision was out?