The age old question...

[Lurker]

Expected much better from you, Lurker. Didn't the one wicket in reference here make all the difference at Calcutta, Adelaide and so many other matches.

Alright go ahead and show how ONE decision changed that. My 19 wickets comment was directly against Dravid's "faulty decision"(please read up my post). What did the gentleman do in the second innings?

Exactly what kind of technology was used in that SF.

We are obviously talking of D-L method. What exactly is it if not use of technology? Or is technology in cricket only camera?? xxx

[The Outsider]

Alright go ahead and show how ONE decision changed that.

If Dravid or Laxman had been given out to a wrong decision early in the two cases I mentioned would the result of the matches have been the same? One wicket can make a huge difference in cricket.

We are obviously talking of D-L method. What exactly is it if not use of technology? Or is technology in cricket only camera??

Firstly, it wasn't D/L. It was some cr@p devised by Benaud. Secondly, if you consider that as technology then you have to admit rain affected targets are much fairer now with the use of better "technology" ie. D/L and its subsequent iterations.

[Predator_05]

India did not win the Sydney Test in 03 thanks to Parthiv Patel. If you are thinking umpires costed India the game then you are deluding yourself.

True, Patel's 'keeping was a factor, as were the numerous appeals that were denied to Anil Kumble. The umpires didn't want India to GATE-CRASH Steve Waugh's farewell party. I see you have IGNORED my mentioning the '04 Bangalore test. Porque ?

Your example of World Cup is exactly what I have been trying to show - how easy it is to beat umpires and not the players themselves. Here is why. The ball you are referring to was bowled as late as 37th over. Australian score at that time? A rather poor 223/2. Run Rate of 6 plus. Ponting batting on 46* and Martyn 56*. By any account that is as formidable a team's position as it has EVER been. In fact I would bet my money that no other country has been in a stronger position in a WC final at that level(37 over). The game was lost NOT because of the umpire but because of utterly clueless bowling by Indian bowlers. xxx

hahahaha ! So Ponting getting out for a HUNDRED RUNS LESS wouldn't have made a difference ? Okie dokie...:confused_smile: ...and I love the way you IGNORED my response to your comment that ONLY "second-rung" teams such as the Indians raise a stink about umpiring while the likes of Australia and the West Indians don't. IGNORANCE

[Holysmoke]

Alright go ahead and show how ONE decision changed that. My 19 wickets comment was directly against Dravid's "faulty decision"(please read up my post). What did the gentleman do in the second innings? We are obviously talking of D-L method. What exactly is it if not use of technology? Or is technology in cricket only camera?? xxx

Dude, that was a rule, a rule of the game. That cannot be termed as technology:confused_smile: And, as mentioned.. one false decision.. against VVS or RSD would have changed the game that day. I dont know.. maybe they were out, and the umpire gave them to be not out. (I dont remember the game ball by ball)

[Holysmoke]

Your example of World Cup is exactly what I have been trying to show - how easy it is to beat umpires and not the players themselves. Here is why. The ball you are referring to was bowled as late as 37th over. Australian score at that time? A rather poor 223/2. Run Rate of 6 plus. Ponting batting on 46* and Martyn 56*. By any account that is as formidable a team's position as it has EVER been. In fact I would bet my money that no other country has been in a stronger position in a WC final at that level(37 over). The game was lost NOT because of the umpire but because of utterly clueless bowling by Indian bowlers. xxx dude how can u even say that with a straight face. Fact is, we dont know what could have happenned. I am exaggerating here, but if ponting was given out, then aus might have crumbled and lost the next 7 wickets for 1 run. Can you prove me wrong? No. Because you never know what would have happenned. But we do know that whatever wouldve happenned, it wouldnt have been the same. Ponting wouldnt have gained enormous confidence from that innings.. and might not be as good a bastman as he is today, just because of that 1 decision. All im saying is.. one single decision can influence a game in a million different ways. With that in mind, it should be a given that we should take all measures we can in increasing the % of right decisions. If tv replays can do that, I dont think there should even be a second thought before incorporating them into the game. It never ever evens out..

