Umpiring screw ups at SCG Thread - keep updating

[Anakin]

No, what i mean is limited challenges will ALWAYS mean that the fielding team will use it as much as possible against a greater batsman than a lesser one. It is only natural- you'd defintely risk getting it wrong even if you have so much of a small nagging doubt against someone like Tendy or Inzy. Having this challenge system will mean some batsmen will get scrutinized more than other batsmen by default, which i don't think is very fair or a good reflection on the game.

Again, it's the problem of the respective team, and SAME for every team.

[Anakin]

It's better than the joke of a system that exists now.

[CC1981]

It's better than the joke of a system that exists now.

It fundamentally destroys the credibility of ANY sport if certain players are going to be scrutinized more than other exact same type of players!

[Anakin]

And let me guess, the current system treats every single player the same way? Why do I even bother.

[chunky_lafanga]

Not buying your argument CC. There is no reason not to use technology.

[CC1981]

And let me guess, the current system treats every single player the same way? Why do I even bother.

On the workings of it,yes it does. I am not saying the current system is perfect- just saying that this whole 'challenge' idea is pretty damn ridiculous, since it will mean XYZ players getting challenged EVERY GAME and some players not seeing a challenge at all. Pretty hard to have ANY value in personal statistics when XYZ are getting challenged every game and ABC every 5 games.

[Donny]

Donny, Your comments? :P

As usual, an enormous yawn. You start a thread so your fellow whingers can wallow in self pity. Why else would you do this ? So the ICC will read ICF and suddenly bring in more technology (as Rajeev seems to think) ? Dream on. Yes, Anakin, I do have a lot of cricket experience. I grew up respecting umpire's decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean respecting certain umpire's judgement but it does mean accepting their decisions in a match and getting on with the game. Most of you just turn a blind eye to my calls for umpire's to be given more access to technology. You prefer your throwaway lines and cop outs like calling me a troll. So be it. All this carping and constantly replaying dismissals or non dismissals achieves what ? Has it ever changed a decision ? No. I rest my case. :regular_smile:

[maggot_brain]

Not buying your argument CC. There is no reason not to use technology.

Yes, and I think the three challenge thing they have here in England should be applied on a worldwide basis.

[CC1981]

Not buying your argument CC. There is no reason not to use technology.

Dude. i aint talking about technology- i am talking about the challenge system. And yes, there are plenty of reasons NOT to use technology- as i said many times, if you think hawkeye is a good replacement for the umpire for lbws, you are either a clueless fool about basic physics & technology or you have diddly squat for an idea on how hawkeye actually works. There's a very good reason why Hawkeye is not used as a predictive tool in ANY sport!

[Ram]

I have said this before, and will say it again. We must do all we can in helping the umpire to get the decision right, but we must NEVER overrule his decision. A challenge system over-rules the umpire's decision and should not be implemented.

[CC1981]

As usual, an enormous yawn. You start a thread so your fellow whingers can wallow in self pity. Why else would you do this ? So the ICC will read ICF and suddenly bring in more technology (as Rajeev seems to think) ? Dream on. Yes, Anakin, I do have a lot of cricket experience. I grew up respecting umpire's decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean respecting certain umpire's judgement but it does mean accepting their decisions in a match and getting on with the game. Most of you just turn a blind eye to my calls for umpire's to be given more access to technology. You prefer your throwaway lines and cop outs like calling me a troll. So be it. All this carping and constantly replaying dismissals or non dismissals achieves what ? Has it ever changed a decision ? No. I rest my case. :regular_smile:

Well said. Btw, bear in mind that unlike sunday league cricket or junior league cricket as prevalent in Australia/England etc, most subcontinentals have ZERO experience playing proper cricket. Most here havn't even played a single 50-over format games- most subcontinentals specialize in playing ad-hoc street cricket (which can sometimes be at a very high level especially if tapeball is used) and thus have no concept of accepting an umpire's decision. Most guys play cricket in the street with their friends and umpires are either non-existent or some friends' dad/uncle/older brother- and almost always there is an argument or two about close dismissals/lbws. The maturity in accepting an umpire's decision is instilled early through the numerous 'little league' cricket in OZ/England/NZ etc. That is another reason why these teams also specialize in sledging/mind games because of the presence of 'unquestionable authority and uncrossable limits' from a very early age playing cricket- desis usually just scream/swear/threaten like oafs when it comes to sledging and that is also reflected in large part by the desi cricket teams too. Language is often used as an excuse and it does play a big part, but when India-Pakistan are playing for example, the sledges are mostly in the 'you mother****, ****sucker go sh*t in your papa's face' kinda stuff.

