Sachin should play a more visible role

[Lurker]

because 1. you are particiapting in a discusion about Human Umpiring where the defense is that its charming.

Says who??? I am participating in a discussion about Sachin and how he should play a more visible role. Thats what the OP is and that is NOT about umpiring. Prove me wrong.

2. Your post here I dont expect modern cricket fans to have an aorta of cricketing history knowledge but I would expect them to be decent towards those who are deemed "traditionalist" or in love with "charm" of cricket. At the end of the day cricket is a charming game of touch and finesse and not a contact sport clearly states this view where you use the word charm to describe what cricket is all about unless you are now going to exclude just the umpiring from the charm part which then makes no sense since you are saying this on a discussion about umpiring. ... This is further confirmed from the other 2 posts.

No it doesnt. What it shows is: 1) That you have a one-track mind that looks everything from his own angle. 2) That you cant bestow the common courtsey of asking the other person to suggest where he is coming from. Instead you are quick to assume and result in a grand eff up for everyone. My comment(italized portion) was directly co-related to how player's boorish behaviour has impacted the world of cricket. You very conviniently forgot that in the paragraph preceding I was talking of why cricket is thought of as a touch and finesse game played by Gods and why family take their kids to watch it. Why do you think a family takes kid to watch cricket and not football in England? Because of Steve Bucknor? NO. It is because of cricket being a more social atmosphere with little boorish crowd behaviour. There is no violence, on and off the field, crowd doesnt get overdrunk and start beating the cr@p off each other.This has of course changed very much over the years but that was my angle and it would have been only right that you checked that with me first.

But if your view on umpiring is something different why dont you state it instead of all this ? From all your posts so far and your vehement opposition towards use of the word charm to describe umpiring I gather that you simply just feel Umpires are better than technology . Am I right ?

Thats because you keep forgetting what I keep saying! Havent I mentioned 2000 times now that I am all for umpires making line calls - specially with regards to run outs, fours/sixes, stumpings and so on? Havent I mentioned I am NOT convinced yet as of fool proofness of Hawkeye when it comes to lbw and close bat-pad catches and I find umpires best placed for that? Havent I mentioned that no-ball is judged fastest by the umpire and not some machine going beep beep beep everytime a bowler steps over the line? So why is it my fault that it just doesnt register withj you?

Your point is valid that if someone still wants to screw around he still can anyhow go ahead and do it. This was evident in the Super Test where decisions that had to be refered never got refered and those that were obvious got refered. But this brings in another ugly aspect - i.e control freaks - but lets do that some other time.

Alright then. So long as we have the right people/tool for the job I am fine with it. But I am not going to pick Hawkeye simply because it is technology. You mentioned how accurate it is and you keep forgetting how most top commentators are openly sceptical about it. And no its NOT because they are psecs. The very same media that is blasting Ponting and his team for its boorish behaviour is uncertain when it comes to technology. The heat is of course on ICC to improve the way judgements are made but there are very few voices that say - transfer it all to technology, unless you can show me that. xxx

[CC1981]

Can someone please explain to me how on earth is the challenge system going to be any good ? Just think about it- if this is test cricket and say you got 3 challenges per innings, who in their right mind would save them for Dhoni or Yuvraj and who in their right mind wouldn't use it EVERY SINGLE TIME versus Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly/Laxman ? How is it fair on the players and how is it level playing field then when 1 player gets 'challenged' every single innings and another once-in-a-blue-moon ?

[theguyinallblue]

CC...it will be like the way its in Tennis... if your appeal goes against you..then your appeal chance will be reduced to 2...and if your appeal goes in your favour..then your appeal chance remains at 3...

[The Outsider]

GIB, CC has a very valid point against the challenge system. Unlike a true team sport like American Football, cricket is a team game based on individuals. All the challenges will be targeted against the best batsmen off the opposition. Why would you risk wasting a challenge against Sreesanth when you can take a chance against Tendulkar. I don't think challenge system is the right answer. Umpires given the leeway to call for replays whenever in doubt is the right path, IMO.

[theguyinallblue]

ofcourse players won't appeal just for the heck of it..unless they are sure of it.. if player did not nick it..then then given out caught behind..obviously he would appeal..and result will be in his favour....and total appeals will remain 3 with the team for the innings... it quite straight forward system...i do not see any ambiguity in it... it will really help those teams who suffer the most from umpires...and rest assured.. totals will be much lesser if this system comes into play..