[Predator_05]

The easy answer is that teams who have been dominant - Australia' date= West Indies - never worried about bad umpiring. It is the second rung team and its whiny players -like India - who excel when it comes to moaning about umpire rather than putting their hands up and say we suck.

Sorry Lurker, but I am going to BEAT THE SH*T OUT OF THIS POINT... READ THIS; right out of the WISDEN ALMANACK

The West Indians in New Zealand, 1979–80 R.T. Brittenden Almanack home 1981 home New Zealand's first victory in a Test rubber at home should have been a happy occasion, but the New Zealand cricket public, which had looked forward keenly to the West Indians' visit, was glad to see the back of them. New Zealand won the first Test by the narrowest of margins, and drew the remaining two. There were several extremely unsavoury incidents on the field in the first two Tests, and the situation was not improved by the extravagant statements made by their harassed manager, Willie Rodriguez. Their main complaint in New Zealand was about the umpiring, and in retrospect there is little doubt that if both sides suffered from difficult, debatable decisions, more went against West Indies than against New Zealand. Both Mr. Rodriguez and the captain, Lloyd, said there should be neutral umpires in Test matches. Such complaints by touring teams are by no means uncommon; they have been made in EVERY cricketing country for years. But Mr. Rodriguez, after stating at a press conference in Christchurch that he did not think the umpiring was biased, only incompetent, claimed after his departure that the West Indians had had to get batsmen out nine times before getting a decision. This thinly veiled suggestion that there had been collaboration between the New Zealand administration and its umpires was highly insulting to men of integrity. On the field, the West Indian players behaved in an extraordinary fashion. In the first Test Holding, having had an appeal disallowed, kicked the stumps out of the ground at the batsmen's end. When West Indies lost the match, Greenidge showed similar ill-temper as he left the field. At Christchurch in the second Test, Croft, after being no balled, flicked off the bails as he walked back, and a little later ran in very close to the umpire, F. R. Goodall - so close that the batsman could not see him - and shouldered Goodall heavily. It was the height of discourtesy when Goodall, wishing on two occasions to speak to Lloyd about Croft's behaviour, had to walk all the way to the West Indian captain, standing deep in the slips. Lloyd took not a step to meet him. It was in this match that the West Indians refused to take the field after tea on the third day, saying they would not continue unless umpire Goodall was removed. They were finally persuaded to continue twelve minutes late. That evening they emptied their dressing room and there was a distinct prospect that the tour would end there and then. Following protracted negotiations with the New Zealand Board of Control it was agreed to continue the match and the rest of the tour. The Board made clear its feeling that Croft, after his attack on Goodall, should not be considered for the Auckland Test, but in the event he did play.

YES, it's only SECOND-RUNG teams who sulk about umpiring, RIGHT ? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Lurker]

True, Patel's 'keeping was a factor, as were the numerous appeals that were denied to Anil Kumble. The umpires didn't want India to GATE-CRASH Steve Waugh's farewell party. I see you have IGNORED my mentioning the '04 Bangalore test. Porque ?

No I did not ignore 04' Bangalore, just that it is not always possible to look at every little instance(and maybe it would be a good idea to give someone benefit of the doubt rather than start assuming). Lets see the Sydney 03 first, shall we. You suggest Anil Kumble was denied numerous appeals. Here is what I pulled out from Cricinfo Archives(Ball by Ball commentary). I am going by the last day commentary(that would have mattered most, and anyway you did not specify much). 26.6 Kumble to Ponting, no run, padded to the off side, shout for lbw denied 32.1 Kumble to Martyn, no run, back, taken high on the pad by a ball coming in, big shout for lbw turned down by umpire Bowden, too high perhaps 42.3 Kumble to Martyn, no run, taken on the front pad, not a long way forward, lbw appeal turned down, going down leg So there you have it. 3 appeals. Two of which there is more than a shade of doubt(in which case it is advantage batsman), another one about which not much is suggested. Yes numeroud indeed!!! So before I get started on 04 Bangalore now what exactly is your criticism?

hahahaha ! So Ponting getting out for a HUNDRED RUNS LESS wouldn't have made a difference ? Okie dokie...

OKie dokie indeed. If you can not get this simple fact that Aussies were cruising at 6 runs per over, were 223/2 with two set batsmen and had a tail to follow that read - Lehmann, Bevan, Symonds, Hogg etc etc. then sure laugh at your own ignorance. And feel free to criticize umpires and not the Indian bowlers.

