Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling; ICC reacts

[Karan114]

Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling ESPNcricinfo staff February 27, 2011 India don't like the UDRS and one moment during the thrilling World Cup group match against England in Bangalore will have given them even more reason to distrust the technology when Ian Bell survived an lbw referral. It left MS Dhoni cursing the system as he called it an adulteration of human decision making and technlogy. At the start of the 25th over of their gargangtuan run-chase, England were coasting more than 20 ahead of India in comparison. Then Yuvraj Singh struck Bell, who was stretching foward attempting one of those adventurous paddle sweeps, on the pad but umpire Billy Bowden turned down the appeal. The Indians did what they have been avoiding doing for more than two years - turn to the decision review. The slow motion replay showed up on the giant screen and to the naked eye it met with most criteria: not a no ball, hitting in line of the stumps and striking the wicket. The crowd roared with delight expecting Bell to be on his way and he had already begun his dejected trek back, supposedly out for 17 to complete another unfullfilled one-day innings. Until, that is, his captain began to holler him to a halt halfway to the dressing room. The last criteria that was showing up on the screen indicated the distance that the ball would have to travel from point of impact to the stumps was more than 2.5 metres, a rule most on the ground did not know about. Not even England. The 2.5m rule has been put into place because it is from that point onwards that the precision of the ball tracking technology begins to reduce. That last piece of information was conveyed to Bowden by the third umpire and he stuck to his original decision. Not out. Too far down the pitch. Dhoni was far from amused, finding it difficult to accept that both technology and human intervention played a part in coming to the decision which allowed Bell to survive and make another 52 runs. "Adulteration is quite bad, whether it is natural or technology," he said. "I think the adulteration of technology with human intention was the reason why we didn't get that wicket. Hopefully next time, it will be [either] technology or human intention [in the UDRS]." The 2.5m ruling surprised most of the players, the England captain Andrew Strauss being informed about it during the review itself. "Apparently if you are that far down the pitch it needs to be hitting middle stump to be given out. I didn't know that was part of the rules," he said. "Obviously Belly was lucky to get away with it." When he was asked whether he had known about the 2.5m rule Dhoni didn't hide his frustration. "Well, if the Hawkeye says it is going to hit the stump, and it's going to hit the middle stump, then [there is] no reason why the distance really matters," he said. He went on to recall a dismissal of his own when he had stepped outside his crease and was given lbw after he was hit on the shin. "UDRS was not there...If I can be given out, why not other batsmen? So whether it is 2.5m or 2.4 or 2.6, it is pretty difficult for me. What I saw was the ball hitting the stump. After that, the rest of the rule book is rested with the third and the fourth umpire. Whatever they decided, we said, 'Okay, whatever they decide, we get on with the game'." The ICC playing conditions relating to this part of the system come under Process of Consultation No. 3.3 (i). It states that if a 'not out' decision is being reviewed and the distance from impact to the stumps is greater than 2.5m then the third umpire passes this information to the on-field official along with: the distance from the wickets of the point of impact with the batsman, the approximate distance from the point of pitching to the point of impact, and whether the ball is predicted to the hit the stumps. 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." © ESPN EMEA Ltd. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/current/story/503427.html

[Ultimate_Game]

Don't blame Dhoni. I wanted to break the TV set once I found out that Bell was given "not out" and called back even though he was happy to walk off. ICC will have to do a lot of of explaining to do to bring BCCI and India on board the UDRS bangwagon.

[HowardRoark]

A wicket of Bell might have preponed the English collapse, so Dhoni has every reason to feel robbed.

[Karan114]

A wicket of Bell might have preponed the English collapse' date=' so Dhoni has every reason to feel robbed.[/quote'] For sure. Collingwood has been in dreadful form for a year and Prior is pretty rubbish in ODIs. It was a game changing decision for sure.

[asterix]

It's fair to say that Billy Joker again managed to save another of India's opposition. If this Joker gonna officiate all of India's matches then we are doomed anyway.. Bell went on to add 52 more runs and his partneship with Strauss was a decisive one.. Joker even went out of the way to call back Bell who was walking off.

[cowboysfan]

it is a collossal ****up,the indian team has further ammunution to never use UDRS in tests if this stupid rule is in place.you either trust the technology or you dont,there is no half measures.

[Passion]

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???

[HowardRoark]

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'] Is there any reason why you are spamming the whole forum with this copy paste crap?

[satyam1729]

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'] Mate you are trying too hard in every thread. Even Ian Bell was walking back to the pavillion after watching replays 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.

[yoda]

You either use technology or don't. This half a@ss approach is pretty much meaningless.

[debachat]

You either use technology or don't. This half a@ss approach is pretty much meaningless.

Agreed! That is exactly right! Either let umpires make decision based on the data points (hit in line, pitched in line, etc. etc.) or let the UDRS calculate the trajectory based on the factors and force the decision on the umpire. Even if the ball grazes the stump, it needs to be out. Is this to difficult to implement to protect on-field umpire's ego?

[Ultimate_Game]

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'] By your definition LBW should never be given as umpire can never be "100% sure". Given the data (where the ball pitched, whether it hit the batsman in line etc.), umpire will ALWAYS need to make an educated guess whether the ball would have hit the stumps or not. Let me re-iterate, you can't be 100% sure because you are trying to guess the trajectory of the ball after it hits the batsman's pad and it can never be determined 100% that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. Maybe accuracy could be 98% accurate but never 100%.

[ganeshran]

It should be the case as in the runouts.. Once you refer it, its the third umpire who makes the decision. Rules like the 2.5 meters and pitching outside leg stump are guidance rules which help the umpires make lbw decisions in real time. Once you have the replays and hawk eye technology, and the whole trajectory of the ball can be mapped to a hilt, whats the point of these guidance rules??

[Ranjha]

If hawk eye says ita hitting the stumps, then it's hitting te stump. If we are using technology, we don't need human intervention. Well said Dhoni FU Billy Almost cost us the game. But we should have still won.

[kabira]

where was the doubt?? All the 3 were Red. Ball was hitting the stump for sure. No doubt there. It was not as if ball was hitting the bells or just brushing the stumps. it was dead center... If players pay for mistakes, why can't umpire pay for it.

[NareshK]

Hawk eye itself is not a flawless technology. They obviously have doubts about it otherwise they would be sure if the ball was going to hit the stumps or not whether it struck the batsman 2.5 meters or 4 meters in front.

[DomainK]

Billy argument with ZAK for one step was seriously a joke.

[asterix]

Billy argument with ZAK for one step was seriously a joke.

I think Artheritis has now taken it's toll on his mind too. He's no longer fit to officiate matches. He should be asked to retire..

[DomainK]

I think Artheritis has now taken it's toll on his mid too. He's no longer fit to officiate matches. He should be asked to retire..

He will ask if a retard like Ashoka can officiate, why not me? ICC is full of idiotic umpires. I think they should start paying umpires better so that more and more sensible people will start taking up the job. Right now, only those who cant do anything else become umpires.

[ganeshran]

Billy argument with ZAK for one step was seriously a joke.

But Zaheer should have stepped in the circle.. why argue with the umpire needlessly?