Everyone is upset over how Sanga was adjudged out. Will India get such shockers ?

[Chandan]

Part of my whole point about this paranoid nonsense could be posed thus, Preds: Have have you seen batsmen fined for dissent when they got a life from an umpire ? The batsman knows he's got a feather but the umpire (correctly) gives him not out because he wasn't convinced there was an edge. Batsman: "But, Rudi. I hit it!" I don't think so. :regular_smile:

But Donny, Don't the bowlers get fined for over-appealing then? Why not think of giving them fair decisions instead of trying to wrap the umpires into cotton wool?

[Donny]

wrong again Donny ... Inzi has openly complained about it.

I wasn't wrong in the first place, let alone again. You posted the info re. SG & RD. I commented on that. Parroting will get you nowhere with me, Bossby.

[Donny]

But Donny, Don't the bowlers get fined for over-appealing then?

What's the connection ? You've lost me on that one.

[Chandan]

What's the connection ? You've lost me on that one.

Connection is that one player or the other is punished whenever they show resistence to umpire's wrong decision. How fair is that?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

Original claim ? I simply disagreed with the topic heading and pointed out not even Sanga was particularly upset with the decision. In typical fashion, you try to insult your way out of a hopeless position. Sad really.

[Chandan]

Donny, what about answering my post?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

Connection is that one player or the other is punished whenever they show resistence to umpire's wrong decision. How fair is that?

My friend, it has nothing to do with fairness. It's more to do with discipline. I was brought up in cricket to respect umpire's decisions and, whether they are seen to be incorrect when giving 'out' or 'not out', after TV replays, it makes no difference. As long as we use human umpires to the extent we do, I accept their decisions. That's it. I pose the same question to you. Do batsmen object to the wrong decision when it goes in their favour ?

[Donny]

wrong as usual Densby here is the cricinfo ball-by-ball commentary : 99.4Clark to Sangakkara, OUT, OMG! he is gone and he looks unhappy with the decision. It was banged in short, on the off stump line, Sangakkara misses to connect with his pull, the ball hit his left shoulder, then on to the helmet and it popped up for Ponting to 'catch' it at second slip. Rudi Koertzen has terminated a fabulous knock. Pity.

This is also from Cricinfo: "The players from both team shake hands. And Sangakkara is seen shaking hands with Rudi Koertzen who, I think, apologized about the decision. I could lipread, Sanga saying, "No Problem" as he patted Rudi on the back."

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

And your comment about parrotting was very mature ehhh ?

Mentioning parroting was in reference to you copying my words - like parrots do, that's all. Wasn't a put down.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Chandan]

My friend' date=' it has nothing to do with fairness. It's more to do with discipline.[/quote'] Why not?? I want a fair play. And if decisions are correct, there will be no lack of descipline from the players. On the other hand, why are the umpires not desciplined over making a wrong decisions which sometimes terminates the entire career of a player?

I was brought up in cricket to respect umpire's decisions and, whether they are seen to be incorrect when giving 'out' or 'not out', after TV replays, it makes no difference.

Good for you. I don't think you played cricket at the highest level where there is so much at stake in a match. And in that scenario, it is hard to accept a wrong decision for everyone -- fans , players and also many other parties!

As long as we use human umpires to the extent we do, I accept their decisions. That's it.

Even we accept it. Or rather we HAVE to accept it. But the thing is why should we leave so much to poor human umpires when they can be assisted by technology in whatever decision they want. As the run-out thing has taken a lot of pressure off them, a little more assistence from technology will only make them (umpiring) better and game, the fairer!

I pose the same question to you. Do batsmen object to the wrong decision when it goes in their favour ?

And in the reply to that question I had told you that the batsman doesn't object but the bowlers and fielding side do. Then what happens? They are fined for over-appealing! 1. Batsman is given out wrongly. He stands his ground is fined for showing dissent. 2.Batsman is NOT given out even when he is out, the bowler and fielding side keep appealing in disbelief and are fined for overappealing. In both the cases only one party is at fault, that is umpire. But who gets punished? The players. Why??? This is and was my question. If you haven't understood even now, then forgive me. I can't make it clearer!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kabira]

Donny, if you want Umpires to decide games, than why play at all, just decide the bloody game with the toss. If you think Umpires are good enough, then I guess technology is bloody crap and ICC should ask all the broadcasters to stop even showing replays, let umpires decide and we will never know whether they were right or wrong and game will go on.

[Donny]

Ho hum. I'm bored with this. I'll talk cricket any and every day of the week but, at the moment, I'm reminded of an old Indian saying: "Never argue with fools because they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Have a nice day. :regular_smile:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --