Gunner_Mania Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/451582.html This should give a lot of heartburn for vortex :P But it appears from that article that they are not going to go backwards anytime soon ... regardless of what our Babus say and do. Which is a good news . Hopefully it stays that way He will not have that big a problem with it in One dayers. His grouse is around its use in Test. Lets hope our babu commitee which is the World Cup hosting committe or whatever its called doesn't shoot it down. Also remember Pawar will be ICC President by then.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Tell me dont you guys ever feel that this Hawkeye thing should have been implemented in limited overs internationals first? Why all the hypocrisy on the part of the ICC? And why are we swallowing it all readily?
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Again you go for that Australian angle! Lets agree to disagree. On the one hand you talk of increasing the viewability, pace and result-producing capability of Test matches. On the other hand you dump all time-consuming technology on it. Where is the sense in that?
graphic23 Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Because thevortex, losing 5-to-10 minutes of time in a 3 hour time span amounts to a LOT more than say losing 5-10 times in a game spanning 5 days, which also happens to be the premier form of the game. Hell, Tendulkar's 143 was cut short by Bucknor in Sharjah but you seldom see anyone complaining about that. But the dismissals in 2004 in Australia or in 2008, or 2004 vs. Pakistan, etc. - they have kind of imprinted a bitterness that is impossible to get rid of because in every one of those instances, he looked like he was going to make a huge score. Not to mention the several awful decisions that came his way in 2007 in England (the 91 where Taufel cut short what was going to be a very good knock, Aleem Dar cut off Tendulkar in the 7th ODI which was the difference between say 250 and the 180-odd we ended up with, the 99 where it touched his arm-guard and not his glove in the 2nd one day, etc). I realize I included plenty of decisions in ODIs but seriously, I value a Tendulkar hundred at Perth (which he was well on his way to get in 2008 before a terrible decision cut short innings at 71) than say a 100 vs. England at the Oval.
Lord Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 great news!it was baffling why they dont use it in ODIs.we dont want a team to be knocked out on basis of wrong decision
Lord Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Because thevortex, losing 5-to-10 minutes of time in a 3 hour time span amounts to a LOT more than say losing 5-10 times in a game spanning 5 days, which also happens to be the premier form of the game. Hell, Tendulkar's 143 was cut short by Bucknor in Sharjah but you seldom see anyone complaining about that. But the dismissals in 2004 in Australia or in 2008, or 2004 vs. Pakistan, etc. - they have kind of imprinted a bitterness that is impossible to get rid of because in every one of those instances, he looked like he was going to make a huge score. Not to mention the several awful decisions that came his way in 2007 in England (the 91 where Taufel cut short what was going to be a very good knock, Aleem Dar cut off Tendulkar in the 7th ODI which was the difference between say 250 and the 180-odd we ended up with, the 99 where it touched his arm-guard and not his glove in the 2nd one day, etc). I realize I included plenty of decisions in ODIs but seriously, I value a Tendulkar hundred at Perth (which he was well on his way to get in 2008 before a terrible decision cut short innings at 71) than say a 100 vs. England at the Oval. agree but ODIs like WC,CT games r also crucial n they need UDRS.plus i dont think time is wasted that much in ODIs.just make the lunch break 10 mins shorter
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 What is PC, Bossbhai? I am also one who believes that Test matches are fine the way they are. I was talking about general opinion. And I know we are not going to agree about the umpires part. You seem to believe that they umpires mess up on purpose. I dont. And no, Graphic23, the excuse of time consumed alone cannot be and should not be held against the fact that ICC decided in its infinite wisdom to try out Hawkeye at the highest level of the game to start with at the international level. Is 5 minutes more important than getting the right decision no matter what format of the game we are talking about?
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Oh, thanks, should have guessed :). I still think what Bucknor and Benson did in that abominable Test was a result of inefficacy more than a deliberately malignant attempt to put down India. Australians have a great record when it comes to getting on the right side of the umpires. Somebody like Shane Warne - he survived being banned or suspended so many times. I have never seen anybody appeal more enthusiastically or aggressively than that bloke. And remember that incident where he threw the ball right at Pieterson purposely? The Aussies have that body language and the aura which tends to bully a few umpires. And that is sad. Plus the Aussies have nothing to be proud about in this case. That is just the way things are. Even recently there was this incident of Ponting pushing Bravo mid pitch. What attention did it get? Even from members here? And that Cricinfo summary that you so trust - it did not even mention that incident. Do you think anybody else would have gotten away without mention? That is just how it is. And I am not even talking about the Mcgrath - Sarwan incident. The only incident even more dastardly on a cricket field was that of Wessels going at Kapil Dev with his cricket bat! Arguably this is at the same level as Harbhajan slapping Sreesanth.
Gunner_Mania Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 http://www.pulselive.com/client/cricket/iplt20/hawkeye.html Hawkeye for IPL. I am sure a few opportunities will arrive for debate:)
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Simple - bossbhai. Nobody bullies the umpires into giving decisions quite like the Aussies. I thought that was implicit in my last post! I stated the obvious when I said 'thats how things are'. If you want to change it, start off by advising ICC that the Australians too are punishable for offenses ranging from dissent to player abuse. Then we shall have progress. Otherwise, 'that is how things are'.
Lord Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Aussies bully the umpires,but they cant bully the Hawkeye,can they?
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The bowlers, Bossbhai. Non Aussie bowlers do not have it in them to bully umpires the way their Aussie brethren do.
Sachinism Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The bowlers' date=' Bossbhai. Non Aussie bowlers do not have it in them to bully umpires the way their Aussie brethren do.[/quote'] So bowlers are supposed to bully umpires to get wickets?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now