Funny, Us Indian Fans

[The Outsider]

Are you being deliberately naive or what? You have never heard of this concept through three decades of living' date=' I take it?[/quote'] No I am not being deliberately naive, you are being deliberately unreasonable because you have not bothered to reply to the majority of my posts which have taken a hack at your point.

[Dhondy]

Dhondy, whats up. I have never seen you so vociferous and attacking; very unlike your nature. From a simple logic that we lost due to bad decisions at Sydney and here we won fair and square ( IND: TENDULKAR, DHONI GIVEN OUT - AUS: HARRY POTTER, SYMONDS, MARGINAL HUSSEY ) So where's the problem Did the OTT celebrations tick you off

Yeah, unfortunately, I appear to have lost my temper on this thread, for which I apologize to Talksport, Bossbhai, Living & Shwetabh. I really ought to stick to watching cricket and avoid commenting on it. It's not as if I am an authority or get paid for it.

[Bumper]

To Dhondy's credit, top dog bias does happen in sports. Michael Jordan routinely gets calls in his favor, that opponent point guards wont. But a fast paced contact sport such as basketball (where the referees keep running around), judgement/discretion will have to come into play. In cricket, such biases can be kept minimal if the umpires want to. There are only two or three decisions an umpire has to make (nicks, LBWs, no ball). The rules are fairly simple & straight fwd. Much of the subjectivitiy can be eliminated. The rules of cricket even simplify matters further. When in doubt, rule in favor of the batsmen. So the case for bias in cricket umpiring, is very weak.

[Rajiv]

Yeah, unfortunately, I appear to have lost my temper on this thread, for which I apologize to Talksport, Bossbhai, Living & Shwetabh. I really ought to stick to watching cricket and avoid commenting on it. It's not as if I am an authority or get paid for it.

You won the best writer award, so you better get paid for it ( praises ) :hatsoff: I acknowledge your points but was taken back by the roughed up comments

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Its all part of MB manners Rajeev. Till date, I have hardly seen more than one or two posters, who have kept their kool thru out their MB life. There is no vitriol in the thread, just some strong reactions from passionate fans. Thats all! IMO, there is nothing wrong in it. It all contributes to the debate IMO.

[The Outsider]

To Dhondy's credit, top dog bias does happen in sports. Michael Jordan routinely gets calls in his favor, that opponent point guards wont. But a fast paced contact sport such as basketball (where the referees keep running around), judgement/discretion will have to come into play.

Yes it does happen and Australia have benefitted from it many times. Your point about reducing it in cricket is also a good one. My problem is with Dhondy's logic attributing the one bad decision we got against Symonds and one marginal one against Hussey on the same day as Ponting got away with two very close leg before shouts to India being the top dog yesterday. If India were top dogs yesterday, then so were they at Sydney when Australia were 130/6. In that case, Dhondy is attributing Australia getting decisions in their favor to Australia being top dogs. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me at all.

[aussiefan]

Talk about delusion at it's very best. The Kappa dismissal was found to be not out after many many replays. It does not enter the same ballpark of the howlers at Sydney as far as umpiring decisions go. And Sydney was not just about umpiring mistakes. It was about a procedural breakdown which I have highlighted at many places.

swhetab, i cut out some comments from my original post about indian team and supporters in interests of moving along to next game... perhaps you could also tone down your responses...no need for first sentence....just say you disagree... as a well known indian once said, "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress."

[The Outsider]

scwhetab, i cut my post down from some caustic comments about indian team and supporters in interests of moving along to next game... perhaps you could also tone down your responses...no need for first sentence....just say you disagree... as a well known indian once said, "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress."

Didn't know you have had a change of heart vis a vis the Indian team and its supporters. If that's the case point taken.

[Bumper]

I dont think any umpire keeps the seed of the teams in mind. But they do get influenced by BIG names. If a Warney or a McGrath who has taken 500+ wickets in Tests, appeal 4 times in 2 overs and stage a drama about it, it does weigh in on the umpire's minds. Given that the technology exposes umpiring errors regularly, umpires start to doubt themselves, as many decisions that look reasonable in live motion, looks ridiculously incompetent in slow motion. If i understand Dhondy correctly, this is what he is implying. Umpires succumb to the star power. But even if we entertain this theory, why do the umps not extend the same courtesy to the subcontinental stars ? We seem to get mugged by umpires a lot more frequently than the white blokes. May be there is more to it than mere top dog bias.

