Don't apply Dhoni's comment to a single isolated Ian Bell incident. It is not about a single decision - it is about the efficacy of a system. A half baked system is better not implemented is the point Dhoni was trying to make. You are allowed to make a referral and then are told that the deployment of technology conditional. How does it make any sense? Ifs and buts existed when it was manual and it still remains. What is the point of using technology then if ultimately you are gonna rely on the field umpire even after making a referral. Further, I understand that the 2.5 meter is the distance where the margin of error for trajectory calculation beoes questionable for hawk eye but then you have to take in to account that this 2.5 meter distance is more helpful on pitches in South Africa, England, NZ or Australia where there is plenty of bounce. Here on subcontinent pitches, the ball is still gonna carry to the stumps with minimal bounce. The important point is that if rules are ridiculous let us relook at the rules and not ridicule and fallacious, ICC needs to have a relook at them and not ridicule someone who has the nerve to talk about it. No where Dhoni said that it was the reason for a tie. We ended up with a tie because of our weak bowling and fielding performances and not because of Ian Bell given not out. But think about these kind of decisions in crucial knock out matches. Dhoni is correct in raising this point.
Re: This is not about a single decision
by Varun on Mar 02, 2011 05:20 PM
I still think it could have been put to proper use if billy had used the second look to judge the bounce of the pitch and spin of the ball again. In real time he does not get that liberty. So the tech could have been useful even with the limitations. But the choice was made to follow text book rendering the aid useless.
Re: Re: This is not about a single decision
by Parth Mehta on Mar 02, 2011 05:26 PM
I don't think anyone is wrong here except the rule itself. Dhoni is very correct in raising this point. Billy Bowden was right from his aspect as he was just following the rule which was written in the book. ICC needs to have a serious re-look at this rule.
Re: Re: Re: This is not about a single decision
by Varun on Mar 02, 2011 05:33 PM
The rule is fine as it is a tech limitation. But the umpire had to use the second look. That did not happen as he got stuck in the rule book. :)
Re: Re: Re: This is not about a single decision
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 05:28 PM
And becoz there is this 2.5 vs 2.49 issue they should relook at 1 cm overstepped no balls too, I guess :-)
this is cricket and if UDRS system is available it should not specify that a 2.5m or more distance to the stump cannot be given out for LBW appeal........then of course we may have to change the name of the game....
Re: paddlers cricket
by Varun on Mar 02, 2011 05:17 PM
Like someone said, now we will have players utilizing the 2.5 meter rule to their advantage. The whole thing is funny. Bowden made a decision and the decision is wrong. But he made it as per the rules he knew, which is fine from a procedural pov. But the common sense part of looking at the bounce of the ball and the pitch condition did not come into picture even during the second look he got at it. At real time, it is tough to get it 100% correct and that is fine.
Re: paddlers cricket
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 05:06 PM
2.5 m is where the margin of error for trajectory calculation becomes questionable. It has been there since hawkeye exists.
Re: bad habbit byheart.
by Bingo on Mar 02, 2011 05:06 PM
Atleast indian captain don't raise his finger to umpire to give batsmen out.It seeems Porkii pigg has disappointed with decision on salman butt and company...
Re: bad habbit byheart.
by Koduvayur on Mar 02, 2011 05:14 PM
then how come pakis were appealing excessively against sl batsman even for lbw and caught behind... repeatedly
he is not questioning interpretation of rules, he is questioning rules about UDRS ICC should listen to what Dhoni has to say first before making such silly statements. there would have been no problem had bowden not let his ego get in the way!!
Re: Re: silly statement from ICC
by Varun on Mar 02, 2011 05:06 PM
If the no ball rule is faulty, absolutely he should. Otherwise how will the game evolve. But not during a match.
Re: silly statement from ICC
by Parth Mehta on Mar 02, 2011 05:05 PM
It is not about a single decision - it is about the efficacy of a system. A half baked system is better not implemented is the point Dhoni was trying to make. You make a referral and then make deployment of technology conditional? Ifs and buts existed when it was manual and it still remains. What is the point of technolog then. If rules are ridiculous and fallacious, ICC needs to relook at the rules and not ridicule someone who has the nerve to talk about it.
Re: Re: silly statement from ICC
by Varun on Mar 02, 2011 05:08 PM
I agree. Dhoni completed the match and only when asked about it, said his opinion. There is no slave master relationship between player and umpire or player and ICC after a match is over. If players have concerns, they should raise it.
Ian Bell was given not out inspite of the fact that Hawk Eye showed the ball would have hit the stumps because he was found to be way down the crease when the ball hit him. My only question is that this fact was known to everyone...then why go to Hawk Eye in the first place?? The umpire could have told Dhoni that he declared Bell not out because he was too far down the crease and so even if the ball was to hit the stumps, the batsman would not be out. There would then be no need of referring to Hawk Eys and the controversy surrounding the decision.
In yesterday's match , Kenya Vs Sri Lanka Kenyan opener judged LBW when it was clear that ball was pitched outside of off stump...Where as Bel's case ball was pitched in line and was hitting the stump.
Re: Re: UDRS is baseless....
by Bingo on Mar 02, 2011 04:58 PM
It was outside off...And in indian sub continenet ball does not swing much..I repeat Hawkeye does not cover the swing..