...and I love the way you IGNORED my response to your comment that ONLY "second-rung" teams such as the Indians raise a stink about umpiring while the likes of Australia and the West Indians don't. IGNORANCE

Again, I did not ignore your comment but if makes you feel important go right ahead. The FACT is that Aussies and West Indies dominated world cricket without worrying about umpires. Yes sure you will pick a Ponting incident here, a Waugh incident so?? At the end of the day they won at home, abroad, in front of domestic umpires as well as International is it not? On the other hand we have second rung team like India which wins cr@p and keeps worrying about how "umpiring did them in"! xxx

[Holysmoke]

OBV.. you arent going to complain about umpiring when you win. Isnt it common sense? I mean, its the losing side which feels hard done by.. and complains.. why would the winning side complain about umpiring.. They're like.. Umpiring was bad.. but I dont care. as long as we won. How many times have u seen winning sides complain about umpiring. I dont buy that argument AT ALL. Its always going to be the losing side that complains.

[Lurker]

If Dravid or Laxman had been given out to a wrong decision early in the two cases I mentioned would the result of the matches have been the same? One wicket can make a huge difference in cricket.

Yes and if I had bought a lottery ticket I would have been a millionaire. Listen the way it works in Test cricket is that every team has 2 chances. If you screw in first better get your act straight in second. Dravid had 2 chances, luck went against him in the first and he ample scrwed in the second. Based on what he actually did, and not what he is capable of, I dont see his dismissal as "match-turning" event.

Firstly, it wasn't D/L. It was some cr@p devised by Benaud. Secondly, if you consider that as technology then you have to admit rain affected targets are much fairer now with the use of better "technology" ie. D/L and its subsequent iterations.

1992 rain rule was cr@p period. And yes I definitely consider it as part of technology. To me technology is use of science in sports. And based on that technology did affect a game, and eventually a cup. I mean who knows what would have happened if Saffers played Pakistan in 1992? xx

[novpj]

Yes - there is no reason for getting the decision wrong; dont care if batsmen suffer, dont care if the game slows down. At least the threads complaining about umpiring decision will decline. Why else do we have threads on Bucknor, Taufel etc. etc. Lets get it right and get it done with.

[Lurker]

Sorry Lurker' date=' but I am going to [b']BEAT THE SH*T OUT OF THIS POINT... READ THIS; right out of the WISDEN ALMANACK

And your point is Predz? Lets get to the bottom of this, shall we now. West Indies dominated world cricket somewhere at the start of 1970 to late 80. That is two decades. West Indies dominated both Test and LOI cricket and won WC twice. West Indies team of the time is widely acknowledged as the best ever, or atleast amongst the top 3 ever. I am guessing that in the time west indies played about 50 series(about 2.5 series per year) and all you could dig up was one incident!! Now do you want me to show you how after EVERY series Indian team/fan/media goes bananas about umpiring? So who exactly is the whiny one. Yeah sure go ahead and try to beat the sh*t out of me...just make sure at the end you get a bit knowledgable too :tounge_smile: xxx

[Lurker]

I dont buy that argument AT ALL. Its always going to be the losing side that complains.

Losers always complain, dont they? It is human nature Holy :regular_smile:

[Holysmoke]

Losers always complain' date=' dont they? It is human nature Holy :regular_smile:[/quote'] Yes, but that doesnt mean they are not justified. If the umpiring was very very bad, but if it makes us win a test against Aus, I wont complain.. but Donny might. That doesnt mean that his complaining isnt justified.

