At the end of the day if a fair decision is provided without twisting rules then what's the problem? Umpiring is not an easy task, and India should not complain as they don't have any elite representation for long time. If no DRS then external aid as per rule should be fine.
Re: Fairness is more important:
by vishwanath vishnumoorthy on Mar 04, 2013 06:45 PM
Probably u didn't see the match.Only the bowler appealed, the keeper joined half heartedly, Tendulkar, a walker was sure he didn't knick and tell me where is the question of justice. Rule is same for every one, not separate for the Aussies as they intimidate.The decision was wrong and Tendulkar was a gentleman not to make fuss.
Re: Re: Fairness is more important:
by skanda acharya on Mar 04, 2013 07:01 PM
Hi Vishwanath, I feel u did not c the match or switched off the TV immediately when Sachin was given out. They had shown in the snickometer dat it was clearly out. But question here is not about Sachin walking but BCCI opposition of DRS & new rules for umpires.
Re: Re: Re: Fairness is more important:
by Aam Aadmi on Mar 04, 2013 07:33 PM
agree with skanda, forget sachin for a moment. nobody will make a fuss when the decision is from 3rd umpire.
Re: Re: Fairness is more important:
by anup kale on Mar 04, 2013 07:02 PM
But, that's what the third umpire was doing. He did check the ball repeatedly and came to decision. And this gentleman is an Indian.
Marais Erasmus clearly shook his head when Pattinson appealed for Sachin's dismissal. Other Aussies didn't even appeal. Then why did he ask third umpire? And what did he exactly ask? Use of snicko is not allowed and visibly there was no edge. These questions should be immediately asked by Dhoni and BCCI. Does that mean in future all faint edges will be referred to 3rd umpire? If so Indians should also appeal whenever the ball goes past the bat of an Australian batsman and ask Marais Erasmus to go to 3rd umpire.
Re: BCCI and Dhoni should raise serious objections
by vinay on Mar 04, 2013 11:24 PM
agreed with sachin. although it was crrect decision it was partial to go for 3rd ump only for ind wkts n ignore ausi wkts. if rule is followed it shud b same for all.
The two decisions referred in the article were ultimately right decisions.Moral of the story is that in case of reservations against DRS by Boards like BCCI at least ICC can come up with rules whereby it is made mandatory in doubtful cases like 'bat nick', clean catch etc. to consult the 3rd umpire . Or rather the 3rd umpire can be given powers to overrule such wrong decisions due to human error of field umpire. The idea should be to take help of Technology to improve decision making to the max. extent possible rather than trying for 100% perfection which is not practicable.
Re: only lara is great!
by vijay kumar on Mar 04, 2013 06:05 PM
Lara would go voluntarly against all teams except southafrica because of reasons well known
Re: Why is BCCI against DRS ?
by narendra maurya on Mar 04, 2013 05:31 PM
DRS cost is $5000 per day and has to be paid by home country. If any country not capable, ICC would look at BCCI d=for help. In world cup also they were benefited 45 crore tax exemption.
What is the use of approving/not approving DRS for a series when the umpires can consult the 3rd umpire? This doesn't make any sense to me... Instead of that they can make DRS mandatory for all...
