[Cyberyeti]

mohitz, on 2011-July-23, 23:50, said:

I did not watch that match but from what i have heard Harper made some appalling decisions. This is not the first time Harper's poor umpiring capabilities are being questioned. I for one am happy he is retired. Having said that, i still think it was wrong for Dhoni to have made that statement. But, i can understand if emotions got the better of him.

Actually no, Harper has something like 94% correct decisions in matches involving India over his career, well above average. Most of the decisions Harper made were proved to be correct in that game (not his fault the TV company showed the TV umpire the wrong replay on Dhoni's dismissal for the no-ball), but there were one or two dubious ones. I did watch some of that test match, but didn't see any of the really contentious bits.

I know from having umpired myself that there are some bowlers where deciding on the no-ball is well nigh impossible for the umpire on the field because the bowler's back foot obscures his front foot. Even the best umpires suffer from this, there was an England/Pakistan test where one of their spinners (Saqlain ?) took 6 wickets in an innings with no-balls. It has to be checked by the TV umpire.

The point was more that up to this point, anybody who criticized an umpire even if the criticism was justified got disciplined, but not Dhoni. We'll also see whether the ICC do anything about India's disgracefully slow over rate, AFTER playing an extra half hour, 8 overs were lost from the second day, so they were well behind, Dhoni is on 2 warnings already and would be expecting a ban if he were anybody else.

[mr1303]

I don't see what the Morgan dismissal has to do with the DRS system. Hotspot showed that the ball hit his pad rather than the bat, and that Hawk-Eye said it was missing the stumps. It wasn't clear if he thought he was given out LBW (which couldn't be referred) or caught behind (which could), but the only argument is that Hawk-eye isn't accurate enough. And from what I've seen, it appears pretty good, and certainly better than the umpire's eye.

[Cyberyeti]

The problem with the DRS is that snicko is what you really need in some cases, but that takes too long to produce atm. Also, the umpires should be able to give decisions on the field and say to the TV umpire "I'm giving this out unless you tell me conclusively it wasn't" to deal with the low catch situation, and the one that changed a NZ/SA test where Kallis was run out, the umpire referred it to be sure, and mysteriously the camera they needed wasn't working.

India declining to use the DRS is a farce. It's not perfect, but it has improved things a lot, particularly with umpires now realising the stumps are shorter and wider than what corresponds to the LBW decisions they gave in the past, and removing some of the inside edge howlers for both LBW and caught short leg.

[mohitz]

Well played England. We will get you at Trent Bridge

[Cyberyeti]

The better side won, but would have been a lot closer if Zaheer hadn't been injured.

Umpiring decisions weighed heavy in this match. Pietersen and should have been given out caught on 49, no bravery from the umpire and we know what happens on a lot of the low catches when they're referred.

Then today, Laxman clear edge, nothing on hotspot shown as clearly out by snicko and pretty obvious to the naked eye. Michael Vaughan said on the radio commentary people are vaselining their edges to fool hotspot.

And Raina gets the clearest LBW in the history of the universe, middle stump half way up, pitching on given not out, no DRS. Umpire thought he hit it, bat hit pad and didn't get within 3 inches of the ball before ball hit pad.

Tendulkar, also clearly out LBW, given not out, no DRS to overturn it.

England were fortunate that Pietersen cashed in on his reprieve more than the 3 Indians.

[Cyberyeti]

Well my respect for Dhoni has increased significantly with the Ian Bell incident. I think in the end common sense prevailed. Bell was fooled by two things, the fielder on the boundary showed such a lack of urgency, that it appeared he knew the ball had gone for 4. The umpire, while he didn't call over, took the bowler's jumper from it's "stashed" position and held it out in his hand for the bowler, giving the appearance that play was over.

As with the infamous Greig/Julien/Kallicharran incident (a version of this is on Tony Greig's Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Tony_Greig), the out decision is correct, as in the spirit of the game is the decision of the fielding side to withdraw the appeal once they have time to think about it.

[shyams]

Although I had no strong opinions about the Ian Bell incident (I watched it live on TV), I thought the BBC TV summary shown in the 10 pm News and the BBC Breakfast sports bulletins was very biased -- especially in their choice of words describing the incident.

The BBC commentary implied that India had done a massive blunder in dismissing Bell in that fashion, and re-instating Bell atoned for their action + embellished the view of Cricket as a gentleman's game.

In stark contrast, the Sky commentators thought it was almost entirely Bell's fault and he deserved to be given out. In fact, Shane Warne said that if Australia were asked to withdraw an appeal in such a situation, he (Warne) would have voted against it.

[Cyberyeti]

shyams, on 2011-August-01, 06:18, said:

Although I had no strong opinions about the Ian Bell incident (I watched it live on TV), I thought the BBC TV summary shown in the 10 pm News and the BBC Breakfast sports bulletins was very biased -- especially in their choice of words describing the incident.

The BBC commentary implied that India had done a massive blunder in dismissing Bell in that fashion, and re-instating Bell atoned for their action + embellished the view of Cricket as a gentleman's game.

In stark contrast, the Sky commentators thought it was almost entirely Bell's fault and he deserved to be given out. In fact, Shane Warne said that if Australia were asked to withdraw an appeal in such a situation, he (Warne) would have voted against it.

I saw it live (and didn't see the highlight versions), and after discussing this with other people who also saw it, my view is even more that the major error that fooled Bell was made by the umpire. Removing the bowler's jumper and holding it in his hand for the bowler to take gives a very big impression that play is over, so much so that Bell "heard" a call of "over" that didn't exist. India were perfectly entitled to appeal at the time.

Ravi Shastri on TMS said that he'd not have withdrawn the appeal, but I think withdrawing it was the right thing to do. In a sense I'm glad Bell didn't go on to make that many more.

India's morale collapsed completely. Being spanked around for 201 runs in 33 overs by England's normal numbers 7/8/9 (Prior batted at 6 because of Trott's injury but normally bats 7) then collapsing to 55-6 was shocking.

[nickf]

nickf, on 2006-November-22, 18:14, said:

not me, I'm hoping for a 5-0 drubbing.

nickf
sydney

I was right.

Again.

nickf
sydney