Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Are you a mind reader? How do you know what i would agree or disagree if that happens for us? Let me throw that back in your face.. if it happens to your team you would not agree... prove me wrong. I will stand by this law no matter what. Mark my words. I can bet my life that you will never ever find hypocrisy or contradiction in my posts.
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Bell declared himself out after he saw the replay and started walking off. This is irrelavant to what i am saying. Did you not read my last post. If a batsman is more than 2.7 meters down the pitch, it should be given not out unless umpire is sure about the trajectory of the ball. And if you refer it, umpire original decision should stand. Now tell me which part of it that you dont understand
vvvslaxman Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 I will stand by this law no matter what. Mark my words. I can bet my life that you will never ever find hypocrisy or contradiction in my posts. Basicall you would call other hypocrites without any substantiation. But we have to accept that you are not hypocrite without any proof. No Thanks.
vvvslaxman Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 This is irrelavant to what i am saying. Did you not read my last post. If a batsman is more than 2.7 meters down the pitch, it should be given not out unless umpire is sure about the trajectory of the ball. And if you refer it, umpire original decision should stand. Now tell me which part of it that you dont understand No.. there is exception in that rule to over rule that 2.7 meter. Nasser hussain was explaining that . To quote him "If there is any time we need to we use that exception this is the time. It was hitting middle of middle stump". You are suggesting as if batsman can play foot ball once they are 2.7 meter out of the crease. That is pure nonsense.
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Basicall you would call other hypocrites without any substantiation. But we have to accept that you are not hypocrite without any proof. No Thanks. Well,......hmmmmm....Dude, who is this girl on your avatar :--D
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 No.. there is exception in that rule to over rule that 2.7 meter. Nasser hussain was explaining that . To quote him "If there is any time we need to we use that exception this is the time. It was hitting middle of middle stump". You are suggesting as if batsman can play foot ball once they are 2.7 meter out of the crease. That is pure nonsense. Any intelligent bowlers will have his tongue dripping with excitement if batsman is playing him 2.7 meters down the pitch. Ball a wide if you are a spinner or a fast bowlers can just easily break his teeth
vvvslaxman Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Any intelligent bowlers will have his tongue dripping with excitement if batsman is playing him 2.7 meters down the pitch. Ball a wide if you are a spinner or a fast bowlers can just easily break his teeth There is no law that states what a bowler should do when a batsman is 2.7 meter down. Is there a law that states bowler cannot bowl straight if batsman is down the wicket. Do you know lot of times batsman given leg before for not attempting a shot and padding up even if it doesn't hit stumps? How do they do? You are basically preventing the ball from hitting thestumps in an illegal way. Going by your illogical theory all you have to do is just attempt a sweep shot making sure your feet is 2.7 meter out. I clearly remember Dravid was given out when he was well over 2.5 meter outside the crease in srilanka.
Clarke Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 This has been debated endlessly. Why is 2.5m doubtful and 2.45m isn't ? Its all opinions and nothing else. You can carry on with all the chest thumping on your POV while pretending to be neutral but that doesn't make you right all the time. All that we need is a scientific validation of Hawk Eye, it would end all existing debates. Predict a few thousand samples and compare the predictions with the actual path. Until that happens, there will be threads on every controversial lbw decision.