[The Outsider]

Man, you are not getting the point. All referrals will be used against top batsmen of both sides, not on the basis of doubtful decisions. Even if a leg before is denied against Sreesanth, a team would not rick using a referral on it but would keep it even for a 30-70 decision against Tendulkar.

[theguyinallblue]

so whats wrong in it...i will have 3 chances in an innings ... obviously i will use it judiciously... if chances are 50-50 i will not risk it against any noname player... and its not that umpires every decision is wrong..so yes...if i am sure that my appeal will be in my favour....i will not hesitate to use it against number XI batsman of opposition....

[CC1981]

i will not hesitate to use it against number XI batsman of opposition....

Good thing you arnt a captain then if you are going to waste an appeal (or keep it long enough ) for McGrath or RP Singh's batting. Look dude, its fairly simple- you CANNOT have an appeal-deductive system if you are wrong- otherwise it is pointless. If you are going to be deducted an appeal for getting it wrong, then you can garantee that nobody will use the appeal for lbws- for NOBODY is sure of an lbw unless they are sitting in front of a tv and got all sorts of gyzmos playing around in the commercial break. And lbws is the most common area of umpiring gaffes anyways. The point is simple- if you have 3-4 appeals, you will save it for the BEST batsmen. And this will obviously make it a fundamentally uneven game if Tendulkar gets challenged against twice per match and nobody bothers appealing against Jaffer or Yuvraj or another passenger. Whatever the system is, it MUST be applied equally to all players and appeals will fundamentally be used against the best batsmen most of the time. Which means the playing field won't be equal anymore and who you appeal against/who you do not comes down a lot to reputation. Which is just cr@p. Best case scenario i can think of is umpires retaining the right to judge any appeal and ANY catch that is not a straightforward one ( like a chip to midwicket or a huge edge to 1st slip) is automatically referred to the third umpire. There can be a hawkeye system for no-balls where it beeps if you overstep. Cricket is such a game where you CANNOT completely replace the field umpire and expect it to work.

[fineleg]

lurker no one will read you if you write so much lol

Reading Lurker is a piece of cake. Writes good as well, so not a problem reading. There are verbose writers and then there are real verbose writers.

[Feed]

Tendulkar texts the Board? Former England captain Tony Greig has claimed that star batsman Sachin Tendulkar sparked India's decision to suspend its cricket tour of Australia. More... Former England captain Tony Greig has claimed that star batsman Sachin Tendulkar sparked India's decision to suspend its cricket tour of Australia. Speaking on Channel Nine on Tuesday, Greig said Tendulkar sent a text message to Board of Control for Cricket in India president Sharad Pawar on Monday urging him to call a halt to the tour. That was as a result of spinner Harbhajan Singh's three-Test suspension for allegedly racially abusing Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds during the second Test at the SCG. Tendulkar, who was batting with Harbhajan when the incident allegedly occurred on day three of the game, reportedly called on the BCCI to only continue on and play in next week's third Test in Perth if Harbhajan is subsequently cleared on appeal. "Harbhajan is innocent, and I can assure you on this," Greig claims Tendulkar said in the text message. "In this hour of crisis the board should stand by him. I suggest we should play in Perth only if the ban is lifted." Now a commentator, Greig preceded his sensational claims by pointing out that even though the BCCI and its players are not considered to be close, such a strong message from Tendulkar would have galvanised Pawar and the board's response. The incident involving Symonds and Harbhajan was immediately reported to umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson by Australian captain Ricky Ponting, with the pair then reporting the matter to match referee Procter, who laid the code of conduct charge. And after Harbhajan was found guilty by Procter of calling Symonds a 'monkey' and subsequently outed for three matches, the BCCI proceeded to order the team remain in Sydney until his appeal is lodged and heard. The Indians were to have travelled to Canberra on Monday for their two-day tour game against an Invitational XI but with their refusal to continue the tour until the matter is resolved, it is likely to be abandoned altogether unless Harbhajan's ban is overturned. Tendulkar, who is almost certainly on his final tour of Australia, brought up his 38th Test century during a record eighth-wicket partnership with Harbhajan on day three of the second Test. Known as the 'Little Master', Tendulkar gave evidence at Harbhajan's hearing that his team-mate had not uttered the word monkey towards Symonds after the Australian had had words with Harbhajan.

[King]

If we can trust the quote by Tony Grieg Tendulkar has done the right thing and it's good to know he is concerned with the issue. It was about time Tendulkar did something of this sort and standby the team. His one word is worth millions in India and am sure BCCI will go by his words.