Cheating third umpire

[urbestfriend]

DRS is supposed to eliminate howlers.. Here DRS is the reason for a howler ..Irony

[jaggadaku]

^ ya gangu 'very rightly' so is convinced Rahul was out because of his body language

[Lord]

^ ya gangu 'very rightly' so is convinced Rahul was out because of his body language

body language was same in Edgbaston,no nick there too

[FreakazoiD]

DRS is supposed to eliminate howlers.. Here DRS is the reason for a howler ..Irony

It may have been a bad decision, but it wasn't a "howler". This was one of those close ones where it has been acknowledged that DRS will not work. DRS did catch out the earlier howler when Dravid had been given out. I believe Dravid nicked it, hot-spot is inaccurate at times but you can clearly see the deflection on camera. Those of you with Sky HD, pause the TV and map out the trajectory of the ball when it passes the bat, there is a clear deflection.

[Dayman]

Hmm didn't realize the spot was already there. Ill take back what I said, although it looked out to the naked eye.

[Guest Gunner]

It may have been a bad decision, but it wasn't a "howler". This was one of those close ones where it has been acknowledged that DRS will not work. DRS did catch out the earlier howler when Dravid had been given out. I believe Dravid nicked it, hot-spot is inaccurate at times but you can clearly see the deflection on camera. Those of you with Sky HD, pause the TV and map out the trajectory of the ball when it passes the bat, there is a clear deflection.

What was the evidence based on which Steve davis gave him out? That is what I want to know. There was no sound, obvious nick or hotspot. This must be one of those cases were the "spirit of the game" has prevailed from an English perspective in giving RSD out.

[Gotham Cronie]

Either way BCCI's stand is vindicated. Firstly the technology is inconclusive as snickometer or Hot Spot are not reliable and are prone to errors. Secondly' date=' the whole point of DRS is supposed to correct the obvious errors/mistakes like the sort of blunders made by Bucknor in the past. [b']This decision simply enforces the point the system is not ready yet as it failed on both counts. Would love to hear what ICC's thoughts are on the system now.

It did not fail. The implementation failed. UDRS itself admits that at times it can be inconclusive. That's why the rules state that to stick with the on field umpire's call.

[Guest Gunner]

It did not fail. The implementation failed. UDRS itself admits that at times it can be inconclusive. That's why the rules state that to stick with the on field umpire's call.

Hey but the English "spirit of the game" prevailed. That's all that matters doesn't it?

[urbestfriend]

It may have been a bad decision, but it wasn't a "howler". This was one of those close ones where it has been acknowledged that DRS will not work. DRS did catch out the earlier howler when Dravid had been given out. I believe Dravid nicked it, hot-spot is inaccurate at times but you can clearly see the deflection on camera. Those of you with Sky HD, pause the TV and map out the trajectory of the ball when it passes the bat, there is a clear deflection.

There was no deflection, no sound and no patch on hotspot. I didn't see any deviation and it is wrong to make decisions based on perceived deviation without other things like sound, hotspot to back it up. Now this is a howler because on-field umpire has given not out yet third umpre decided to overturn the decision without any evidence. I'd have been OK if on-filed umpires have give it out and third umpires going with on-filed umpire. And now snick also doesn't show any evidence.

[Utalk]

Pathetic decision. Benefit of the doubt should always go to batsman because dismissal should always be 100%.

[FreakazoiD]

What was the evidence based on which Steve davis gave him out? That is what I want to know. There was no sound' date=' obvious nick or hotspot. This must be one of those cases were the "spirit of the game" has prevailed from an English perspective in giving RSD out.[/quote'] I agree with you. The DRS is there to get rid of the howler, and its best used for that purpose. If there is any doubt in the umpire's mind, stick to the on-field umpire's decision. I don't think the 3rd umpire had enough there to make it a clear-cut decision. I think the ICC needs to lay down clear guidelines on what DRS is used for. Btw they just brought the snickometer out and after having to filter out all the background noise, it shows a small spike as the ball passed the bat. But the 3rd umpire obviously couldn't see that.

[Gotham Cronie]

Pathetic decision. Benefit of the doubt should always go to batsman because dismissal should always be 100%.

No, benefit should stay with the on field umpire.

[Ultimate_Game]

It did not fail. The implementation failed. UDRS itself admits that at times it can be inconclusive. That's why the rules state that to stick with the on field umpire's call.

Isn't implementation part of the DRS, or any other, system? If a system can't be implemented consistently what good is it? And isn't BCCI objection all along have been that they are not in favor of DRS as it can't be implemented consistently?

[urbestfriend]

I agree with you. The DRS is there to get rid of the howler, and its best used for that purpose. If there is any doubt in the umpire's mind, stick to the on-field umpire's decision. I don't think the 3rd umpire had enough there to make it a clear-cut decision. I think the ICC needs to lay down clear guidelines on what DRS is used for. Btw they just brought the snickometer out and after having to filter out all the background noise, it shows a small spike as the ball passed the bat. But the 3rd umpire obviously couldn't see that.

No , it showed nothing , and a small spike ( almost unrecognisable) well after the ball passed the bat but nothing during the point when ball was passing the bat.

[Guest Gunner]

No' date=' benefit should stay with the on field umpire.[/quote'] Who had given RSD not out in the first place. So my question to you is was there enough evidence to overturn that decision?

[Utalk]

Who had given RSD not out in the first place. So my question to you is was there enough evidence to overturn that decision?

Exactly my point. How third umpire turned that over. What evidence did he use?

[Ultimate_Game]

Poor decision and something for ICC to consider before the next series. Either way highly unlikely it would have impacted the result of the match.

[gult]

Poor decision and something for ICC to consider before the next series. Either way highly unlikely it would have impacted the result of the match.

We could've drawn the match.. Now we definitely lost it

[urbestfriend]

It did not fail. The implementation failed. UDRS itself admits that at times it can be inconclusive. That's why the rules state that to stick with the on field umpire's call.

Right! ICC needs to frame proper laws so that third umpire can 1) If inconclusive, always give the benefit to the batsman Or 2) always go with on-field umpire. There should be consistency in the third umpiring decision so that such howlers are not made and any deviations from these rules, umpires should be punished so that they don't misuse the technology.

[daryl1985]

He just said he nicked it. What a man. Also said that when he was a kid he used always pretend to be Sunny or Viswanath in the garden and that although he has passed Sunny statistically, he knows in reality that Sunny is the better batsman. Dravid :hail::hail::hail: