Re: True Story
by B M on Mar 02, 2011 11:20 AM
The nation ignored the escapades of Rahul's great grandfather JL Nehru who one of the biggest womanisers of his era.
Likewise, no Indian will raise any serious objection even if the story given above is true.
Either completely use DRS or Don't use it .., Don't make it as a Support system for Umpires.., Unless you force the decision on DRS you can not get clear consigs from all.., If you enforce the Umpire to finally take decision then again he has two choices either to GO with DRS decision or not. Final Decision Point need to be forced .., It should NOT be left to the Umpire...., Teams are referring to Third Umpire only because they are not satisfied with Umpire on filed..., Now again if you ask him to take decision in case the distance is 2.5M then it will hurt and effect one team !!!!!
Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 11:18 AM
Pusarla Kumar:
Please visit icc website, and review the ODI playing conditions, which mentions 2.5 metre rule.
BTW, do you know why the 2.5 metre rule is there? It is to ensure that the margin of error is within acceptable limit so that the technologically decided decisions are as fool-proof as they can be.
Re: Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by saltychoco@rediffmail.com on Mar 02, 2011 12:08 PM
So what do u say? Ian Bell is out or not? Just use ur sense and give me ur decision.
Re: Re: Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 12:10 PM
Salty Choco:
As per the Hawkeye the "projection" was not reliable enough... Clearly Bowden thought he was not out... I can't give you my decision as I wasn't there...
Re: Re: Re: Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by saltychoco@rediffmail.com on Mar 02, 2011 12:16 PM
So u mean to say no one can decide by watching it in TV?
And i am not asking what Bowden thought.
Did u see it n TV at least?
Still u cant come to any decision?
Just 2 options are there out or not out.
I think the ball wont miss the whole stumps since in hawkeye it hits on middle stumps.
Re: Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by Sameer Bhagwat on Mar 02, 2011 11:57 AM
The fact is its a stupid rule , if a batsman is hit 2.6 meters outside the crease below knee roll by a spinner and heading to the middle stump, there is no way the ball can define gravity and climb above it.
At the end of the day you wnat the right desicion and not quote a rule. The rules have to be right and make sense.
Re: Re: Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 12:04 PM
Sameer Bhagwat:
Then let's begin at the beginning... .What's the validity of the LBW rule? What's the validity of a snick on to the pads when the ball clearly heads for the stumps? :)
Boss.. the 2.5 metre rule is becoz the hawkeye accuracy falls out of the prescribed margin of error.... what you see on the screen is a "projection".. Hawkeye cannot "guarantee" that that's 100% right projection once the point of impact is >2.5 metre.. In any case Dhoni has long back made it amply clear that he doesn't trust hawkeye's projections even when the impacts are even within 1 metre... ;-) That's why he has preferred on-field umpires to be wiser than hawkeye...
Funny that now he is going back on his original stance and trusts hawkeye more than Bowden...
Re: Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by B M on Mar 02, 2011 12:04 PM
The 2.5m rule does not make it mandatory for the umpires to ignore the UDRL's interpretation. It does allow the umpire to go by UDRL interpretation under circumstances where there is enough evidence to conclude that the ball would have hit the middle stump, even if the point of impact was more than 2.5m away. Like in Ian Bell's case when UDRL showed the ball hitting the middle stump at mid level, there was no reason to believe that it would have missed the stumps simply because of the point of impact being at long distance from the stumps. If ICC does not have that level of confidence in the UDRL, they have no business to use it.
Re: Re: Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 12:06 PM
B M:
;-).... if YOU don't have confidence in hawkeye (like Dhoni) then YOU have no business demeaning Bowden based on a "projection" you saw on the screen... :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: UDRS -- use it or throw it ...., !!!!!!
by B M on Mar 02, 2011 12:25 PM
The reason why an umpire does not give a batsman out LBW if he is hit well forward is not because the ball would have missed the stumps. Its because an unaided human being does not have the ability to judge whether the ball would have hit the stumps. If the umpire's judgement can be deemed good enough to overrule the hawkeye interpretation, why do we need the hawkeye at all?
The point is that if you make use of technology, trust it 100% whatever be its merit. There will be errors, but atleast they will be standardized!
I agree with Kumble as far as the missing snickometer and hotspot technology are concerned. I think the UDRS is incomplete without them. If UDRS is helpful only for no-ball and LBW, it becomes a farce. Genuine edges that can change the complexion of the game may be given as not out if vdos are inconclusive. Ridiculous implementation
Re: Agree with Kumble
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 11:20 AM
DC:
By the way, Kumble wrote 30 times more in his article above than the 2 sentences Rediff chose to paste as headlines... hope you agree with his assessment of Pakistan too... and his assessment that India was unnecessarily complacent both during batting and bowling...
It seems MSD has made mountain out of mole, as if we lost it only due to 2.5 meter rule. Rule is Rule and abide, since it was based on certain basis and agreed upon. No point in arguing why not 2.4 or 2.6? Then the question arsise as why is 2.4 meter as convenienct to MSD? The UDRS is intend to support the umpire to reduce theire mistakes and overrule by Umpire is also part of a rule. MSD's argument does not justify, so his current focus is to build a morale to improve the fielding and bowling. We have a long way to go buddy...dont add another burden going against ICC, Umpires, etc.
Re: MSD into Unwarranted Issue...
by vinay kumar on Mar 02, 2011 11:51 AM
Dhoni is no-way saying that the seeming incorrect UDRS decision has led to Indian loss. His point is that when a decision has been passed on for UDRS then let technology decide. It was quite clear that Bell was out, even bell was walkin off the ground. In short, all the real cricketers who play it day in day out were convinced that Bell was out but what happened later was to surprise of fielding team and the batsman as well. I am sure we all have seen the delivery from yuvraj which is being over-discussed everyday and to me it was out. Although this UDRS fuss is no way responsible for Indian loss. It was our weak bowling and fielding. Our main bowlers didnt pose any threat except during batting powerplay. hope we get better show from bowlers as well as we move ahead
Re: MSD into Unwarranted Issue...
by deepak singh on Mar 02, 2011 09:46 AM
There is no rule regarding the distance from the stumps. It is just invented by umpires themself. Dhoni was not arguing about the distance but the mix up of technology and human mind.
Re: Re: MSD into Unwarranted Issue...
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 11:22 AM
Deepak Singh:
Since you have clarified you know absolutely nothing about the issue, thanks for coming to the forum... :)
Your approach to the game also shows how innovative you can be ("..it is just invented by umpires.." etc.) when it comes to proving that the "whole world is against India"... :)
Re: MSD into Unwarranted Issue...
by hariprasada rao on Mar 02, 2011 12:28 PM
one more issue is Msd and co did not appeal twice when the Eng-captain was batting? So now why blame the Udrs and the other rules?
Re: ONLYSHOWS
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 11:23 AM
MS:
Why are we waking up NOW? This has been amply clear that the whole UDRS will NOT be available in the initial phases of the WC... As if a whole UDRS is going to change who will enter the Quarters... :)
Yes, the UDRS is incomplete without hotspot. Do you know this?? A rumor says that, BBG SPORTS, the company who provides the hotspot technology has rejected to provide the hotspot technology for cricket world cup because they didn't receive the commonwealth games dues yet from Indian govt. Since the equipment which is used for hotspot is very expensive, they feared that in the event of delay again, they would bankrupt completely.
Re: shame on Indian sports...
by madanmohan siddhanthi on Mar 02, 2011 09:43 AM
May be books of Accounts might be showing all dues paid .Check with Kalamadi .Also may be their standards of receipt is different from ours .We consider as soon as check is made payment is ready where as they think having signed and money received in their account then only paymeny received.Check may have been made by oversight into wrong account.
Kumble is right. India was never in this match as England wanted 58 runs from 45 balls with 8 wickets in hand. Just because India couldn't win match, Dhoni is arguing over UDRS. They didnot appeal when Strauss had knicked the ball to wicketkeeper gloves couple of times.
Re: Kumble
by B M on Mar 02, 2011 09:16 AM
Strauss said later in a press conference that he farted just as the ball was passing the bat. Hence, the confusion. There was no knick.
Re: Re: Kumble
by S Shrikanth on Mar 02, 2011 09:25 AM
Do you believe in the batsman or the replays? Why should the batsman admit that he had snicked. :-))
Re: Re: Re: Kumble
by B M on Mar 02, 2011 09:28 AM
Atleast he was ready to admit in public that he farted! Not many people are so candid in talking about their hindside musical skills.
Re: 100% agree
by S Shrikanth on Mar 02, 2011 09:15 AM
There are widespread news that India-England match was fixed to make the tournament interesting. On some occasions Indian fielders did even appeal when English batsmen had edge to WK. This world cup has been scheduled in such a way that there are plethora of one sided boring matches for a long time. The reason is that top 8 teams are almost sure to qualify for QF stage.
Re: Re: 100% agree
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 11:27 AM
SS:
Widespread news can be misplaced too...
In any event if it was indeed fixed, then I would like to congratulate whoever engineered that project, upon the excellent execution.. The timings were perfect, the bowlers bowled very accurately and even the tailenders displayed how EXACTLY can a ball be sent soaring above the ropes (unless you are contending that billions of people were actually mass hypnotised into believing so)... all finally culminating to the 599th legitimate delivery of the day... MMS and SonyaG GandhiG must take lessons from that whoever as to how efficiently and effectively to run their administration.. :)
Great Job Jumbo considering the short period you had. What I fail to understand is why the Indian team did not throw up their hands when strauss had clearly kicked Zaheer ! Sitting before the TV in Bangkok, my hands flew up. Nothing wrong is asking the question. And you are absolutely right . Te UDRS is INCOMPLETE without a snicometer.
Re: Snickometer
by S Shrikanth on Mar 02, 2011 09:21 AM
The problem with Indian team is that it always resisted use of UDRS and their inexperience is evident in the matches.
Kumble's is simply defensive while criticizing UDRS which has become part of every sport. Only because Indian team does not want use it as most of the dubious umpiring decisions goes in their favor. And our master blaster has been the biggest beneficiary of friendly umpires like Simon Taufel, Davis, Shashtri, Bowden etc.
Re: Snickometer
by Against Pseudos on Mar 02, 2011 11:28 AM
Umapathy:
The snickometer was never supposed to be in this phase of the WC anyway... so let us not all act as surprised about it as we all acted on hearing about the 2.5 metre rule... :)