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 There is no law that states what a bowler should do when a batsman is 2.7 meter down. Is there a law that states bowler cannot bowl straight if batsman is down the wicket. Do you know lot of times batsman given leg before for not attempting a shot and padding up even if it doesn't hit stumps? How do they do? You are basically preventing the ball from hitting thestumps in an illegal way. Going by your illogical theory all you have to do is just attempt a sweep shot making sure your feet is 2.7 meter out. I clearly remember Dravid was given out when he was well over 2.5 meter outside the crease in srilanka. Dude, i swear down i ll lose my mind if i have to type this again. If a batsman is more than 2.7 meters down the pitch, it should be given not out unless umpire is sure about the trajectory of the ball. And if you refer it, umpire original decision should stand. So a batsman can be given out if umpire is sure, So dravid or any one else for that matter can be given out. But umpire original decision should stand if you refer it. But its really hard to argue with you when you dont even understand what im saying
Rajiv Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 ..not sure why folks are bothering to reply, when it happens to the opposition - there are theories, when it happens to your own team, its conspiracies. Fk it match done and dusted
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 This has been debated endlessly. Why is 2.5m doubtful and 2.45m isn't ? Its all opinions and nothing else. You can carry on with all the chest thumping on your POV while pretending to be neutral but that doesn't make you right all the time. All that we need is a scientific validation of Hawk Eye, it would end all existing debates. Predict a few thousand samples and compare the predictions with the actual path. Until that happens, there will be threads on every controversial lbw decision. Its because some people make it complicated . UDRS shoud eliminate all controversies. But people blame UDRS on their own incompetency to understand UDRS
vvvslaxman Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Dude, i swear down i ll lose my mind if i have to type this again. If a batsman is more than 2.7 meters down the pitch, it should be given not out unless umpire is sure about the trajectory of the ball. And if you refer it, umpire original decision should stand. So a batsman can be given out if umpire is sure, So dravid or any one else for that matter can be given out. But umpire original decision should stand if you refer it. But its really hard to argue with you when you dont even understand what im saying No... if there are 3 reds.. decision can be reversed. That 2.5 meter rule needs to be used on case by case. In this case ball was hitting the middle of middle stump. There are no excuses not to overturn the decision unless you are completely biased or an idiot. In this case Bowden was both. Earlier there was a confrontation between him and Zaheer. Bowden was clearly unhappy. It just came back to bite them. It was nothing but bias.
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 No... if there are 3 reds.. decision can be reversed. That 2.5 meter rule needs to be used on case by case. In this case ball was hitting the middle of middle stump. There are no excuses not to overturn the decision unless you are completely biased or an idiot. In this case Bowden was both. Earlier there was a confrontation between him and Zaheer. Bowden was clearly unhappy. It just came back to bite them. It was nothing but bias. When one say case by case, im pretty sure one means that as long as decision is in our favour, we will accept it but if the decision is against us, then its unacceptable.
vvvslaxman Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 When one say case by case' date=' im pretty sure one means that as long as decision is in our favour, we will accept it but if the decision is against us, then its unacceptable.[/quote'] In this case any other team should get the decision right. Why would even English commies insist that it should have been given out. If an umpire is giving a horrible decision against your team member you should not question that just because you can be "biased". what a load of crap.
Passion Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 In this case any other team should get the decision right. Why would even English commies insist that it should have been given out. If an umpire is giving a horrible decision against your team member you should not question that just because you can be "biased". what a load of crap. Im off dude. Got to go to work tomorrow. I guess i will have to wait until sachin wins the match for india because of this rule to make you agree with me and dont worry i will still be supporting this law. Speak to you tomorrow if i dont get banned by tomorrow.
Manny_Pacquiao Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 What an Idiot. That does not even make sense. I have always supported Pak here in every thread and I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a Pakistani unlike you. I feel sorry for you man. losers like this usman_sheikh are clearly disgracing your country. the guy cant even admit that he is a paki. not that it matters.
panesarv Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Even the English commentators (Nasser & company) were baffled. The rule is that in case the batsman is hit 2.5 metres' date=' it's up to the umpire's discretion and it was clear to all those who saw, including Bell, that the decision should have been out. Wasn't UDRS put in place to avoid these kind of decisions right? I think the system is idiotic - how can 3rd umpire simply provide a recommendation and it's still up to the umpire in the middle to decide whether the decision should be overruled or not? [b']Do you think an umpire would be willing to admit his mistake and overrule his own decision, especially an umpire with as much ego as Billy Bowden who thinks crowd come to watch him umpire and not the game. +1 I am sure the umpire already knows how long forward the batsman was. He doesn't need a number to figure it out. He would no way reverse his decision. Stupid rule.
gaurav92 Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 If that wasn't out I am not sure what is the definition of plumb LBW :headshake:
gaurav92 Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Neither does these "passion"ate fans. Yesterday we had a couple of fans telling us it cannot be given out because it pitched outside offside. :haha:
King Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Fix this issue the next world cup and now please move on. The game is done and dusted. It was a good game of cricket and India were also lucky to have gotten away with a tie. Clearly England stuffed it up in the last few overs otherwise India would have lost this quite easily. Be happy about the tie and have some gratitude for having watched a fantastic game like this otherwise this sport would have been dead a long time ago.
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