riwi999 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Passion, I will concentrate only on this match and not discuss other matches. It was heading for middle of middle. Everybody could see it, except the umpires. It is true that the 2.5m rule is because of chance of technology errors creeping in with increased distance to project how ball would travel. So maybe if there was little more movement, it would hit off-middle or middle-leg, if not middle of middle. But it was definitely going to hit the stumps. There was no issue with the height either. It was Bowden's call finally to use his judgment based on input he got from third umpire. All three indicators were red. By the time he got his input, there was no question of doubt. Therefore no question of benefit of doubt. Everybody was surprised at the final decision. Bell had even begun walking after seeing the screen. Nasser Hussain, very highly regarded as a commentator, was blunt in his comments saying that whether it was 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5m, that should have been given out. Regardless of what the original decision was, it could have been overturned. But Bowden, for some reason known only to him, stuck to his original decision. Let's not dignify his decision by trying to defend the indefensible. Thank you.
asterix Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 The way batsmen like Peitersen, Bell, Gambhir etc. walk down the pitch, they would never ever be given LBW out..Just walk out and try to hit. If you miss, your pad is there..
Utalk Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 The way batsmen like Peitersen' date=' Bell, Gambhir etc. walk down the pitch, they would never ever be given LBW out..Just walk out and try to hit. If you miss, your pad is there..[/quote'] This.
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Can someone add "Pak" to his username? Becoz that username will sound familiar to everyone and they won't take him seriously. What makes you think I am from Pakistan because i dared to disagree
VRV Singh Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 How much more sure do you want to be about the ball's trajectory in this case? Do you want to apply the letter of the law with regards to a 'guide'? Distance from the stumps is not one of the main criteria required to be met for a successful referral -- it is down to the judgement of the umpires. How can Billy say there was doubt that it was hitting? You probably watched the football world cup when there was a handball on the goal-line and concluded it probably wasn't going in The precedent this sets means that such referrals will only be successful if the delivery meets hilariously narrow criteria. Is that an accurate reflection? Do we want to reduce cricket to a sport where common sense is overlooked in favour of some crazy theories about ball movement, just to satisfy UDRS?
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 The way batsmen like Peitersen' date=' Bell, Gambhir etc. walk down the pitch, they would never ever be given LBW out..Just walk out and try to hit. If you miss, your pad is there..[/quote'] Thats why i think 2.5 meters should be increase to 2.7 meters. Still if they wanna come forward, let them. A good spinner or fast bowlers will have their tongue dripping with excitement
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Passion, I will concentrate only on this match and not discuss other matches. It was heading for middle of middle. Everybody could see it, except the umpires. It is true that the 2.5m rule is because of chance of technology errors creeping in with increased distance to project how ball would travel. So maybe if there was little more movement, it would hit off-middle or middle-leg, if not middle of middle. But it was definitely going to hit the stumps. There was no issue with the height either. It was Bowden's call finally to use his judgment based on input he got from third umpire. All three indicators were red. By the time he got his input, there was no question of doubt. Therefore no question of benefit of doubt. Everybody was surprised at the final decision. Bell had even begun walking after seeing the screen. Nasser Hussain, very highly regarded as a commentator, was blunt in his comments saying that whether it was 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5m, that should have been given out. Regardless of what the original decision was, it could have been overturned. But Bowden, for some reason known only to him, stuck to his original decision. Let's not dignify his decision by trying to defend the indefensible. Thank you. Mate, you are getting confused. Let me ask you some thing. Do you agree that if batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch then umpire should give it not out unless he is sure where the ball is heading?
asterix Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 How much more sure do you want to be about the ball's trajectory in this case? Do you want to apply the letter of the law with regards to a 'guide'? Distance from the stumps is not one of the main criteria required to be met for a successful referral -- it is down to the judgement of the umpires. How can Billy say there was doubt that it was hitting? You probably watched the football world cup when there was a handball on the goal-line and concluded it probably wasn't going in The precedent this sets means that such referrals will only be successful if the delivery meets hilariously narrow criteria. Is that an accurate reflection? A better example would be the one during recent FIFA WC where the Ball hit the top cross bar, went in the goal line and then went out and the goal was not given.. Was it against England?
coffee_rules Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 What makes you think I am from Pakistan because i dared to disagree Why do you assume Pak means Pakistan. Pak is for Pakao as that is what you are doing in the op.
asterix Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Mate' date=' you are getting confused. Let me ask you some thing. Do you agree that if batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch then umpire should give it not out unless he is sure where the ball is heading?[/quote'] You mean after the third umpire confirmed the "3 hits" by UDRS, Bowden was still unsure?
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Why do you assume Pak means Pakistan. Pak is for Pakao as that is what you are doing in the op. And what does Pakao means?
satyam1729 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Mate' date=' you are getting confused. Let me ask you some thing. Do you agree that if batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch then umpire should give it not out unless he is sure where the ball is heading?[/quote'] Ball was hitting middle stump. Whether it is 3.5 or 4 meter does not matter.
HowardRoark Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 What makes you think I am from Pakistan because i dared to disagree Because your English is not good enough to assume that you are an English fan and that leaves only a Paki fan who would go to any distance to prove that Bell was not out or, in other words, India's POV is wrong.
riwi999 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Mate' date=' you are getting confused. Let me ask you some thing. Do you agree that if batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch then umpire should give it not out unless he is sure where the ball is heading?[/quote'] Yes, but that is exactly the input he got from the third umpire. If he had any doubt earlier, that doubt was removed after the referral. If Bowden still chose to stick to his original decision instead of using this input to reverse his decision, I consider it poor umpiring. And it really does not matter whether it is 2.5 or 2.7 or 3.0 or whatever. If you don't have technology, I can understand you have a doubt. Here you have the technology, it has been used to tell you that it is bang on target. And if you still choose to ignore it, what can I say? But then you are defending the indefensible here. And I think I may just be wasting my time trying to discuss this with you.
Passion Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 You mean after the third umpire confirmed the "3 hits" by UDRS' date=' Bowden was still unsure?[/quote'] Dude, benefit of doubt rule is one of the pillars of cricket laws. Technology can completely eliminate benefit of doubt when it comes to lbw by pinpointing where the ball is heading but aim of UDRS is not to change cricket laws. and this is what you need to understand. I agree one hundred percent that if a batsman is more than 2.7 meters down the pitch, then umpire should give it not out unless he is sure where the ball is heading. And if anybody refers it umpire orignal decision should stand. If you disagree then bring your suggestion forward. What is your suggestion?
ali0786 Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 WHAT A LOSER! This guy made this exact thread on PP. Word for word. http://www.**********.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=120421 In the thread on PP, he wrote in the end "Why are Indians complaining about this" and here he writes "why is everyone complaining about it"
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 WHAT A LOSER! This guy made this exact thread on PP. Word for word. http://www.**********.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=120421 Too bad. Your address was censored. An epic failure
ali0786 Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Too bad. Your address was censored. An epic failure No. People still know what I am talking about. It's you that are an epic loser for portraying as a different nationality and copying and pasting.
VRV Singh Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 This is what happens when technology steps all over sport. They have a legitimate system in place to help correct decisions but throw in some other krap to overcomplicate things and go completely against the purpose of UDRS in the first place. If you're going to get a ruler out and measure hypothetical distances then why have umpires in the first place?
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 No. People still know what I am talking about. It's you that are an epic loser for portraying as a different nationality and copying and pasting. I never portrayed as a different nationality because i never revealed my own nationality. For me nationality is just a travel document one must have. So another epic failure, or shall i say epic epic failure
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