zen Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 wrong wrong wrong. If umpire had benefit of doubts in the first place because of how far batsman was down the pitch , then he shouldnt change his decision after referral. The idea of UDRS is to get rid of blunders and not to give fifty fifty decisions in favor of bowler. Benefit of doubt must always go to batsman. Thats how cricket has been played 200 years Since the review would 'clear' the umpire' doubt, he has the option to reverse his decision because there are no more doubts, implying that there is no need to give the benefit to the batsman :winky: Ofc there would be instances where he would give out but the ball is not going on to hit the stumps per the review, in that case the umpire can reverse the decision to not out (for review asked by the batting side)
CSK Fan Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 ^but ball was not hitting the middle stump today. And the Bell one was hitting middle stump dead center
kabira Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 ^exactly and great joker could not overturn his decision, the ball was gun barrel straight hitting the middle of middle
CSK Fan Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 BTW guys, ICC just changed the rule about the 2.5m so today's decision was in light of that
Ultimate_Game Posted March 6, 2011 Author Posted March 6, 2011 BTW guys' date=' ICC just changed the rule about the 2.5m so today's decision was in light of that[/quote'] Did they? When was the change made and what's the new rule? By the way this is the first time I have seen in any intl sport that a rule can be changed in between a global tournament (read world cup) :haha: ICC sure are inept and clueless to say the least :cantstop:
Passion Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Since the review would 'clear' the umpire' doubt, he has the option to reverse his decision because there are no more doubts, implying that there is no need to give the benefit to the batsman :winky: Ofc there would be instances where he would give out but the ball is not going on to hit the stumps per the review, in that case the umpire can reverse the decision to not out (for review asked by the batting side) This is why i say YOU ARE NAIVE and not familiar with cricket laws. Let me repeat myself again. Aim of UDRS is to get rid of umpiring blunders and not to change cricket laws. If a ball pitches outside off and hitting edge of off stump, it can be given out but umpire sometimes give it not out if they have any doubts because benefit of doubt must go to batsman. Next thing you will say is if ball is hitting edge of off stump or leg stump, then it should be given out every time because review will remove umpire doubts. Dont be silly. Purpose of UDRS is not to clear umpire doubt, that is equivalent of changing lbw laws. Benefit of doubt is an integral part of cricket and it will always stay this way whether you like it or not:two_thumbs_up:
Cricket_Guru Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 good op.....:clap: and to be fair even icc is confused themselves with the 2.5m thing :cantstop:
yoda Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 To start with lets look at two scenarios. The ball pitches on the off side, hit batsman on the off stump and would have hit the edge of the off stump. THE UMPIRE GIVES IT OUT The ball pitches on the off side, hit batsman on the off stump and would have hit the edge of the off stump. THE UMPIRE GIVES IT NOT OUT. Now both of them are accurate decisions. Look who is calling who stupid. LOL!
zen Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 This is why i say YOU ARE NAIVE and not familiar with cricket laws. Let me repeat myself again. Aim of UDRS is to get rid of umpiring blunders and not to change cricket laws. If a ball pitches outside off and hitting edge of off stump' date=' it can be given out but umpire sometimes give it not out if they have any doubts because benefit of doubt must go to batsman. Next thing you will say is if ball is hitting edge of off stump or leg stump, then it should be given out every time because review will remove umpire doubts. Dont be silly. [b']Purpose of UDRS is not to clear umpire doubt, that is equivalent of changing lbw laws. Benefit of doubt is an integral part of cricket and it will always stay this way whether you like it or not:two_thumbs_up: :hmmmm2:
Ultimate_Game Posted March 6, 2011 Author Posted March 6, 2011 Lets look at two scenarious again. The batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch, but its hitting stumps. UMPIRE GIVES IT OUT The batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch, but its hitting stumps. UMPIRE GIVES IT NOT OUT Both decisions are accurate. Mashallah!!! Kya paki logic lagaya hai :cantstop: Itna lamba post kyon likha jab sab kuch itne se logic mein summarize ho sakta hai :haha:
Passion Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Mashallah!!! Kya paki logic lagaya hai :cantstop: Itna lamba post kyon likha jab sab kuch itne se logic mein summarize ho sakta hai :haha: Lets look at two scenarious again. The batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch, but its hitting stumps. UMPIRE GIVES IT OUT The batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch, but its hitting stumps. UMPIRE GIVES IT NOT OUT Both decisions are accurate. Because there are fifty fifty call and could go either way. If a batsman if beyond 2.5 meters down the pitch then third umpire will given all the information to field umpire and final call will be made by him. Some times it will go against you and some times in favour of you. Like it happened today. Bell was given not out and cussack was given out. Its a fifty fifty decision and can go either way. This is how beautiful game of cricket had always been played. Personally, i would like a slight ammendment that if a batsman is far down the pitch and it is hitting the stump, then whatever umpire original decision was, it should stay that way to end arguments and to bring consistency. Bowden gave bell not out. Reason was that bell was far down the pitch and for bowden it was difficult to predict the trajectory of the ball so he gave benefit of doubt to batsman so he was right to not reverse it after input from third umpire.
Passion Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Look who is calling who stupid. LOL! Just by quoting my incomplete sentences you have proved earned yourself to be called a hyprocrite who will misquote statements in their failed attempt to win an argument. Misquoting statements is the only way of winning argument for people who doesnot have the intelligence to win an argument intellectually
Ultimate_Game Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 You are not intelligent enough to undertand cricket laws SO PLEASE STOP FOLLOWING CRICKET AND GO AND PLAY FOOTBALL Itna naraaz kyon ho raha hai? I can understand your pain that the Irish batsman was given out. In fact I'm positive you would have been more disappointed at the decision than the batsman and the entire Irish team put together :--D I suggest you come up with an online petition on facebook and also update all the cricket followers on twitter regarding the grave injustice done :haha:
Ultimate_Game Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 Dude' date=' come out from your prejudice hole. ITS PATHETIC[/quote'] Well the pathetic thing is that in the last game when the 2.5 m rule went against India you were shouting from the rooftop how great the rule was and how Billy Bowden made such a great decision. And now when the decision went in favor of India you are b***hing & moaning about it and telling anyone who would hear what a travesty of justice it is. At least I'm consistent in my criticism of the DRS system and consider it half baked at best.
Passion Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Well the pathetic thing is that in the last game when the 2.5 m rule went against India you were shouting from the rooftop how great the rule was and how Billy Bowden made such a great decision. And now when the decision went in favor of India you are b***hing & moaning about it and telling anyone who would hear what a travesty of justice it is. At least I'm consistent in my criticism of the DRS system and consider it half baked at best. Well, go back to my posts and read what i said. Let me tell you what i said. I said " when it comes to batsman being far down the pitch and ball hitting the stumps, umpire original decision must stand". I dont care which umpire made what decision. Are you the one who i asked trillion times what the law should be but you failed to come up with an answer. And dude if you cant win an argument, then just accept your defeat but dont lie about what i said in my previous posts.
Cricket_Guru Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 i guess i won the argument:yay: ofcourse everyone is winner on internet :icflove:
vvvslaxman Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 i guess i won the argument:yay: Much like Kenya won all their matches :cantstop:
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