Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling; ICC reacts

[kabira]

He will ask if a retard like Ashoka can officiate' date=' 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.[/quote'] they are indeed paid well.

[pinkfreud]

I don't blame Dhoni at all, but the thing is that he shouldn't use this major sc*ew up as an excuse for the way India performed on the field. The ugly truth is that our fielding and bowling was ripped wide open, and even if the UDRS had ruled in our favour, many questions would still be raised about our lack of aggression in the bowling and fielding dept. Dhoni should be ashamed when he makes statements like 'I can't do anything about our fielding' (which is approx. what he said in the post-match interview). It shows that Team India is relying on our batsmen to keep scoring 350 as some kind of buffer against our weak attack. If this is the way we keep performing then I really don't have much hope for these folks. My point is that a draw, at the end of the day, was an apt conclusion because none of the teams deserved to win. England got that much on the board because Ian Bell got too lucky. If Bell had any sense of playing fairly, he wouldn't have turned back after he'd just started walking away. And when it comes to India- we bowled and fielded like 2 year olds in nappies. We would have been the more deserving team had our players been more alert, energetic, and confident.. sadly, that was not the case yesterday.

[King]

Stop worrying about one decision folks, it sounds very sour g****s. Either way how do you know the rest of the England batsmen would not have batted well? Colly may have played like Bell if he came in early or Prior would have played differently. In any case this is just an excuse at the end of the day. At times I get sick of Indians talking more about the umpiring decisions than the game.

[jusarrived]

Stop worrying about one decision folks' date=' it sounds very sour g****s. Either way how do you know the rest of the England batsmen would not have batted well? Colly may have played like Bell if he came in early or Prior would have played differently. In any case this is just an excuse at the end of the day. At times I get sick of Indians talking more about the umpiring decisions than the game.[/quote'] I dont think hes giving this as an excuse here , in that case its only right that hes not happy with UDRS ...the rule is stupid .

[King]

I dont think hes giving this as an excuse here ' date=' in that case its only right that hes not happy with UDRS ...the rule is stupid .[/quote'] Yeah sure but what can be done about it? The decision is not going to be reversed and neither is the rule going to change. They will certainly look at this the next time around, I hope.

[DomainK]

Stop worrying about one decision folks' date=' it sounds very sour g****s. Either way how do you know the rest of the England batsmen would not have batted well? Colly may have played like Bell if he came in early or Prior would have played differently. In any case this is just an excuse at the end of the day. At times I get sick of Indians talking more about the umpiring decisions than the game.[/quote'] I agree that there is no use complaining. And it's particularly stupid to blame UDRS. UDRS is here to minimize human errors and not to completely eliminate them. There will be the occasional blunder from time to time. Dhoni has always refused UDRS because he believes more in human abilities than technology. So a human being made a decision and technology upheld it. Whats there to whine about? If UDRS was not available, as Dhoni has always wanted, Bell would still have been not out.

[riwi999]

Dhoni is totally justified in being pissed off. But it is not the UDRS that is at fault It is one whimsical umpire that is bringing it a bad name. Will the ICC take any action against Bowden? I would laugh but I don't even find it funny anymore how umpires get away with these sort of blunders.

[King]

I agree that there is no use complaining. And it's particularly stupid to blame UDRS. UDRS is here to minimize human errors and not to completely eliminate them. There will be the occasional blunder from time to time. Dhoni has always refused UDRS because he believes more in human abilities than technology. So a human being made a decision and technology upheld it. Whats there to whine about? If UDRS was not available, as Dhoni has always wanted, Bell would still have been not out.

Good point, I guess you need to pass this on to Dhoni somehow. Looks like he's now leaning on UDRS :winky: I thought he didn't like UDRS. I have to be honest I didn't even think in those lines.

[NareshK]

I think Dhoni was referring to the adulteration of an already existing rule. If the ball were to hit the stumps, it should be given out. What's the point in making it more complicated by bringing the distance at which the batsman got hit in front of the stumps ?

[bihutoli]

Well you can blame the technology, its the human (Tucker I think) behind the technology that made this stupid error.

