Not sure TBH.Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
Not sure TBH.Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
Cricketweb Colts Captain
I'm a member of Club KerryOriginally Posted by Richard
The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!
LOL, no - I have to brush up on my search terms, clearly. What a bizarre title that was.Originally Posted by andyc
Actually I wondered if it was selectively edited, mainly because the reactions on the forum seemed so out of proportion to what I saw, but it didn't seem particularly cut or anything so I took it at face value. Anyhow, yeah, you are completely right if that's what he said. And I can't see the fact that it's a unique scenario being mitigating when you can still be punished for reacting to an umpire's decision that is clearly mistaken - it's a bit beside the point.Originally Posted by Jono
Ponting is very, very fortunate. A very poor call by the PTB, particularly considering he was absolutely on notice.
"Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
"FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
But where does it end if an umpire looks at the big screen and changes his mind?
If an umpire walks up to Ponting or any other captain and tells him he's changing his decision, but doesn't say why, then it's understandable when that captain is exasperated by the decision (or both of them). Copping bad decisions is part of the game and he needs to accept that better than he does, however, a dangreous precedent is set when an umpire has a squizz at the big screen then calls a batsman back.
What happens if he gives a batsman not out, looks at the screen then sees he did hit the ball, does he then give him out? Do you call Martyn back 3 times in the '05 Ashes series when he plainly edged balls into his pads but was given out lbw? Where do you draw the line?
Either use technology or don't. The rule-makers cannot have it both ways. The umpires should not be operating in a vacuum. I went to the Supertest and got the proverbials with everything being referred, but the more I think about it, maybe the technology should be used. Tendulkar wasn't out and the decision would have been made by the 3rd umpire - no dissent from anyone and they just would have gotten on with the game.
There can only be confusion if the curent rules about only referring run outs and stumpings stay in, but umpires look up and change their minds about a catch or an lbw after seeing a big-screen replay. They must either not show the replays at the ground or use the third umpire to make decisions on all facets of the game. It may slow things down but they will get things right more often than not. That's especially important in the curent era where players are fighting for their careers as profesional players.
I'm not excusing Ponting's behaviour in this incident or generally, but I don't think you could say that his behaviour this time around was dissent. The umpire saw fit to approach him to explain his decision and initiated the conversation with Ponting, who responded to the umpire, who did not see fit to report him, nor did the match referee. There would be something wrong with Ponting were he not exasperated by an umpire changing his mind apparently by looking at a replay whilst on the ground. As Faap said, it's a unique situation and was probably dealt with as best it could be by all concerned.
The slow trudge off and the shake of the head by the disappointed batsman doesn't help the situation either - it gives everyone in the crowd watching, those at home and the umpires the suggestion that something was wrong with the decision - it's as much dissent as anything that is said by a player to an umpire.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
I basically agree with you as to a better implementation of technology in the game.Originally Posted by Burgey
However, I still can't fathom how, if Ponting said to the umpire flat-out to his face that the decision was a disgrace, that it isn't dissent. If that's not dissent, then what is?
It really has nothing to do with the umpire making a bad decision, even a deplorable decision. I personally don't mind a fair degree of leniency to a player (or captain) shaking their head, tut-tutting to other players, even looking upwards in disbelief when an umpire makes a shocker. We've all felt that way, and it's been an aspect of the sport since god knows when.
I would suggest that the reason he wasn't reported was probably because the umpire in question felt he was on somewhat shaky ground already, and didn't want to make a bigger fuss out of what had happened then there already was (it's possible the match referee felt the same way). OK, so be it. But if Ponting genuinely looked at the guy and called the decision a disgrace, he clearly was guilty of dissent - whether they decide to charge him or not. Hell, if it was a player whose conduct had been excellent up to that point, you might give the guy some leeway, but a player with Ponting's recent record? Again, he was very, very lucky.
Yep, fair points you raise. Must say I haven't seen footage of him saying it was a disgrace, but if he did, then you're right. He does need to settle down anyway.
I didn't see him look too closely at the big screen, so I think he reversed it on the basis of Tendulkar's reaction, basically. I think that's what Ponting was annoyed about for the most part, and what makes it different from, say, Symonds being called back by Atapattu after he was given LBW despite a huge edge.Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
Basically, Tendulkar played and missed and was caught off the shoulder and given out. He stood around and gaped and shook his head and made his way away from the wicket very slowly, and basically looked like he thought it was a shocker of a decision, which it was. Benson realised from Tendulkar and the crowd and so on that he'd made a blunder and called him back. That's fine, because it was the correct decision, but it does raise some questions about the confidence that the umpire has in his calls. It's not as though the other umpire walked over and said it wasn't out, or the fielding team admitted it didn't carry or something. When you're overturning decisions because of the batsman's reaction, it's an unfortunate can of worms.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
Yep. Tony Greig mentioned it when talking about the replays, it clearly showed Ponting saying those words.Originally Posted by Clapo
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
Perhaps it would be easier to just abolish the law that say's an umpire can reverse his decision? This way the umpires can still look at the replays and look like fools, yet they cannot reverse their decision, thus hopefully avoiding player/umpire confrontations.
Putting umpire - fielding captain confrontations in front of making the right decision?Originally Posted by Clapo
That's my concern in a nutshell. If the course of events are as you descrice them Benson may've made the correct decision as to the catch (or non-catch), but he made it for absolutely the wrong reason if he reversed his call just on the strength of Sachin's reaction to his initial decision.Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"The PFA does not represent players when they have broken the law and been convicted on non-football matters."
- Gordon Taylor in 2009 following Marlon King's release after a prison sentence for sexual assault & ABH
By that same token though, we cannot have umpires reversing their decisions because of player reactions.Originally Posted by vic_orthdox
Whilst i agree the right decision needs to be made, the process to make sure it's made needs to be looked at. If benson did indeed go by tendulkars reaction, or sneaked a look at the replay, he set a dangerous precedent. If he felt the wrong decision was made, the 3rd umpire should've been brought into use.
Well, it also might have had to do something with the fact that Sachin is rarely animated on the field.
However, I agree with you. It would open up a can of worms if the umpires based it on the batsman's reaction. If its reversed, it should be because another umpire saw something.
Probably because when Ponting saw that the right decision had been made in the end, he went up to umpire Benson and complimented the decision. This was confirmed by the other on field umpire, Asad Rauf.Originally Posted by Slow Love™
Is that a good source?
If that's true;
a) Can't understand why Cricinfo wouldn't have had that on their site
b) Ponting must put on an angry face and mouth "disgrace" when he's happy.
I know it says he was "angry at first" but Jeez, very weird.
Have to say I don't think that rings true.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)