Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I dont really know why Indian fans are that bothered about Tendulkar being given out on 90 odd. They still won the test convincing. If it was a decision that cost them the victory, say like Panesar to Sreesanth in the first test then I can see why they would be...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    I really don't believe this racism argument. I think that what goes around comes around with bad decisions, and all teams suffer about equally from it. Maybe in some games one does a bit more than another, but to make up for the second test one day England will get a few bad decisions. The Umpires try their best and don't deserve to have their names tarred with racism claims, how would you feel if you were wrongly accused of it?
    Good posting :ditto:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    I really don't believe this racism argument. I think that what goes around comes around with bad decisions, and all teams suffer about equally from it. Maybe in some games one does a bit more than another, but to make up for the second test one day England will get a few bad decisions. The Umpires try their best and don't deserve to have their names tarred with racism claims, how would you feel if you were wrongly accused of it?
    I agree the majority probably arent, but we can still be sceptical as we dont know for certain that their own biases arent shown on the pitch. Like if there is a decision which is close they wont be criticised too much for giving it to australia for example as opposed to Pakistan. Plus theres those like mr hair and the other aussy guy who have time after time picked on sri lanka and pakistan i.e. murali which questions if they really are neautral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperDaz)
    I dont really know why Indian fans are that bothered about Tendulkar being given out on 90 odd. They still won the test convincing. If it was a decision that cost them the victory, say like Panesar to Sreesanth in the first test then I can see why they would be...
    They are not. There's just a discussion on whether or not Tendulkar should have been fined for standing there after being given out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    It's precisely that reason teams like Australia make many loud appeals on either ways. It puts a doubt in the Umpire's mind
    That's just the point. The decisions here weren't marginal. And saying that he sees a player cover off stump and then guess that one of them is out is just a downright disgrace to an umpire's worth.

    So now you're claiming 99.9% of umpire's LBW decisions are correct when a minute ago you were complaining about how so many had been wrong?[/QUOTE]
    No, pointing out that a handful of shocking decisions were made in the last two Test matches doesn't undermine the ICC's claim of 99.something% accuracy (especially when it was based on data from previous years).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suc-Cesc!!!)
    They are not. There's just a discussion on whether or not Tendulkar should have been fined for standing there after being given out.
    ACtually there's 2 discussions. One on wether or not he should have been fined and then biggie-n moaning he wasn't out, should never have been given out and the nasty umpires were picking on him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suc-Cesc!!!)
    They are not. There's just a discussion on whether or not Tendulkar should have been fined for standing there after being given out.
    Funnily enough, I don't think a player should be fined when the protest to a decision that is not out. In fact, the dissent towards umpires rule should be more strictly enforced for fielders challenging the umpire when he has given the benefit to the batsman.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    That's just the point. The decisions here weren't marginal. And saying that he sees a player cover off stump and then guess that one of them is out is just a downright disgrace to an umpire's worth.
    I'm saying it increases the chance of an either way being given out. I'm not sure why you are having suhc difficulty in grasping this.

    No, pointing out that a handful of shocking decisions were made in the last two Test matches doesn't undermine the ICC's claim of 99.something% accuracy (especially when it was based on data from previous years).
    Which presumably the two umpires were included in?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    ACtually there's 2 discussions. One on wether or not he should have been fined and then biggie-n moaning he wasn't out, should never have been given out and the nasty umpires were picking on him.
    Actually, I was lamenting the standard of umpiring in this series. And yes, I don't believe a player should be given out if the ball is missing off stump. Clearly, there are facets of this game I am yet to understand...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    I'm saying it increases the chance of an either way being given out. I'm not sure why you are having suhc difficulty in grasping this.
    No, I don't believe umpires are influenced by such petty behaviour.

    (Original post by Ethereal)
    Which presumably the two umpires were included in?
    Actually, its on an individual basis. How hard is it to examine the decisions of a single umpire?:rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I was under the impression that when it pitched outside the line, its usually given not out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    Funnily enough, I don't think a player should be fined when the protest to a decision that is not out. In fact, the dissent towards umpires rule should be more strictly enforced for fielders challenging the umpire when he has given the benefit to the batsman.
    i think the main issue is the level of dissent, should a batsmen go up to the umpire and start shouting then you can start to talk about fines but merely standing their in disbelief for a few seconds is no problem at all and i dont know who started it off but has killed off the main discussion about the match. And its no good comparing football with cricket as if footballers were fined for approaching the ref every time they would be in debt.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    Actually, I was lamenting the standard of umpiring in this series. And yes, I don't believe a player should be given out if the ball is missing off stump. Clearly, there are facets of this game I am yet to understand...
    You are yet to understand umpires are human, make the best decision they can, will wether consciuosly or subconsciously take any doubts because of previous decisions in to account, and will sometimes get it wrong. It's as simple as that. No unfairness in favour of one team or another. No special treatment. No racism. Just plain human error.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    i think the main issue is the level of dissent, should a batsmen go up to the umpire and start shouting then you can start to talk about fines but merely standing their in disbelief for a few seconds is no problem at all and i dont know who started it off but has killed off the main discussion about the match. And its no good comparing football with cricket as if footballers were fined for approaching the ref every time they would be in debt.
    Yes I agree. As a commentator pointed out, its hard to tell whether is dissent or disappointment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    I was under the impression that when it pitched outside the line, its usually given not out.
    well if you look at KP's wicket with Khan bowling, that pitched about 2 metres outside the line but was clearly out. I think the issue is to do with umpires not being 100% when its outside, however in that instance when the balls coming back so much it can be out. Plus KP didnt offer a shot so confirmed the decision.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    I was under the impression that when it pitched outside the line, its usually given not out.
    Usually, but there is no requirement. If the umpire judged it was turning back in and would have taken off then he can give it out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    You are yet to understand umpires are human, make the best decision they can, will wether consciuosly or subconsciously take any doubts because of previous decisions in to account, and will sometimes get it wrong. It's as simple as that. No unfairness in favour of one team or another. No special treatment. No racism. Just plain human error.
    I didn't say it was any of these things. You've got to read more carefully. I just said it was a shocking decision even after taking into account the human error possible. Even then, that argument is irrelevant considering this was not a marginal decision.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    Usually, but there is no requirement. If the umpire judged it was turning back in and would have taken off then he can give it out.
    ONLY if
    a)it hits the batsman in line with the stumps
    or b) it hits the batsman outside the line of the stumps but he wasn't offering a shot.

    Of course, all of this is irrelevant if the ball isn't hitting the stumps.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    I didn't say it was any of these things. You've got to read more carefully. I just said it was a shocking decision even after taking into account the human error possible. Even then, that argument is irrelevant considering this was not a marginal decision.
    You have implied a bias against the Indian batsman.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    ONLY if
    a)it hits the batsman in line with the stumps
    or b) it hits the batsman outside the line of the stumps but he wasn't offering a shot.

    Of course, all of this is irrelevant if the ball isn't hitting the stumps.:rolleyes:
    The umpire clearly thought it was and that is all that matters. I do beleive if you read my post I said if the umpire judged it to be turning back to hit.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.