[vaibhav_delhi]

That 2.5m rule is s h i t whats the point of DRS when you cant get lbw out on a ball hitting the pad in the line of stumps n hitting middle stump half-way up?? the hawk eye is very accurate. Hawkeye uses the famous:D 'Kalman Filtering' to predict the trajectory of the ball. Kalman Filtering is the same technique that is used in cruise missiles to guide them to their taget.

[vaibhav_delhi]

watching tht decision , the batsman was headed back to the dressing room, I thought Billy let his ego get better of him at tht time...

[Aaku]

Rightly so !! :beee:

[maaki]

Ian Bell referral proves system is not effective The Bell decision was clearly the reason not to adopt a broken system.. It looked plumb real time , it looked plumb on replays.. but still the decision given was not out just because a optional rule was enforced... Nasir Hussain kept saying the 2.5 m rule should was at umpires discretion and in this case should not have been used. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/503427.html 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."

[nainesh1]

If the technology reduces after 2.5 m then what is the use of the review, we are better happy without those.

[nainesh1]

That 2.5m rule is s h i t whats the point of DRS when you cant get lbw out on a ball hitting the pad in the line of stumps n hitting middle stump half-way up?? the hawk eye is very accurate. Hawkeye uses the famous:D 'Kalman Filtering' to predict the trajectory of the ball. Kalman Filtering is the same technique that is used in cruise missiles to guide them to their taget.

Next time dhoni should come forward more than two steps and just kick away the ball and we will see what happen.

[Ultimate_Game]

Stop worrying about one decision folks' date=' it sounds very sour g****s. Either way how do you know the rest of the England batsmen would not have batted well? Colly may have played like Bell if he came in early or Prior would have played differently. In any case this is just an excuse at the end of the day. At times I get sick of Indians talking more about the umpiring decisions than the game.[/quote'] @King I think you missed the point. We are not blaming UDRS for the tie - Eng played well enough and India poor enough to point at one decision as the difference maker. But what has upset me and the other fans is how can you get a review decision wrong? Essentially what's the point of the review system if we still get these kind of decisions? I would have been perfectly fine if there wasn't any review system in place and umpire had ruled in favor of the batsman but with the review system there's no grey area any more. It's either out or not out. Eng may well have gone on to win the game even if Bell had been given out at the time but now I am struggling to figure out what's the point of having the system in place if the umpires won't correct their bad decisions even with all the evidence? At the end of the day we are still at the mercy of the umpire and that defeats the very purpose of having the review system in the first place. As someone once said "if you walk into a bar and most of the folks think the batsman is out, batsman is out". In this case Bell himself thought he was out and was happy to walk off!!! I have yet to see a match where batsman conceded he's out and walking off but the umpire asks him to come back!

[The Outsider]

The 2.5 meter rule is there because Hawk Eye is not supposed to be accurate for extrapolating the trajectory beyond 2.5 meters. In such cases the decision reverts to the on field umpires' call which was not out. I don't see the problem - yeah unfortunate, but well within the established rules and norms.

[coffee_rules]

Although the rule was news to Bell, it had been seen during England's recent ODI series against Australia. In the seventh and final match at the WACA, the Australian batsman Tim Paine was adjudged not out to Liam Plunkett, and England reviewed the umpire Paul Reiffel's on-field decision. The replays showed Paine was hit more than 2.5 metres from the stumps, but Hawkeye suggested the ball would have crashed into the stumps halfway up, and on that occasion Reiffel decided not to argue with the technology, even though he would have been within his rights to stay with his not-out call. Bowden didn't feel the same way on Sunday,

Don't know why Bowden didn't feel like changing the decision, but common sense says look at the pitch and line of the ball, he could have given it out.

[The Outsider]

Don't know why Bowden didn't feel like changing the decision' date=' but common sense says look at the pitch and line of the ball, he could have given it out.[/quote'] No, he couldn't have. The rule clearly says that in case anything hit more than 2.5 meters from the stumps, the on field umpires' decision has to stand.