[Lurker]

Yes' date=' but that doesnt mean they are not justified. If the umpiring was very very bad, but if it makes us win a test against Aus, I wont complain.. but Donny might. That doesnt mean that his complaining isnt justified.[/quote'] See there is the hollowness of your theory right there. You are admitting, good to see a honest opinion btw, that you wouldnt mind umpiring bias if it makes you win a Test. But surely you would be hurt if you lose. In other words it is not about "fairness" of the game as you had suggested before but more about whether your team wins or lose. :regular_smile:

[Holysmoke]

See there is the hollowness of your theory right there. You are admitting, good to see a honest opinion btw, that you wouldnt mind umpiring bias if it makes you win a Test. But surely you would be hurt if you lose. In other words it is not about "fairness" of the game as you had suggested before but more about whether your team wins or lose. :regular_smile:

Ofcourse. But, by having tv replays help umpires.. you would remove all forms of umpiring bias.. good for you.. and bad for you... So, it is about fairness.I know I will not get decisions which i shouldnt have got.. and would NOT have complained about.. but on the other hand.. I know that I will get decisions that I deserve to get, and would have complained if I had not got them. Makes sense?

[yoda]

Losers always complain' date=' dont they? It is human nature Holy :regular_smile:[/quote'] yea, but we want to complain about our loser players and not the bozo umpires.

[Lurker]

Ofcourse. But' date=' by having tv replays help umpires.. you would remove all forms of umpiring [b']bias.. good for you.. and bad for you...

Well the operative word is bias. I am willing to stick my neck out and say the umpire bias is a thing of past, specially with Neutral umpire. Sure you can have decisions from Bucknor that affects India, or David Sheffered for Pakistan but these umpires are well respected by other countries. There is no bias as such, mistakes yes.

So, it is about fairness.I know I will not get decisions which i shouldnt have got.. and would NOT have complained about.. but on the other hand.. I know that I will get decisions that I deserve to get, and would have complained if I had not got them. Makes sense?

Well who really complains about bad decisions Holy? How many times have you sat down, read a book by Sunil Gavaskar, Sobers, Botham or any of the all time greats and kept running into "mistakes" by umpires? If you read any of thse greats such incidences would be few and far between. I see what you mean by keeping it all fair but my assertion is the game is pretty fair as it is. Out of 1000 decisions given every year by umpires I daresay not more than 50 are debated. That is a very low number for me(5% or less) to contemplate technology. Of course if such numbers were ridiculously high like 400 or 500 or more it would be a different story. xxx

[talksport]

YES ....... Whether RIght or Wrong ....Atleast they are consistent and reduce bias for both Teams

[Guest dada_rocks]

Can we agree on the review of following day-light robbery in case of LBW (1) ball pitched outside leg stump given LBW (2) U are playing shot ball hits u outside line of off stump (3) u actually edge the ball on to pad I say if a bump catch can be reviewed why not these obvious cases . There is hardly any room for perspective in aforementioned cases.

[Predator_05]

No I did not ignore 04' Bangalore' date=' just that it is not always possible to look at every little instance(and maybe it would be a good idea to give someone benefit of the doubt rather than start assuming).[/quote'] Okay. Here is a record of every sh*tty umpiring decision in that test. Credit goes to Bheembhai for writing this;

