‘Flabbergasted’: The decisions that went against the West Indies

There may have been silence in the commentary box, but what was not being said may as well have been screamed at maximum volume.

Another hugely contentious decision had gone against the West Indies.

You could almost hear veteran commentator Ian Bishop carefully selecting what he was going to say.

“There are not many fans of [third umpire] Adrian Holdstock in the West Indies at the moment,” former West Indies player Carlos Brathwaite said, in the end, as Shai Hope trudged off after being given out caught behind.

“Flabbergasted.”

Flabbergasted, incredulous, furious: take your pick, most West Indian fans could have selected any one of those emotions to describe what they were feeling at that time.

“It’s unfortunate, it really is unfortunate,” Samuel Badree said, somewhat more diplomatically on ESPN.

“It feels as though everything has gone against the West Indians.”

In less enlightened times, such a feeling would have likely resulted in something of a siege at the Kensington Oval — it was only 1999 that an ODI between Australia and the West Indies was delayed by hundreds of bottles being thrown onto the field after a controversial run-out, after all.

Cricket is a serious business in these parts.

There was none of that on day two of the first Test in Barbados, thankfully, but there were plenty of aggrieved supporters nonetheless.

The West Indies were, undoubtedly, on the end of some very poor decisions.

“I felt like the third umpire had some really tough decisions to make,” former Australian player Greg Blewett said on ESPN.

“A lot of them weren’t really clear decisions; it was down to a bit of interpretations.

“I think Australia got on the right end of the decisions.

Not just a tough day, though.

Here is a rundown of the events that sparked the controversy.

1. Travis Head’s day one reprieve

As Travis Head rescued Australia on day one, he under-edged the superb Shamar Joseph behind to Shai Hope.

Hope dived forward and caught the ball but did not seem totally clear as to whether he had managed to pouch the ball before it touched the ground.

The matter was sent upstairs to third umpire Holdstock, who said there was “no clear evidence” that the ball had been caught.

That despite footage appearing to show a thin sliver of leather under the ball as it landed.

It was a tough break for the West Indies and Shamar Joseph, who missed out on a five-wicket haul as a result.

“The thing for me was, the pictures look out, but there was a statement made from the third umpire that it was not conclusive,” Carlos Brathwaite said.

2. Roston Chase gets lucky

In the first over of day two, Josh Hazlewood trapped Roston Chase in front.

There was a big appeal and, belatedly, Pat Cummins reviewed the decision.

Upstairs, we went to see if the ball brushed the pad before hitting the inside edge of the West Indian captain’s bat.

Initially, a small spike suggested that the ball did brush the pad first and Australia’s fielders started celebrating.

That celebration turned to confusion soon after as Holdstock said on-field umpire Richard Kettleborough could stay with his on-field decision of not out.

Later, reserve umpire Gregory Brathwaite could be seen explaining something to the Australian reserve fielders, suggesting it was a narrow decision.

3. Roston Chase’s luck runs out

If he was lucky earlier, Chase was very unlucky later on day two.

Pat Cummins appealed for an LBW and, as soon as Kettleborough raised his finger, Chase instantly reviewed, looking at his inside edge.

The replay showed that yes, Chase got an inside edge onto his pad, a very clear deviation.

The technology, namely ultraedge, did not quite match up, but surely that would not matter — there was a visible deflection off the bat.

Right? Right?

“There is a clear gap between bat and ball,” said Holdstock. Uh oh…

“You can see with the naked eye … that there was a clear deflection,” Brathwaite said.

“So, albeit that the technology might have left you wondering, the naked eye shows you that there was a deflection.”

4. Shai has his hopes of a half century dashed

Things then went from bad to worse.

Shai Hope, West Indies’ last real chance of success, was caught spectacularly by Alex Carey off an inside edge from Beau Webster.

It was a remarkable catch but umpire Kettleborough instantly wanted to have a closer look to see if the ball had been grounded.

Hope had, by this time, started walking off, convinced that Carey had pulled off a worldy.

And he had been diving to his left and pouching the ball in his left glove. However, sadly for him, the ball clearly touched the ground as Carey landed — the footage even showed it moving closer into the glove’s palm as he landed.

So not out? Yeah, about that…

The catch was confirmed by Holdstock and the West Indian supporters were fuming.

“It looked brilliant,” Brathwaite said. “Alex Carey, tip your hat. But when you look at it zoomed in, you can’t tell me that that was out and the first one [Head on day one] was not.”

5. Green’s lucky reprieve

So, all things considered, it has not been a great day for the third umpire so far.

But his day was not done.

Cameron Green was trapped in front by Justin Greaves, the West Indies appealing vociferously as they kept the Aussies under the cosh.

Umpire Nitin Menon gave Green not out but Chase opted to send it upstairs.

There was a big edge from Green, but was there a brushing of ball on pad before it got to the bat?

Not clear enough for third umpire Holdstock and the tightest call of the lot was given not out.

“You can’t tell me that Roston Chase is out, and this is not out,” Brathwaite said.

“You can see the bat brushing the back pad so for the ball to hit the bat, it has to brush the back pad.

“Regardless of if they’re all bad decisions or some right, there was a lack of consistency and I’m sure that a lot of West Indies fans, players and myself, felt aggrieved during the course of play.”

What did Australia say?

“We can only ask the question,” Mitch Starc said by way of response on ESPN.

“There were a few there, one went against us but a couple against the West Indies. I guess that’s what we’ve got the technology for and then the questions can be asked of that and not the players.”

Bishop added that he did not want to criticise the umpires, but that he hoped some good could come from the decisions.

“Officiating is low-hanging fruit,” Bishop said.

“What needs to happen here, when I put my emotions aside, the umpires perhaps need, and they probably do have a meeting after the day’s play, they will review these decisions and I think we may get better interpretations … you have to get that going forward.

“I think they would probably have learned a few things [by] looking at that.”