[Dhondy]

Yes it does happen and Australia have benefitted from it many times. Your point about reducing it in cricket is also a good one. My problem is with Dhondy's logic attributing the one bad decision we got against Symonds and one marginal one against Hussey on the same day as Ponting got away with two very close leg before shouts to India being the top dog yesterday. If India were top dogs yesterday' date=' then so were they at Sydney when Australia were 130/6. In that case, Dhondy is attributing Australia getting decisions in their favor to Australia being top dogs. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me at all.[/quote'] It makes complete sense if you recognize that this happened in Sydney in the first innings, with the match wide open. Here at Perth, everybody and his dog knew that scoring 413 in the 4th would require a world record effort by Australia. India were heavy favourites, and the umpires were influenced by that.

[observer1]

Yeah, unfortunately, I appear to have lost my temper on this thread, for which I apologize to Talksport, Bossbhai, Living & Shwetabh. I really ought to stick to watching cricket and avoid commenting on it. It's not as if I am an authority or get paid for it.

you forgot me, you dimwitted monkey. i demand an apology too

[The Outsider]

It makes complete sense if you recognize that this happened in Sydney in the first innings, with the match wide open. Here at Perth, everybody and his dog knew that scoring 413 in the 4th would require a world record effort by Australia. India were heavy favourites, and the umpires were influenced by that.

Alright, let's say I buy into the first and last innings argument. What about Sydney 2004? Similar situation and opposite results. Yes, we might have won despite that if we were not playing a liability behind the stumps but that's not the discussion here. And as I said, India did get the Symonds one going their way. For the Hussey dismissal, hawkeye was not shown and at first view it looked out to the commentators as well. Moreover, Ponting got away twice earlier on the same day.

[Dhondy]

Alright, let's say I buy into the first and last innings argument. What about Sydney 2004? Similar situation and opposite results. Yes, we might have won despite that if we were not playing a liability behind the stumps but that's not the discussion here. And as I said, India did get the Symonds one going their way. For the Hussey dismissal, hawkeye was not shown and at first view it looked out to the commentators as well. Moreover, Ponting got away twice earlier on the same day.

Hawkeye showed Hussey's ball sailing well over the stumps. And only one of the Ponting dismissals looked out.

[Dhondy]

you forgot me' date=' you dimwitted monkey. i demand an apology too[/quote'] Apology? I am sending a thank you letter. My mom called me a hanuman growing up, so monkey is a step up the evolution ladder.

[Bumper]

I dont know Dhondy, i find the umpires siding with the dominant team, a bit far fetched. Something doesnt add up. However i agree that they keep the star power of the players into account, as they get a lot more negative publicity if they blunder against super stars.

[The Outsider]

Hawkeye showed Hussey's ball sailing well over the stumps. And only one of the Ponting dismissals looked out.

Okay, I might have missed the Hussey hawkeye but it does not answer my question about Sydney 2004 and the top dog reaping benefits. One of Ponting's dismissal was plumb and the other marginal, like Hussey's. Australia got one poor one(Symonds) and one marginal decision(Hussey) against them, so did India (the two Ponting appeals).

[aussiefan]

Didn't know you have had a change of heart vis a vis the Indian team and its supporters. If that's the case point taken.

not a change of heart in some cases but i wont be negative about people unnecessarily...neither should you....thats my point

[Dhondy]

Okay, I might have missed the Hussey hawkeye but it does not answer my question about Sydney 2004 and the top dog reaping benefits. One of Ponting's dismissal was plumb and the other marginal, like Hussey's. Australia got one poor one(Symonds) and one marginal decision(Hussey) against them, so did India (the two Ponting appeals).

Rogers, first innings was marginal. Pathan was LBW to Johnson. Hussey wasn't marginal. Ball was well over.

[The Outsider]

Rogers, first innings was marginal. Pathan was LBW to Johnson. Hussey wasn't marginal. Ball was well over.

Don't agree Hussey was poor. Looked out when it hit and the commentators reaction was also out at the time. Umpire was not looking at the haweye. But anyhow, moving the discussion forward, let's say Australia copped two bad decisions against them and one bad decision and a marginal one in their favor on the last day. Now, how does this compare to the last day of Sydney 2004 where I remember India copping at least 2 poor and 2 marginal ones as top dogs.