Close-in catch raises big doubts on Day 4

[Feed]

Even before stumps were drawn on Day 4 of India's must-win third Test against Sri Lanka, there was a lot of action in the match referee's cubicle. More... Close-in catch raises big doubts on Day 4 Amol Karhadkar, Hindustan Times Colombo, August 07, 2010 Even before stumps were drawn on Day 4 of India's must-win third Test against Sri Lanka, there was a lot of action in the match referee's cubicle. Soon after Murali Vijay was controversially adjudged out after the on-field umpires consulted the third umpire over a catch taken, India's coach Gary Kirsten barged into the match referee's cubicle. It was learnt that Kirsten sought a clarification about how Vijay was ruled out when replays were inconclusive. While match referee Andy Pycroft offered no explanation, third umpire Kumar Dharmasena, himself a former cricketer, apparently explained that he referred the decision back to the on-field umps since the replays were “inconclusive”. Vijay, with three overs remaining in the day's play, clipped Suraj Randiv off his legs. Mahela Jayawardene, standing at backward short-leg, lunged forward to claim a catch and the Lankans started celebrating. But the India opener was not sure if Jayawardene had caught it cleanly, so he waited at the crease. Umpire Simon Taufel then walked to Rod Tucker at square leg and after having a brief discussion consulted Dharmasena on the walkie-talkie. Since none of the camera angles was conclusive for him to make up his mind, the former Sri Lanka off-spinner asked Taufel to make up his mind. And then Taufel raised his finger. It was interesting, especially since Taufel had not given his verdict before consulting the third umpire. Given that the on-field umpire was not sure, and hence consulted his colleague who had the benefit of replays and technology, common sense suggested that doubts still existed and Vijay should have not been ruled out. But that wasn't to be.

[Holysmoke]

Dharmasena again. Fecked us last time around. Doing it again. He has a BIG TIME bias for SL. Keep an eye out for his future doings when SL is playing if you dont believe me.

[thevortex]

Well, I dont think it is Dharmasena who is at fault here. Technology just was not clear enough to make a decision. And so, the umpire did as best as he could.

[asterix]

Well, I dont think it is Dharmasena who is at fault here. Technology just was not clear enough to make a decision. And so, the umpire did as best as he could.

In that case the 'benefit of doubt' should always go to the batsman and not to the fielding team. Dhammasena is baised..

[kabira]

^exactly. Any doubt, goes to batsman. But I think Dharmasena told Taufel, I am not sure and it was On field umpires decision.

[thevortex]

In that case the 'benefit of doubt' should always go to the batsman and not to the fielding team. Dhammasena is baised..

And there exactly is the problem I have with the new fangled technology based rules. This benefit of doubt aspect is being axed, culled or whatever else you want to call it. Hawkeye thinks that the ball would kiss the stumps - you are out. It think it might miss the stumps by a whisker - you are in. Cricket was not played with millimetres. Nor should it be. And benefit of doubt should go to the batsmen. Now who is to instruct the machines on what this concept is? :)