Re: Re: Re: UDRS is baseless....
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 05:44 PM
If the impact was outside off as u say and the batsman had played at it then that UDRS was wrong. I agree.
Dhoni is making a comment on UDRS. The decision has been accepted long back so what ICC is cribbing about. ICC needs to get out of its mindset of being a holy cow. There is merit in what Dhoni says. ICC may accept it or reject it. That is a different issue. But to criticise Dhoni for expressing the view??? Only goes to show that the guy criticising does not deserve to hold that position if he can not comprehend the difference between 'Not accepting' and 'Commenting'.
Re: ICC Rules
by Varun on Mar 02, 2011 05:11 PM
They expressed their opinion just like dhoni did. But the funny part is the press, media and hate agenda which colors it afterwards.
Re: ICC Rules
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 05:13 PM
Cohl: :-). Well said. Next we will have bowled batsmen giving press conferences and you wi naturally support them as they are merely expressing their views. ;-)
dhoni's famed thinking has jaded..may be due to raking in lots of money through endorsements and otherwise. Sreeshanth, who was not lucky in the earlier match should have been played.. he would have turned the match on its head through all the frustrations and biased approach of dhoni towards him... it is common occurance that when one bowler gets a stick in one over, he will be given the next over also, where he will surely come up trumps...may be dhoni is not listening to his seniors also.. he will soon learn that cataincy will be taken away from him and finds himself out of the team...instead of encouraging sreesanth, he is publicly ridiculing him.. what kind of captain is this?..not supporting his own team member? the sooner dhoni mends his ways, the better for him
Re: faulty planning by dhoni cost the england match and clear poi
by LOL on Mar 02, 2011 04:56 PM
You must be a malloo or you should have been thinking with your feet.. to say that Sreesanth would have changed the fortunes. Sure yes, he would have made England win by a yard.
Re: Re: faulty planning by dhoni cost the england match and clear
by sundaram chandran on Mar 02, 2011 05:01 PM
you are simply surmising things.. for ur kind info, i m not a malloo as agains surmised by u.. if u put urself in sreeshant's place, then u will understand.. a guy getting selected to the national team is supposed to possess a huge talent. u r simply overlooking that.. all the players selected in the team are gems and there is no doubts about that.. perhaps what i say makes a little sense in u...
Re: Re: Re: faulty planning by dhoni cost the england match and c
by manoj on Mar 02, 2011 05:19 PM
in the same way,a guy selected as a national team captain is supposed to possess a huge talent and he has done it successfully for 3 years....he knows wat to do and wat not to....
Re: Re: Re: faulty planning by dhoni cost the england match and c
by shyam kumar on Mar 02, 2011 05:24 PM
If Sreesanth was playing England would have won in the 40th over itself..Fool thinks he is a gift to cricket
Apart from his coments on UDRS, pls recheck Dhoni's performance in WC !!!! Atleast, check his records for last few matches. ( Pls exclude his performance in practice match)
Re: Dhoni, The Useless Captan !!!!
by manoj on Mar 02, 2011 05:20 PM
excluding t practice match..he didnt get a bat in t 1st match...and he scored a quickfire 31 of 24 balls....tats a good performance though....
The trio has developed a great nexus along with Mahendra Dhoni so none of their actions can be questioned. They are beyond criticism and evaluation.
Somehow I could not regard Srikanth as a international player (even during his heydey). He was technically inadequate. He seemed to have just cashed in on the novelty of scoring quickly in the opening overs during those days. His foot work was lacking and his defence...well there was none. Sunny Gavaskar fell for his charm and patronized him beyond anyone's imagination. Kapil had nothing to say for or against since Srikkanth was smarting with all in the Indian team. No other player in India was given as much opportunity as Srikanth to prove his capability, but unfortunately records have proved otherwise.
Dhoni is kinda of following the same footsteps. Glory to him.
Re: Srinivasan-Srikanth-CSk
by Chintu on Mar 02, 2011 05:05 PM
Where is the connection between the article on UDRS/Dhoni and Srikanth's batting. Moreover, while I agree that Srikanth the selector follows in the footsteps of earlier jokers like Kiran More, I would beg to differ on Srikanth the batsman. All this talk today of capitalising on the 1st 15 overs and unorthodox batting was first seen from Srikanth and Mark Greatbatch of New Zealand. In this era we have a lot of hitters like Yusuf Pathan, Yuvraj, Raina, Dhoni, Sehwag etc..but in that generation of dour batsmen like Gavaskar, Mohinder, Yashpal etc (no discredit to them though), Srikanth the batsman was like a breath of fresh air.....Dont go only by records...
Re: Re: Srinivasan-Srikanth-CSk
by LOL on Mar 02, 2011 05:56 PM
Thats exactly the point. Its the novelty of his approach to hit the initial overs in one dayers that secured his place in the team rather than specific batting skills. The way he struggled against the WI pace attack in the test series immediately following the 83 world cup was there for all to see. It was all lack of technique. Contrast that with Sunny who was a test player and how he adapted his game to one day cricket in the 87 WC. Good batsmen have sound technique for defence. they can mould their game to any situation. e.g. Sachin. Srikanth is no where in comparison to these masters.
