but the third umpires r not there to use their brain.they only have to see wht review system suggest and give decision accordingly.for the brainy decision we have 2 umpires on field.so if replays suggest the ball was hitting stumps then batsman is out.If third umpire has to make his own decision then whs the fun of tv replays and udrs system and hawk eye???then we can stick only to on filed umpires..
Re: umpire
by Sameer Bhagwat on Feb 28, 2011 12:55 AM
once I came to know that sachin hit a century, I said to my frnds that India is not going to win the match... and at the end I was right
Re: Re: umpire
by suzaine verma on Feb 28, 2011 01:05 AM
first i dnt use to belive dat india wil lose if sachin hit a century many times i saw dis happn bt didnt let my self to b supersitious bt im nw goin to beliv dis..
Re: Re: umpire
by Another Critic on Feb 28, 2011 12:58 AM
When England was chasing well, I also thought that few idiots post lame and blame Sachin's century as a reason for India's loss.
When the bowlers were getting hammered none of the senior went up to them to cheer them up. None of the fielders were shouting encouragement to the bowlers or to other fielders. It was as if the team spirit is non existent.
The captain n Wicket keeper Dhoni was like a robot, not uttering a word to the bowlers, or shouting encouragement to the fielders. Expressionaless captain!
There seems to be a growing recognition within the team that this captain is a very selfish person who will play smart politics to sideline emerging players to keep his captaincy safe. Like he denied another opportunity for Kohli to come and hit a big score by forcing him to come way down the order. He promotes himself up in the order when India was in a comfortable position...and he thought batting is so easy so why not go and make a good score for myself! He didnt send Kohli, Yuvraj or Pathan early on.
This guy has his shrewd self severing calculations. People in the team are catching up to his games. When they realize this, then their natural dislike for his games will begin showing on the field. I see a growing frustration with Dhonis leadership (lack of leadership) slowing gaining recognition and generating frustration within this team.
Re: There is a lot of friction in this team!
by Shesh Lak on Feb 28, 2011 12:43 AM
match was fixed.. that's the reason no one was showing any reaction.
Re: Re: There is a lot of friction in this team!
by Setu Madhavan on Feb 28, 2011 12:52 AM
Actually that thought crossed my mind. And the fact that Shane Warne sent a tweet before the match.."Looking forward to the England India match...will be a cracker. My prediction - A TIE".
All of this made me wonder, that something was fishy. But then again how can anyone fix things so well in a one day that the result is an exact tie. How can anyone ensure that a lower order batsman will hit a six in the last over and make 13 runs etc etc.
But the team was moving around like dead men walking and only came to life briefly when Zaheer amzingly took those three wickets!
Re: There is a lot of friction in this team!
by k p on Feb 28, 2011 12:51 AM
This Captain is playing for Betters! He is in contract with the London based Bookies!
He does not want Kohli, Pathan & Sree succeed! His friends are very poor in fitness! His friend Nehra has given his back the University Student Doctors to do experiments! He staying in ICU after somehow finished 7 overs in this WC!! Selectors and Dhoni are still proud of him because he is not from the South!!
Captain Dhoni is quite unhappy when India is inching towards victory! His face is gloomy!
This Captain wants to do a one-man show when everything is ok and comfortable - promoting himself up the order and promoting his friend Yuvi up the order! For him, this world cup is only an opportunity to make some money rather than winning it for the nation!
If his frineds are not able to take a wicket and their RPO is high, he will stop them in the first overs and send them to play easily agaisnt the tail-enders so that they can claim 1 or 2 wickets and justify their position in the team for the next match!
Our Captain is liability for the nation and for the cricket loving public!!
His Captaincy is a disgrace and disservice to the nation!!
Re: Shocking Sagarika Ghose Case Study !
by amor on Feb 28, 2011 12:47 AM
To save India the only resignations to be demanded are from the culprits of communal politics like Modis, thackerays and RSS workers of whcich u r a part. Have u done anything good for ur country other than hate and communal politics? as regards ur "Patriotism" what about 2G scam of RSS Arun shourie? It were BJP politicians who stole money out of soldiers slain in Kargil war? How about their reignation?
can sumone explain wy Bell was given not out when replays shows tht the ball was in line and hitting middle and of??R these rule only for sub continent teams and different rules for white teams??
Re: umpire
by Kabeer on Feb 28, 2011 12:41 AM
Hawk eye can only predict the path of the ball within 2.50 metres from the stumps being hit.
In this case, when the ball hit on Ian Bells pads, Ian Bell was more than 2.50 metres from the stumps. Hence, the path of the ball can not conclusively proven that it would have hit the stumps.
That is why he was not given out, which is a fair decision as per the rules.
However, the rule actually should have been that the 2.50 metre be considered provided the ball is likely to hit either the off stump or the leg stump but not the middle stump. If it were to hit the middle stump even if it is 2.50 metres away it should have hit either the leg or off stump even if the ball swings either way.
But what can not be conclusively proven is the height of the ball. If it is beyond 2.50 metre range hawk eye can not say.
From that perspective the umpire is 100% correct.
Many Indians might have feel cheated but it is a fair decision.
Re: Re: umpire
by Setu Madhavan on Feb 28, 2011 01:50 AM
1) If the ball hits the pad more than 2.5 meters from the wicket, that does not make the Hawk eye non functional.
Even though the ball struck Ian Bells pad more than 2.5 mtr away from the wicket, the Hawk eye showed clearly that it would have hit the lower half of the middle stump.
2) The reason the 2.5 meter clause has been put in the UDRS system is because the hawk eye can NOT accurately predict the path of 'SWINGING' balls. Because swing bowlers (like Akram) could make a seemingly straight delivery take a last microsecond wild turn and crash the stumps.
3) If after review a TV umpire is convinced that the ground umpire's original decision is wrong, the TV umpire CAN NOT OVERRULE the ground umpire's decision 'if the ball hit the pad more than 2.5 mtrs from the wicket'. (THIS Is the most important part of the debate that you missed).
As per UDRS rules if the ball hits the pad more than 2.5 meters from the wicket, the TV umpire's decision is NON BINDING on the ground umpire. The TV umpire can only RETURN the decision to the ground umpire saying, "Hawk eye shows the ball hitting the mid (or leg or off stump). My decision is OUT. However because the the ball struck the pad more than 2.5 mtr away from the stumps I do not have the authority to reverse your decision. As the ground umpire u have the choice to stick with your original decision or reverse your decision".
The field umpire CHOSE to NOT change his original 'NOT OUT' d
Re: umpire
by Kabeer on Feb 28, 2011 12:41 AM
Hawk eye can only predict the path of the ball within 2.50 metres from the stumps being hit.
In this case, when the ball hit on Ian Bells pads, Ian Bell was more than 2.50 metres from the stumps. Hence, the path of the ball can not conclusively proven that it would have hit the stumps.
That is why he was not given out, which is a fair decision as per the rules.
However, the rule actually should have been that the 2.50 metre be considered provided the ball is likely to hit either the off stump or the leg stump but not the middle stump. If it were to hit the middle stump even if it is 2.50 metres away it should have hit either the leg or off stump even if the ball swings either way.
But what can not be conclusively proven is the height of the ball. If it is beyond 2.50 metre range hawk eye can not say.
From that perspective the umpire is 100% correct.
Many Indians might have feel cheated but it is a fair decision.
Re: Re: Re: umpire
by Bada Bhai on Feb 28, 2011 12:55 AM
Well it is not Kabeer's analysis..just switch in to any standard news channel and experts have explained it
