DailyMail blames Bucknor for the Draw

[CC1981]

I get it now' date=' Donny says don't question the umpiring decisions and take whatever you get whether right or not.[/quote'] Yes, but that is a rather unsupported and utopian perspective. Umpires are not pefect in either decision-making or motive - as an individual and/or as a collective. No reason to deify the umpire and exempt them from criticism. It is mildly amusing to notice someone criticising deification of players now essentially deifying umpires, if not by direct words, then by logic of the thought presented. Personally, it makes even more sense since it takes far more skill to be a cricket player than to be an umpire, assuming both are taught the right way.

[Donny]

Donny you are hell bent on proving a point that doesn't exist. You side with the umpire for giving Dravid out saying it was hard not to give it out. Now Sreesanth is a dead duck and you say again the umpire was right not giving that one out. I can say you are arguing your point even without having looked at those decisions.

Damn! Will you people stop misquoting me, please. I didn't say anything like it was hard not to give it out. All I said about the RD decision was it was a lot closer than the exaggerated assessments given in here. Ravi, I don't NEED to look at any replays to state reasons umpires give decisions but .... after viewing the RD still and video, I'm again reminded how much fans can get it wrong. Yes, they showed the ball hitting the pad (which, incidentally, was in front of the bat) outside the line of off stump but by a centimetre at best - not way outside, as it was described. Taufel clearly didn't see it hitting outside the line. That's all I'm saying.

[King]

Damn! Will you people stop misquoting me, please. I didn't say anything like it was hard not to give it out. All I said about the RD decision was it was a lot closer than the exaggerated assessments given in here. Ravi, I don't NEED to look at any replays to state reasons umpires give decisions but .... after viewing the RD still and video, I'm again reminded how much fans can get it wrong. Yes, they showed the ball hitting the pad (which, incidentally, was in front of the bat) outside the line of off stump but by a centimetre at best - not way outside, as it was described. Taufel clearly didn't see it hitting outside the line. That's all I'm saying.

OK I understand. Now how about the rest of the decisions? The Dhoni one and the Sreesanth one? They both were clearly gone. How about the Pietersen one? Taufel standing as a straight umpire gave Pietersen out but then he was called back after the decision was referred to the 3rd umpire after Bucknor asked Taufel to refer to the 3rd umpire. The decision was reversed. That makes it about 4-6 doubtful decisions in a test match. That's quite some number in a single test match considering the two umpires are considered by many as among the best.

[Donny]

I get it now' date=' Donny says don't question the umpiring decisions and take whatever you get whether right or not.[/quote'] Aha! You're getting the drift as well, Ravi. Good to see. Let me clarify that. That's 100% correct if you're a player. If you're a fan, you can say whatever you like but expect it to be questioned . Sandro, where is this rubbish about me saying umpires shouldn't be criticised ????

[CC1981]

Sandro, where is this rubbish about me saying umpires shouldn't be criticised ????

That is what you are implying with your agreement with my statement ' then there can never be a shocker of a decision'. And to be honest, players do question umpire's decisions- just not openly.

[Donny]

I'm not implying any such thing. That's your slant on it. Unless an umpire is dishonest, there are no shockers for me. There are simply decisions which, after seeing replays, slo mos, hot spots, snickos, orgasmatrons etc. are shown to be incorrect. Remember this: We often hear commentators explode with indignation when certain decisions are given only to meekly back down as the above gizmos show the ump made a very good and correct decision. These quickly disappear - unlike the other side of the same coin.

[Dhondy]

Mass whingeing in the English media this morning about that LBW. Apparently Dhoni's shirtsleeve catch feathered the bat as well. After 20 replays. Just might have. If Donny is saying that once it's in the book, there's absolutely no point agonizing over it, I have no problems with that. That's the way cricket has always been played, and will be played in the forseeable future. But I don't reckon he's saying that. I reckon he's saying that the likes of Bucknor and Taufel are rarely wrong.

[Donny]

Not saying that either, Dhondy. For me, there's just no mileage in going over and over a so called bad decision. Sure, say you thought that ball was outside the line or you thought it was going over but why all the other stuff ? What's the point ? I happen to be one who thinks the umps should have access to some of the technologies the TV stations do but until they do, we're stuck with the system the way it is. I'm happy to accept that.

