satyam1729 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Ball was hitting middle stump. Even he was walking to the pavilion. He was clearly out.
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 How was bell out. He was far down the pitch which means it shouldnt be given out unless billy was hundred percent about the trajectory of the ball. He wasnt and benefit of doubt should go to batsman. Are you guyz seriously saying the benefit of doubt should go to bowlers. Come on guyz, be neutral. Would you have been saying what you are saying now if sachin was in bell place???
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Ball was hitting middle stump. Even he was walking to the pavilion. He was clearly out. One question, YES it was hitting middle stump but he was far down the pitch and benefit of doubt must go to batsman unless billy was hundred percent about the trajectory of the ball. Do you even understand what lbw is? Are you seriously saying that we should get rid of benefit of doubt? I smell prejudice here
satyam1729 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision." Billy bowden doesn't have common sense. There was no doubt at all. So why benefit .
satyam1729 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 How was bell out. He was far down the pitch which means it shouldnt be given out unless billy was hundred percent about the trajectory of the ball. He wasnt and benefit of doubt should go to batsman. Are you guyz seriously saying the benefit of doubt should go to bowlers. Come on guyz' date=' be neutral. Would you have been saying what you are saying now if sachin was in bell place???[/quote'] The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision." Billy bowden doesn't have common sense.
asterix Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 It was not "as far down" as it's been projected..He was playing a sweep shot.. It's not that he was walking down the pitch like Peitersen.. Bowden in any case doesn't gives LBWs in favour of India unless it's a PLUMB decision..
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision." Billy bowden doesn't have common sense. There was no doubt at all. So why benefit . Mate, listen. You are being really bias. Sadly I am not hypocrite like you. Would you have been saying what you are saying now is sachin was at ian bell place? Umpire have to be consistent in their decision making. We dont wanna see a situation where umpire make two different decision in the same match for the same appeals. To be consistent, if batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch, umpire original decision should stand no matter what that is. There was enough doubt in billy mind in original decision to be given not out. Even if the ball is hitting middle of the middle stump, UMPIRE ORIGINAL DECISION MUST STAND
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 It was not "as far down" as it's been projected..He was playing a sweep shot.. It's not that he was walking down the pitch like Peitersen.. Bowden in any case doesn't gives LBWs in favour of India unless it's a PLUMB decision.. So if you think that 2.5 meters should be increase to 3 meters then say that. Dont be stupid enough to criticize UDRS for india poor show with ball. I bet tommorow you will be praising UDRS if sachin is repreived in the exact same scenario. Unfortunatley, i dont suffer from a disease called hypocrisy
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 and by the way where is the spell check. lol
satyam1729 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Mate, listen. You are being really bias. Sadly I am not hypocrite like you. Would you have been saying what you are saying now is sachin was at ian bell place? Umpire have to be consistent in their decision making. We dont wanna see a situation where umpire make two different decision in the same match for the same appeals. To be consistent, if batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch, umpire original decision should stand no matter what that is. There was enough doubt in billy mind in original decision to be given not out. Even if the ball is hitting middle of the middle stump, UMPIRE ORIGINAL DECISION MUST STAND Dhoni was given out against Pakistan . So why can't Bell be ?
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Dhoni was given out against Pakistan . So why can't Bell be ? Which match are you referring. Was UDRS available there?
satyam1729 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Which match are you referring. Was UDRS available there? What has UDRS got to do with the lbw rules ?
asterix Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 So if you think that 2.5 meters should be increase to 3 meters then say that. Dont be stupid enough to criticize UDRS for india poor show with ball. I bet tommorow you will be praising UDRS if sachin is repreived in the exact same scenario. Unfortunatley' date=' i dont suffer from a disease called hypocrisy[/quote'] You are one hell of a "Passionate" fan..:winky:
VRV Singh Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Shut up you moran...you cannot accuse someone else of bias when you come in with a one-eyed view such as this.. You have not considered the 'cricketing principles' stipulation cited in the thread and instead waffle on about some other baloney If the umpire had applied this stipulation correctly, do you agree that Bell would be out?
Tendulkar_Bhai Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 He was OUT...are you saying u disagree with Gavaskar, Shastri and the rest of the commentators?
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Shut up you moran...you cannot accuse someone else of bias when you come in with a one-eyed view such as this.. You have not considered the 'cricketing principles' stipulation cited in the thread and instead waffle on about some other baloney If the umpire had applied this stipulation correctly, do you agree that Bell would be out? Instead of bringing your argument forward, you resort to personal attacks. PATHETIC
Utalk Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 I dont buy this too far down to be given out.If its hitting the stumps its out.Use to hate it when in 80s and 90s batsmen padded the spinners away all day without a worry about getting out lbw.
mastana Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 and by the way where is the spell check. lol Can someone add "Pak" to his username? Becoz that username will sound familiar to everyone and they won't take him seriously.
asterix Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Passionate fans do need "spell checks" though..He appeares to be very angry it seems..Calling others hypocrites, "poking 6 feet long tongue" etc..
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 He was OUT...are you saying u disagree with Gavaskar' date=' Shastri and the rest of the commentators?[/quote'] Well, It was a close decision. Out or not out, both decisions would have been right. Personally i dont think umpire should give it out if batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch unless umpire is sure where the ball was heading. What i will agree is changing 2.5 meters to 2.7 meters perhaps
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