The decision of the LBW against Viru was horrendos, to say the least.The batsman has an equal right to appeal as the bowlers. Billy Bowden has set a vary bad example in the umpiring standards. Though Dave Shep & Vekatraghavan are maestros in umpiring, they too had their share of bad decisions.The fact that the 3rd Umpire are also officiating in the match means, that if both the umpires go wrong, then he'll come into picture and make a correct decision. The sheer fact that Mr. Ranjan Madugale had fined Viru 60% of the match fee is in itself a 'dissent'. The match refree should be fined & not the player, for he appealed for all the things good. And one question...Don't the refrees have eyes, not to notice see the thick edge that went on to hit the pads? Its really a tough (unjust) world out there. In fact the match refrees should be fined for meting out such harsh treatment & not the players. Looking at the replays, the refree could easily see the edge but very conveniently he chose to overlook this and to proove his presence in the box that he sits in, he has fined the poor player. 60% of the match fee is nothing to Viru compared the the national pride that he immensly has.
We are praising 3 batsmen and talking about dissent, who was being dishonest here. Nobody. But in frist test who was being dishonest, both umpires. Players! NO. So what am I trying to talk about. To keep the harmony and sportsman spirit alive, we have to include modern technology in the cricket. Human element? What human element! is it human to mess the career of batsman like Akash Chopra. Humiliating defeat to a team which didnt deserve to lose. All rubbish. If we introduce technology in umpiring it will revive sportsman spirit and harmony between cricketers. Being human doesnt mean encouraging bias or incompetent people dominate honest and respectfuls. As I have suggested about 2 years earlier (a writer on cricketnext.com stole that idea recently without giving me credit and this same writer has used my lines word by word at another time) that every team can protest an umpiring decision 3 times in a test match and TV replay shall be used to give the final judgement. If the protest is right that team will still have 3 chances left but if wrong they lose their 1chance. Protest can be made by the players involved not their temamates. Example will be in reponse
Whether you are not, should always be judged by the umpire and everybody has to accept the decision whether right or wrong. True sportmanship lies in accepting any decision gracefully. Batsmans leaving the wicket on his own or standing on the wicket in disagreement does not count.
A good poser Ms. Patwardhan. I'd say that dissent must be defined as reactionary disagreement. A batsman who "walks" is doing so out of his judgement and not out of a knee jerk reaction. It is also something that speaks volumes about the character of the "walker". The usual excuse for a batsman to stay at the crease after he nicks the ball is that judgements go against him (unjustly) many a time and he has but one chance in an inning. But this is such a shallow perspective. At the highest level, if the players simply accept bad decisions in their favour, they are making the umpires more sure of their abilities when they are not. I also feel, if a batsman feels that he has been given out wrongly, he should be allowed to disagree in a decent manner. This should be promoted by not fining, what I call, "gentlemanly dissent". For, gentlemen do not cease to be gentlemen, if they disagree. We do understand that umpires were nominated by agreement of the two captians in the early days of cricket. Thus, disagreeing with an umpire was disgrace to oneself. But times have changed a lot. Let's have some Cricket! Umpires, take note! :-)
It is an interesting angle to consider, specially the last para....
In the long run, I think it is better to leave it in the hands of the umpire, but those hands must be strengthened with a prudent use of technology. The third umpire should be used more, since he has the benefit of slow-mo replays to determine exactly in most cases. If it is inconclusive, the field umpire can still take the final decision. Where there is an obvious mistake by the field umpire, as in Sehwag's case in Bangalore, the third umpire should have the power to inform the on-field guy and call back the batsman...
However, if it is a coordinated attempt by the players to play fair, it will do wonders to the on-field attitudes and cricket will be cricket again... three cheers to the guys who showed the way yesterday... the whole situation really tickles one pink... how I wish it was Bucknor and not Shep standing at that end when this happened...
I don't know much, but I do know Kasparowicz (spelling???) was NOT OUT. Now, why did he walk? I don't think it had anything to do with 'sportsmanship'. Any 'other' reasons you can think of ;->......hmmmmmmm????
Well... it's really good to see batsmen walking to the pavilion even when given not out, but just think how right it is to do so. On a bad day, a batsman may be given out incorrectly and once given out the batsman can do nothing but to walk back (Ofcourse, he can hang around for a while and get his match fee cut down). When u can have some decisions against you, you also deserve some in your favour, don't you? If I were a batsman, I would leave it entirely to the umpire to decide, because ultimately his decision is what matters! And these days, cricket is not a fun game! So much is at stake when u play for ur country. The words like honesty, sportsmanship is good only when everyone abides to it! Coming to players like Gilchrist, well he's a kind of player who doesn't want to be talked about not leaving even though he knew he was out! And I really don't see it as a dissent and the umpires should appreciate the players' honesty rather than seeing it as an act of dissent!
It is an interesting angle to consider, specially the last para....
In the long run, I think it is better to leave it in the hands of the umpire, but those hands must be strengthened with a prudent use of technology. The third umpire should be used more, since he has the benefit of slow-mo replays to determine exactly in most cases. If it is inconclusive, the field umpire can still take the final decision. Where there is an obvious mistake by the field umpire, as in Sehwag's case in Bangalore, the third umpire should have the power to inform the on-field guy and call back the batsman...
However, if it is a coordinated attempt by the players to play fair, it will do wonders to the on-field attitudes and cricket will be cricket again... three cheers to the guys who showed the way yesterday... the whole situation really tickles one pink... how I wish it was Bucknor and not Shep standing at that end when this happened...