[King]

Not saying that either, Dhondy. For me, there's just no mileage in going over and over a so called bad decision. Sure, say you thought that ball was outside the line or you thought it was going over but why all the other stuff ? What's the point ?

Please have a look at the thread http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=9685 The umpiring standards used to be like that. After enough noise was made neutral umpires were brought in. That did make a lot of difference. If you don't raise a stink ICC will sit with feet up and do nothing about it. If the umpiring standards are bad then you have to discuss it. Openly discussing and looking for solutions is the way to go. Rest of the related stuff such as gameplay, bat, pitch maintenance, gear et al have improved and there is nothing wrong if more discussions about it brings about a change in umpiring. This is one area that needs to be looked at by ICC but my bet they won't unless people raise a stink about it.

[Donny]

I have no problem with that point of view, Ravi, but the OTT reactions do NOT do that cause any good at all. In fact, they do the opposite.

[The Outsider]

I would love to take up a job with zero accountability. Donny is there a chance you can hire me?:D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

I'm not implying any such thing. That's your slant on it.

Err, no- that is the basic logical deduction. If you are going to 'precisely' agree with my hypothesis of 'an umpire cannot have a shocker', then you are essentially discrediting complaints about bad umpiring, which is exactly what i said when i connected the dots.

Unless an umpire is dishonest, there are no shockers for me. There are simply decisions which, after seeing replays, slo mos, hot spots, snickos, orgasmatrons etc. are shown to be incorrect.

An incorrect decision is an error. Umpires are supposed to get the call right, not 'within their limitations'. The goal of umpiring is to provide as good a quality of umpiring as possible and improve on that standard- when that standard is not met, umpires should come in just as much criticism as a player's injudicious shot or half-volley on cruch-time.

Remember this: We often hear commentators explode with indignation when certain decisions are given only to meekly back down as the above gizmos show the ump made a very good and correct decision. These quickly disappear - unlike the other side of the same coin.

The difference is, they are not the other side of the same coin- commentators are allowed embellishments or inaccuracies to a certain extent, since their job is to make the game more colorful & entertaining. Umpires, however rightly get flak for botching it up. As i said before, i am neither impressed, nor respectful of the quality of cricket umpires. Having played many other sports (especially tennis), i see far less competency from cricket umpires in their decision-making than tennis refs when it comes to the frequency of wrong calls for the close ones.

[CC1981]

I have no problem with that point of view' date=' Ravi, but the OTT reactions do NOT do that cause any good at all. In fact, they do the opposite.[/quote'] What is of far less help is an opaque and vague process of accountability of umpires. As per Bucknor being a good umpire, i am sure you are aware that ICC has actually underscored Bucknor as one of the worst umpires in its 'elite' panel. At this point, umpiring in cricket comes with zero accountability. And not surprisingly, they are the least skilled at what they do on a cricket field.

[Donny]

No, I wasn't aware of that, Sandro. Source ? Listening to Remember Shakti: Ma No Pa. :musical_note: :wink_smile:

[ali0786]

well..he must have not given sreesanth out..but the ball that got dravid out, it was pitched quite a bit outside off and wasnt even clipping the stumps! why no mention of that from the DailyMail. In the end it evened out

[Guest dada_rocks]

Thats why I said gangs got a shocker' date=' hawk eye showed it hitting outside the very top of off.[/quote'] not only that but it was also just caressing the off-stump from outside:tounge_smile:

[Guest dada_rocks]

well..he must have not given sreesanth out..but the ball that got dravid out, it was pitched quite a bit outside off and wasnt even clipping the stumps! why no mention of that from the DailyMail. In the end it evened out

nothing evens out since when Dravid== Sreesanth

[Cricketics]

theyz facking english retards very easily blamed bucknor for the draw.. they got rid of Dravid by giving him a poor decision, uska kya hua?? dravid was more crucial wicket to us then sreesanth, we lost him.. that could have changed the game for us.. retards the englishmensssssssssssssssssssssssss just like popye the sailorsmannnnnnnnnnnnnn

[Holysmoke]

^got some of that stuffffffffffff to spareeeeeeeeeee? :D