I was a mute witness to a farce difficult to quantify. The sheer magnitude of the umpires' brazenness left me shocked, with the beneficiary being the liquor shop owner down the road. Being American, he never understood my plight as the Yanks were dishing it out, but that's another story for another day. The liquor did its job, and after almost 36 hours I now attempt to put it in words and estimate the damage. Here it is in chronological order. Australia First Innings 1. Justin "Lucky" Langer out plumb LBW off first ball of the match. Not given: Went on to score 52 (Bowden). 2. Darren Lehmann caught off the gloves. Not given: Runs added 10 (Bucknor). 3. Michael Clarke out plumb LBW on 92. Not given: Went on to score 151, 59 runs added (Bowden). Aussies make 474 in the first innings. Should have been no more than 474-52-59-10. That's just 353! India First Innings 1. Akash Chopra given out LBW first ball to an identical delivery as the one on which Langer was given not-out. Given out at 0. (Bucknor) 2. Irfan Pathan given out caught behind off pads after Mr. Sportsman Adam Gilchrist jumped up and down. Given out when well-set at 31 (Bowden). 3. Parthiv Patel - should have been out first ball LBW. Not given, went on to score 46 (Bucknor). The Indians made 246, but should have been more like 300. But we'll never really know. Let's just say we got a couple of rough ones and a lucky one, so we'll live with 246, fair enough. So, Australia 108 runs ahead after the 1st innings. Australia 2nd Innings 1. Damien Martyn - struck on the pads repeatedly by Harby and Kumble when in single digits. Worse, he was just padding up. Given not out. Went on to Score 45 (Bowden and Bucknor). 2. Gillespie - This one was hilarious. Given out as an afterthought after an initial firm No from Bucknor. Oh, but if you won't work with me I can't help you! For the uninitiated, Gillespie was walking on his own. Now why did Gillespie walk? This guy ain't a saint. We will soon know. Australia make 229. Should have made only 200. Austrlia now 308 ahead, 309 to win. India 2nd Innings 1. Sehwag out for a DUCK off the now famous Bat Before Wicket. Yes, given out for making contact with the best part of the bat. Given out LBW at 0 (Bowden). 2. Chopra out to a ball angling in from wide of Crease by Gillepie hitting the knee roll and going past legstump. Now I think this is were the "Pseudo honesty" thing comes in -- Gillespie, already having displayed his honesty by walking, gets a "Reward" from Mr. Bucknor. Speculation you may say, but methinks it was choreographed to perfection. Given out LBW at 5 (Bucknor). 3. VVS Laxman Out LBW to Warne stretching full length forward. Just the day before, the commentators were harping on how Hayden using his height takes out the LBW factor. I didn't see any small print "Valid only for Aussies", but what do I know ? Laxman given out LBW at 3 (Bowden). 4. Patel was hit outside the offStump. If Martin wasn't out, surely this wasn't. But then again, what do I know? Given out LBW at 4 (Bowden).

Lets see the Sydney 03 first' date=' shall we. You suggest Anil Kumble was denied numerous appeals. Here is what I pulled out from Cricinfo Archives(Ball by Ball commentary). I am going by the last day commentary(that would have mattered most, and anyway you did not specify much).[/quote'] During the course of the entire test match. Did you watch it ? It wasn't just that test either. What about Tendulkar's LBW @ Brisbane ?

If you can not get this simple fact that Aussies were cruising at 6 runs per over' date=' were 223/2 with two set batsmen and had a tail to follow that read - Lehmann, Bevan, Symonds, Hogg etc etc. then sure laugh at your own ignorance. And feel free to criticize umpires and not the Indian bowlers. [/quote'] Oh please. So a wicket at stage wouldn't have made a difference at all ? How do you know that. Do you want me to provide you with a few instances in which a team lost wickets from such supposedly comfortable positions ? I've already mentioned one of them - the England vs India ODI @ Kolkata from '02. England went from 220/4 at the 35th over mark to 259 all out. Matches are played over FIFTY overs, not 35 or 39. And i am ignorant ? LOL. I am not saying India bowled well, far from it - but Australia's batting performance wasn't exactly flawless either.

The FACT is that Aussies and West Indies dominated world cricket without worrying about umpires. Yes sure you will pick a Ponting incident here, a Waugh incident so?? At the end of the day they won at home, abroad, in front of domestic umpires as well as International is it not? And your point is Predz? Lets get to the bottom of this, shall we now. I am guessing that in the time west indies played about 50 series(about 2.5 series per year) and all you could dig up was one incident!! Now do you want me to show you how after EVERY series Indian team/fan/media goes bananas about umpiring? So who exactly is the whiny one. Yeah sure go ahead and try to beat the sh*t out of me...just make sure at the end you get a bit knowledgable too

Great. I present facts and you just dismiss them as aberrations. This is the height of ignorance. At least acknowledge the fact that those two teams took issues with umpiring just as much as any other - you know this is true. Another fact which you conveniently overlook is the advent of television replays. We have them for every ball now - wasn't the case back then, hence sh*tty umpiring wasn't brought to the attention of the public. Dude, here is a question for you - when was the last time the Indian team ever reacted to bad umpiring in that same way ? Indian cricketers have been gracious in defeat more often than not. You have guys like Vishwanath who called back an English batsman even after he was given out. and if you think the Indian media and the fans are the only ones who whine about umpiring (what an ill-informed this is, BTW) you are only KIDDING YOURSELF. Noticed how the Daily Mail antagonized the umpires for letting off Sreesanth ? Oh wait, that must be the ONLY incident i could "dig up" in the 80 years England have been playing test cricket...:D