DailyMail blames Bucknor for the Draw

[Prudent]

England were robbed of victory over India yesterday when a Test featuring a record 14 lbw dismissals concluded with the most convincing appeal of the lot being rejected. In the mid-afternoon gloom at Lord's, Michael Vaughan's men were circling for the kill, having reduced the tourists to 277 for nine. When a delivery from Monty Panesar to last man Sri Sreesanth pitched on middle stump and struck the batsman's front pad low down, it appeared the game was up. But West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor, who had given a number of more marginal decisions in the bowlers' favour, shook his head. Replays showed the ball would have hit the top of middle and off but moments later the Indian batsmen Sreesanth and Mahendra Singh Dhoni accepted the offer of bad light and persistent rain ruined any chance of a resumption. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/cricket.html?in_article_id=470441&in_page_id=1849&ct=5 One question to all those who live in England, Is DailyMail a tabloid paper? Thanks

[Prudent]

can some1 change the title please. Make it Draw :embaressed_smile:

[Donny]

Once again, Bucknor was correct. " Replays showed the ball would have hit the top of middle and off" The top ? Doubt - not out.

[King Tendulkar]

Once again, Bucknor was correct. " Replays showed the ball would have hit the top of middle and off" The top ? Doubt - not out.

Thats why I said gangs got a shocker, hawk eye showed it hitting outside the very top of off.

[observer1]

Once again, Bucknor was correct. " Replays showed the ball would have hit the top of middle and off" The top ? Doubt - not out.

So, the other ones that he deliberated long and seemingly hard, and gave out (Ganguly, kissing the top of the the leg bail, and some one else) were OK, were they?

[CC1981]

" Replays showed the ball would have hit the top of middle and off" The top ? Doubt - not out.

Hang on a minute- why arnt you applying the same standard to Dravid or Ganguly's decision ? hawkeye showed both to be clipping the very top of off and/or middle.

[King Tendulkar]

Hang on a minute- why arnt you applying the same standard to Dravid or Ganguly's decision ? hawkeye showed both to be clipping the very top of off and/or middle.

They were not out as well. Thats why I keep saying if it was not for cr#p umpiring we would have won!

[King Tendulkar]

Who are the umpires for the next test?

[Chandan]

Who are the umpires for the next test?

This is a good question!:angel_smile:

[Donny]

Don't be concerned. All will be happy. Darryl Hair & Asoka de Silva.

[Donny]

Hang on a minute- why arnt you applying the same standard to Dravid or Ganguly's decision ? hawkeye showed both to be clipping the very top of off and/or middle.

Why aren't I applying ........ ??? I wasn't umpiring. Obviously, whoever you're referring to did NOT have doubt. Simple.

[observer1]

Donny - you seemed very categorical in post 3, and seem to be applying the letter of civil law in post 11. Once again, any comments on posts 4,5,6, and 7? All made by posters, admittedly not with as much experience as you, but with I suspect a reasonable questioning bent of mind.

[Donny]

Sure mate. I'll give it my best shot. :wink_smile: Post 4: What is there to answer ? No question to me. Gangs obviously didn't get a shocker. He was given out where the ump thought there was no doubt. Let's bear in mind, they don't have Hawkeye to refer to. Er .. if they did, he'd still be out. Post 5: Yes. Post 6: Answered in post 11. Post 7: Much the same. They were outs. The umpire had no doubt so he gave it out. Quite correct - just as the Monty/Sree one was.

[CC1981]

Why aren't I applying ........ ??? I wasn't umpiring. Obviously' date= whoever you're referring to did NOT have doubt. Simple.

I am drawing your attention to th flaw in your analysis- you raised question about top of off-stump being a worthy factor for doubt and therefore, not a misjudgement but a good decision. If the same is held true, then Dravid & Ganguly got rather poor decisions since the ball was going to hit pretty much the same place as the Sreesanth appeal, if not even more marginally so. So therefore, either Sreesanth's decision is a misjudgement or Ganguly/Dravid's are. If the 'doubt' is not applied consistently, then the simple meaning is that the umpire sucks. Whatever be the cause of your doubt ( top of off/missing leg/pitching outside/yadda yadda), it has to be applied consistently in the decision-making process or else it is simply BS to claim that umpires are anywhere close to 'shining examples' of consistently correct decision-making. To be honest, from the cricket i've seen, it is patently an ICC hoax to claim that umpires get 90-95% of their decisions right- They at best get 70-75% right when lbw/snicks are involved.

[CC1981]

. Gangs obviously didn't get a shocker. He was given out where the ump thought there was no doubt.

by that logic, there can never be a shocker of a decision since the umpire is going to give it out if he doesn't have doubt anyways(unless he is dishonest).

[King]

Donny you are hell bent on proving a point that doesn't exist. You side with the umpire for giving Dravid out saying it was hard not to give it out. Now Sreesanth is a dead duck and you say again the umpire was right not giving that one out. I can say you are arguing your point even without having looked at those decisions. Sreesanth for the record was a goner.

[CC1981]

Sreesanth for the record was a goner.

Yep.

[Donny]

by that logic' date=' there can never be a shocker of a decision since the umpire is going to give it out if he doesn't have doubt anyways(unless he is dishonest).[/quote'] At last!

[CC1981]

At last!

That is as biassed in favour of umpiring as it gets, then. I wouldn't want to be impolite to someone so many years my senior but i see some personal embellishment of your viewpoint here. As i noted earlier, umpiring quality is hardly good enough to be considered a role bereft of criticism. True, they get railed upon a lot from almost all sections of the crowd but in reality, umpiring is neither a very challenging job, nor a very high quality one, provided the brain is engaged and the decision-making process is clearly thought out and kept in mind.

[King]

I get it now, Donny says don't question the umpiring decisions and take whatever you get whether right or not.