Moeen Ali out stumped

[missingleg]

I hope you've had opportunity to look at this contraversial third umpire decision in the current test match.

If you can, have a look at the stills of when the bails were removed - the crease marking at the pitch was out of line with the marking that extends on the square (the white line was arced quite noticeably (presumably because the paint got thicker and the lines had to be continually repainted). His back foot was either just in or just out, but it certainly would have been clearly in had the line not arced backwards towards the keeper.

My question is, should the decision have been made based on where the crease marking originally was at the start of the test, or where it had evolved to be when the appeal was made?

Have a look - I've never seen anything so out of kilter!

[jaybee]

I agree with missingleg .
The decision ought to hinge on where the foot was in relation to the crease which is something quite different from the crease marking. Presumably the straight part of the marking was correctly positioned 4 feet from the bowling crease (otherwise the umpires should have sorted it out) and the bulge in the marking was behind the crease itself.
Decisions about Stumped or Run Out don't and shouldn't rely solely on the crease marking which is there as a guide to the umpire. For example a run out may need to be decided on the batsman's position at a point where there's no marking at all and so whether the marking has moved because a player has scuffed up the soil - in either direction - or because of another inadvertent error as in the remarking of the popping crease is an irrelevance.
In this case it seems that, far from improving the decision, the third umpire has switched the benefit of any doubt the other way and contrary to what we've always been expected to do.

[missingleg]

Interesting comments. Harsh to criticise the umpire because if he had decided he had no part of his person grounded behind the line, and decided that the line had moved, that would have been a hard sell! That said, I wonder if he noticed.

I think it was not out on reflection because I think the laws say the crease can't move once the game has begun (I am right in saying that?). If the line had been struggling I'm certain it wouldn't have been given.

Even in my relatively short career (11 years) I have noticed that in all cricket 'benefit of the doubt' has been replaced more with 'on the balance of probability - probably as a result of more hawkeye, snicko and super slow mo affect the pro and amateur game.

[jaybee]

Absolutely - wasn't an easy decision even with freeze-frame etc.
Harking back to the 1963 (!) edition of the predecessor to Tom Smith's tome it suggests:

if the doubt in an umpire's mind inclines him towards a 'Not Out' decision he should not hesitate to give it. If, however, he thinks that the weight of evidence points rather to an 'Out' decision ... [it] should be 'Out' only if his remaining doubt is so small that it can be disregarded in all fairness to both sides.

Perhaps the current trend is along the line of thinking that fairness to both sides equals balance of probability in all cases. But of course that doesn't factor in the reality that a batsman doesn't get a second chance from an adverse decision whereas the bowler and fielding side do.
I keep coming back to the thought that it was all so tight, even with all the technical gizmos, that it wasn't quite enough to say 'Out'.