[Anakin]

The bottom line is challenge system or any thing for that matter is better than what we have now.

[Anakin]

As usual, an enormous yawn. You start a thread so your fellow whingers can wallow in self pity. Why else would you do this ? So the ICC will read ICF and suddenly bring in more technology (as Rajeev seems to think) ? Dream on. Yes, Anakin, I do have a lot of cricket experience. I grew up respecting umpire's decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean respecting certain umpire's judgement but it does mean accepting their decisions in a match and getting on with the game. Most of you just turn a blind eye to my calls for umpire's to be given more access to technology. You prefer your throwaway lines and cop outs like calling me a troll. So be it. All this carping and constantly replaying dismissals or non dismissals achieves what ? Has it ever changed a decision ? No. I rest my case. :regular_smile:

Of course, when the umpiring decisions favor your team invariably almost always why complain about it? And I know your lecture of how OZ is not your team and whatever, so don't bother. It's not a matter of whether things will change or not, it's a matter of being a blind supporter of a hugely FLAWED system and then defending it like an idiot.

[CC1981]

The bottom line is challenge system or any thing for that matter is better than what we have now.

Disagree with that bottomline.

[Anakin]

Disagree with that bottomline.

Thanks. Now I know I am correct.

[CC1981]

it's a matter of being a blind supporter of a hugely FLAWED system and then defending it like an idiot.

Shooting down many a pot-pourri of 'here's my fixit solution' theories that are fundamentally idiotic does not mean defending the current system btw. The current system is not perfect- umpires will be influenced into favouring the better team, its a psychological thing- but not something that cannot be overcome/compensated for and if any team makes it to the 'best team' phase for an era, the circle would come full circle for them anyways. Bottomline is, the umpiring panel is made up of foreigners- there is hardly any umpiring where people from the same country are playing AND umpiring at the same game. If you think foreigners are 'biassed' against you almost universally, you either gotto be a paranoid git or a North Korean...if your team also happens to have the most powerful 'board/member' of the top controlling body of the sport and also contributes most of the moolah and you STILL think that foreigners are just biassed against your team, i suggest seeking psychological help- for that is nothing more than paranoia of the highest sense totally muddled by an overweight and bloated concept of nationalism. Practically a picture-perfect fit for the standard 'chip-on-shoulder' definition.

[chunky_lafanga]

Dude. i aint talking about technology- i am talking about the challenge system. And yes, there are plenty of reasons NOT to use technology- as i said many times, if you think hawkeye is a good replacement for the umpire for lbws,

you are either a clueless fool about basic physics & technology or you have diddly squat for an idea on how hawkeye actually works. There's a very good reason why Hawkeye is not used as a predictive tool in ANY sport!

I want unlimited challenges. If slow motion and other tech clearly show that a batsman was out then the third umpire should give it out. People like you were against using tech for run outs as well. For all borderline decisions the benefit of doubt should go to the batsman. Now suck on this CC :mama: and go easy with the name calling :finger:

[CC1981]

I want unlimited challenges.

yeah..lets play 50 overs for 5 days and test cricket for a month then. :haha::haha:

People like you were against using tech for run outs as well.

Err no, stop making idiotic accusations. When run-outs started being judged through technology, i couldn't give a f*ck about cricket- it was 1991, i was 10 yrs old and watching cricket mattered not a jot!

Now suck on this CC :mama: and go easy with the name calin

Like i said, if you knew how hakeye actually works and how 'good' it is, i doubt you'd be advocating its usage-especially if you UNDERSTOOD physics.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Online]

MASSIVE inside edge there :D