IndianRenegade Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Well when you're talking about overturn a decision, I think the benefit of the doubt has to go to whoever got the benefit of the original decision. If there's not enough evidence to overturn a decision, then don't do it Firstly, There was no original decision here. Until the on-field umpires are sure all the conditions are a legal dismissal are met how there can be no original decision? They were checking exactly that with the third umpire. Remember no one is contesting a decision here, the on-field umpires are asking to verify if that was a legal delivery.
zep1706 Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 My only problem is that the third umpire was too quick to give that decision. It was definitely not a straight forward decision and he should have taken his time to check it carefully.
BeautifulGame Posted February 9, 2014 Author Posted February 9, 2014 Going a little over the top are we? This decision was clearly 50/50 decision, not as bad as match fixing is. Now lets say if Dhoni was to survive do you still possibly think India would've won this match? It was a no ball. Replays were clear cut and even kiwi commentators acknowledged it . That doesn't equate to 50/50
maniac Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Wagner to Dhoni, OUT, Wagner, the Maestro. How does he do it? No No. Hold on. They are checking on the no-ball. Awfully close on the no-ball. I'll give you facts. Will let you decide on the basis of that. He goes wide on the crease, bowls the slower bouncer, does Dhoni in, the bottom edge brings the off bail off. They ask Dhoni to wait. They want to check if his back foot has cut the side crease. One angle says he hasn't. The other says he has. When landing, the side of the foot appears to have touched the crease. But there is no proof it landed there. It could be the bulge on the foot in the air. It could have been in the air. You can make your own minds up. Third umpire says it didn't touch. That's all that matters for now That pretty much nails it how I felt....Nothing blatant as the OP seems to suggest. Rahane I agree but this wasn't blatant
IndianRenegade Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Going a little over the top are we? This decision was clearly 50/50 decision, not as bad as match fixing is. Now lets say if Dhoni was to survive, do you still possibly think India would've won this match? My point was result was not what we are discussing. The logic it was okay to give him out because we would not have won either way is not sound enough. May we wouldn't have. But does that justify a man with technology refusing to take a closer look?
Iconoclast Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Third umpire followed the rules. In order to overturn a field umpires decision there has to be overwhelming evidence against the call on field.
zep1706 Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 In the end of the day its the 3rd umpire's decision that matters. Really Einstein? Thank you for enlightening us. :hysterical:
zep1706 Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Third umpire followed the rules. In order to overturn a field umpires decision there has to be overwhelming evidence against the call on field. There was no on field decision. It was solely third umpire's call.
div Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 . Also even if Dhoni was given not out you still would've never won the match. So quit whining and accept New Zealand played better then you. how do u know that? http://www.espncricinfo.com/tri-nation-west-indies-2013/engine/match/597929.html
IndianRenegade Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Kiwi commentators can say what ever they want. In the end of the day its the 3rd umpire's decision that matters. Also even if Dhoni was given not out you still would've never won the match. So quit whining and accept New Zealand played better then you. Exactly that is why he needed to take a closer look. which he didn't.. that is the point of contention. Deciding that within 3-4 seconds was so ****ed up... regarding whether India would have won or not is not what we are discussing. Crazier things have happened in cricket... anyways, that is not the point. Stop playing GOD... you don't know what would have happened. The logic thrid umpires can **** up, and its okay as long as it doesn't affect the games outcome is turn a blind eye to incompetence.
div Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Because I was watching Test cricket and not some ODI against Sri-Lanka? this was much better batting wicket..
IndianRenegade Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Because I was watching Test cricket and not some ODI against Sri-Lanka? Don't even begin to explain that....:hysterical:
coffee_rules Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 More ruffling is the umpires checking a noball rather than a huge inside edge. Blind Davies cost the match for India. We didn't bat well in the first dig, hence deserve these blind fu.cking davies'.
adi B Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 My only problem is that the third umpire was too quick to give that decision. It was definitely not a straight forward decision and he should have taken his time to check it carefully. i agree with this,it was a ridiculously quick check.guess the 3rd umpire is an indolent fecker
GoldenSun Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 I think NZ won this one fair and square. I saw only one bad decision against Rahane.
adi B Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Third umpire followed the rules. In order to overturn a field umpires decision there has to be overwhelming evidence against the call on field. there was no on field call,the umpire referred to the 3rd umpire.even if there's a shred of evidence that its a no ball,then its a no ball ffs!! the 3rd umpire looked into it with haste and quickly adjudged the decision which was wrong,even ian smith was shellshocked and couldn't fathom how he gave that out
adi B Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 I think NZ won this one fair and square. I saw only one bad decision against Rahane. i think nzl deserved to win and they did but the standard of umpiring was terrible in this match and both sides were affected
IndianRenegade Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 So he didn't' date=' the game is over, are you still gonna cry?[/quote'] yeah I am so crying....:((:((:((:((
GoldenSun Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Now this fan knows how to take a loss. Indians should follow in this fan's foot steps. Im an Aussie cricket fan, and been one since 2002. We bore the brunt of a dubious decision against Haddin at Trent Bridge.
GoldenSun Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Now this fan knows how to take a loss. Indians should follow in this fan's foot steps. People forget that Corey Anderson copped a bad decision too. Both sides bore the brunt of some terrible decisions. DRS is there to eliminate howlers.
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