The controvertial run-outs given in the match between Mumbai Indians and Kings XI Punjab

[Chandan]

'The world has seen what it was all about' Amol Karbadkar Mumbai TWENTY20 CRICKET is said to be all about fun. But when a team loses a match off the last ball, and that too just by one run, obviously there is bound to be some disappointment. And what added to Mumbai's frustrations on Wednesday was the fact that most of the decisions referred to the third umpire went against Mumbai. No wonder, the hosts' skipper Sachin Tendulkar cautiously expressed his discontent. "We're not allowed to comment anything on that (close decisions)," Tendulkar told a postmatch media conference. "The whole world has seen what it was all about. So I would leave it at that. I will leave it to the team management to decide on what to do about it. I would not say anything about that." There were two occasions when Mumbai looked to have been undone by the television umpire Suresh Shastri. First, in Mohali's innings, when Shaun Pollock made a direct hit towards the bowlers' end from the boundary line, Luke Pomersbasch looked well short of the crease. But since there was confusion on how the bail was dislodged, Shastri gave the batsman, benefit of doubt. And then when Mumbai were batting, Dwayne Smith was given out when it appeared that Piyush Chawla's arm had dislodged the bails while the ball was still in his hand. Tendulkar admitted that such decisions hurt in a close match. "Obviously it hurts when you lose even if such things are a part of the game," Tendulkar said. "But everyone has seen what happened and in whose favour the decisions eventually went. I'm not trying to indicate anything but we have seen it." Mohali skipper Yuvraj Singh, on the other hand, said that his team was "lucky" to win the match. Asked about luck playing a role, Tendulkar said, "If we have to talk about luck, then I would say had we got those two run out decisions our way we would have added two more runs to the tally," he said. "I am not trying to say that the decisions were incorrect. I am not getting into that. But if we had completed those two runs, we would have won the match." ------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't see the Pomerbasch decision live and later in highlights he certainly looked out. Secondly in Smith's case Chawla had removed the bail with his arm and not with the ball in hand. Wonder how those run-outs were given. Does this show the poor standard of umpiring in India or does this show that the umpires in India are very dim?:omg:

[Chandan]

I simply followed rules: Umpire Shastri Agencies Posted online: Thursday , May 22, 2008 at 1503 hrs IST Mumbai, May 22: : Suresh Shastri, third umpire of Wednesday night's thrilling IPL tie between Mumbai Indians and Kings XI Punjab, said on Thursday that he simply went by the law book in the match where the hosts looked at the receiving end of a few contentious run-out decisions. "I don't want to make any comments. I can only say I went by law 28.1 (The wicket is down)," Shastri said when his comments were sought in response to Mumbai Indians' skipper Sachin Tendulkar's veiled criticism of two decisions that were referred to him by the on-field officials. "The whole world has watched what it was all about. So I would leave it at that. I will leave it to the team management to see if they want to do anything about it," Tendulkar said at the post-match media conference. "Everyone has seen what happened and in whose favour the decisions eventually went. Had we got those two run out decisions our way, we would have added two more runs to the tally and won the match," Tendulkar said after the team's six-match winning streak came to a halt in the nail-biting finish. The two decisions, which went against Mumbai Indians in the match which the visitors won by one run, related to run-out appeals against Punjab XI batsman Luke Pomersbach and the hosts' Dwayne Smith. Pomersbach, who made 79 not out and put on a century stand with Australian compatriot Shaun Marsh, was given the benefit of the doubt earlier in his innings by Shastri. The TV umpire ruled in the batsman's favour when on-field umpire Billy Bowden referred a run-out appeal following a superb throw from the deep by Shaun Pollock that hit the stumps directly at the non-striker's end. Other sources said the umpire felt that bowler Smith's leg had disturbed the bails before the ball hit the stumps which led him to rule in the batsman's favour. Later Shastri upheld Punjab XI's run-out appeal, again referred to him by the on-field umpire, against Smith following a touch-and-go situation when the bowler with the ball in hand was Piyush Chawla who, replays indicated, did not take off the bails in the first attempt. ---------------------------------------- It looks like the same confusion which a Pakistani third umpire had a few years back.

[The Outsider]

I am not a big fan of the ICC elite umpires but having seen some of our clowns officiate I can well understand why there are no umpires in the panel from India. Hopefully, this influx of money from IPL for fringe umpires will help increase the competition and standards of umpiring in India.

[IndianRenegade]

I didn't see the Pomerbasch decision live and later in highlights he certainly looked out. Secondly in Smith's case Chawla had removed the bail with his arm and not with the ball in hand. Wonder how those run-outs were given. Does this show the poor standard of umpiring in India or does this show that the umpires in India are very dim?:omg:

I tend to differ. In the first case, the bail appeared to be on the move even before the ball had reached the stump. Both commentators at the time had no idea if the bails where on the move before the ball hit the stumps or whether it happened after it. The point is there was a reasonable doubt and it must go to the batsman. In the second case, chawla hit the stump twice thats the reason for some confusion... though I feel he had the ball in his hands when he hit the stumps the first time.

[Chandan]

I can't say in the first occasion because I didn't watch it live but in the second case there certainly was doubt. Why was that benefit of doubt not given to batsman if it was given to the batsman in the first occasion?

[Feed]

Mumbai Indians confirm complaining against Suresh Shastri Mumbai Indians has lodged an official complaint against Suresh Shastri, who was the third umpire of their Indian Premier League match against Kings XI Punjab on Wednesday. More... Mumbai Indians confirm complaining against Suresh Shastri Press Trust Of India New Delhi, May 23, 2008 First Published: 20:44 IST(23/5/2008) Last Updated: 20:55 IST(23/5/2008) Mumbai Indians has lodged an official complaint against Suresh Shastri, who was the third umpire of their Indian Premier League match against Kings XI Punjab on Wednesday. The Mumbai side appeared to be at the receiving end of a few contentious decisions in the match, which they eventually lost by just one run. "Yes, I can confirm that the franchise owners have filed an official complaint," coach Lalchand Rajput told reporters in New delhi on Friday, on the eve of the Mumbai side's Indian Premier League match against the Delhi Daredevils. After the defeat against Kings XI Punjab, Mumbai captain Sachin Tendulkar did not hide his anger and said, "The whole world has watched what it was all about. So I would leave it at that. I will leave it to the team management to see if they want to do anything about it." "Everyone has seen what happened and in whose favour the decisions eventually went. Had we got those two run out decisions our way, we would have added two more runs to the tally and won the match," Tendulkar said after the team's six-match winning streak came to a halt in the nail-biting finish. More The Mumbai side felt they were unlucky in both the run-out appeals involving Punjab XI batsman Luke Pomersbach and their own Dwayne Smith. Shastri, however, maintained that he simply went by the law. "I don't want to make any comments. I can only say I went by law 28.1 (The wicket is down)," Shastri said. Law 28.1 deals with what constitutes a wicket put down. According to the law, the wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from top of the stump, or a stump is struck out of the ground by either the ball, striker's bat, part of his clothing or equipment, by a fielder with his hand/arm providing the ball is held in the hand.