Jump to content

Controversial umpiring greatly mars Bangladesh's hope for semis


Recommended Posts

Posted

Rohit Sharma clubbed away the delivery almost instinctively towards deep midwicket where the outfielder came forward to claim the catch. To the dismay of Bangladesh supporters, umpire Ian Gould called out a no-ball and reprieved Rohit Sharma and India’s chances of a huge score. When the replay was shown, the error in Ian Gould’s judgment became apparent with repeated viewing as the ball was dipping sharply when the batsman made contact. Such decisions are usually given by the leg-umpire but in this occasion Aleem Dar chose to remain silent, to the mystery of Bangladesh fans. Rohit Sharma was batting on 91 when he became the beneficiary of this dubious decision, and went on to score 137 runs for his team. Earlier in the 34th over, Mashrafe’s LBW shout was turned down by Ian Gould when replays showed majority of the ball had pitched in line with the stumps. Mashrafe was quick to call for a review but the third umpire ruled in favor of the batsman, Suresh Raina who was batting on ten runs. He went on to make 65 and pushed India’s score beyond 300 against our Tigers. When Bangladesh was batting, their supporters once again found reasons for frustration when batsman Mahmudullah was given out in the 17th over. Mahmudullah pulled Mohammed Shami’s short ball and it flew off the top edge. As Shikhar Dhawan was in the middle of a juggling act, the ball popped out of his hands when he tried to grab it using a reverse-cup technique . He regrouped quickly, took the catch in second attempt but his left foot was precariously close to the rope. From various camera angles, it looked like his foot touched the boundary rope, however the third umpire ruled in favour of the fielding team. 2i1zcrq.jpghttp://www.thedailystar.net/sports/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/umpire-shocks-bangladesh-fans-72548

Posted

These kind of lunatic theories are designed to cater to delusional bd fans. Nobody gives a sh**. The trash talked before match. they got canned. Now they are trash talking after loss. but for umpiring mistake they would not have been in the quarter final.

Posted
Amazing cry babies... And that's why one shouldn't be humble in victory against them...
wonder if their players have the same mentality. This Rahim/shakib/Mortaza/tamim played in 2007.. At that time Kohli did not even make debut. Raina was not a regular. Rohit did not make debut. rahane didnt Look how far we have come. How far they have come with the same team.
Posted

If Bangla had lost by less than 50 runs they have a point. But the way Bangla batted they were never aiming for a target higher than 240. Were Rohit's and Raina's reprieves in any ways responsible for Shakib's 10 off 34 which killed all the momentum? Bangla is a mediocre team that cannot win even with all the controversial decisions going in their favour. Their fight essentially ended at 4/90 and they would not have chased 240 against India.

Posted

The DRS review for LBW didn't even say UMPIRE CALL i think in which case it still would have stayed with the original decision.

Posted

Quick question, in height no balls, is the point of contact with the bat considered or do umpires need to predict where the ball will end up when reaching the batsman like in the pic above?

Posted
Quick question' date=' in height no balls, is the point of contact with the bat considered or do umpires need to predict where the ball will end up when reaching the batsman like in the pic above?[/quote'] I think passing the batsmen.
Posted

Bangladesh - IF Rohit Sharma was given out things would have been different. Yes. Jadeja would have come bit early and MAYBE would have blasted the Bangladeshi trundlers all over the park - taking the score to 320-325

Posted
Quick question' date=' in height no balls, is the point of contact with the bat considered or do umpires need to predict where the ball will end up when reaching the batsman like in the pic above?[/quote'] The law clearly says - 'A fast high full pitched ball shall be defined as a ball that passes, or would have passed, on the full above waist height of a batsman standing upright at the crease'. So, 'would have passed' should be the key phrase I reckon.
Posted
I think passing the batsmen.
The law clearly says - 'A fast high full pitched ball shall be defined as a ball that passes, or would have passed, on the full above waist height of a batsman standing upright at the crease'. So, 'would have passed' should be the key phrase I reckon.
Thanks
Posted

The umpire cannot be expected to predict the trajectory of a full toss correctly every time. At the point of contact with the bat, the ball was about waist high. Clearly a 50-50 decision that went to India. Bad luck, Bangla.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...