Bowden

[Richard]

Ian Robinson that tosser from Zimbabwe who cost us a series victory over Australia in 2001.

Oh, no, EVERYONE has a distaste for Ian Robinson's style of Umpiring.
Russell Tiffin isn't much better, either.
I wouldn't say anyone really hates either - they're both just regarded by most with head-shaking despair.
A bit like most of the rest of their country now.

 

[Richard]

Australia - David Orchard. Gave Langer & Hayden out each twice in a series LBW when they'd either hit the ball or it had pitched a long way outside leg stump.

Yeah, hadn't thought about that.
Not like Tiffin and Asok de Silva didn't repeat the dose a bit later.
Although in the SCG instance Hayden was making a ridiculous fuss about nothing - yeah, it was going just over the top - sorry, you're as crap against the inswinger as he is, you get them. Get used to it.

 

[Crazy Sam]

does russel tiffin still umpire???

 

[Richard]

Yes, but mercifully not regularly at international level.

 

[Deja moo]

Eh?
Most people I hear talk of him as an excellent Umpire - myself included.

Agreed Richard but some people find other ways to explain their teams poor performances.

Short memory?

Hair no-balling Murali from behind the stumps rather than from the square-leg position. nuff said.

 

[Gangster]

Bowden knows the rules of the game very well IMO. Not that other umpires do not. But what he did today was exceptional. Hayden was wasting time and he made it a point to remind him that it is within the cricket rules that a batsman has to be ready when a bowler is bowling.

In another instance today itself, he was talking with Shephard at square leg when Akhtar was going back to his run up to ball. Bowden literally ran behind the wicket to ensure that he was ready before Akhtar was ready to bowl.

His entertainment isnt disruptive and so I dont see any problem with it either. A good umpire must make the right decisions and shouldnt insult the profession. He doesnt do either and has my upmost respect.

So you give him praise for the one time Bowden reprimands an Australian batsman for wasting time when Akhtar is bowling, but conveniently forget the billion other times when he stood idly by, content to let the time-wasting continue? Perhaps on that one occasion you note, he had an appointment he simply couldn't be late for...

 

[Gangster]

to become a better Umpire all the time !!

Give this man credit for that !! He may be showing funny signals, but there's no harm in that .

Yes, just like there's no harm in a bowler sending off a batsman, yet the bowler'll get fined half his match fee. I'm not accusing you Jason of saying that there is harm in that, just taking your comment out to make another point!

If Billy Bowden can make his horrifying legbye signals, then let bowlers point batsmen to the dressing room.

 

[cbuts]

imo he is now the best in the world. rarly does he get one wrong, and when he does i feel he does set himself up for riddicule because of his actions. i remeber a year or two ago after he had a shocker in a test match, onc he got back to nz he went out and did club and domestic matches to improve himself. i dont think to many umpires would do that these days

 

[Scallywag]

Short memory?

Hair no-balling Murali from behind the stumps rather than from the square-leg position. nuff said.

Yes you are right I should have said some people will try to find ways to degrade Australians and their performances, even digging things up from the past like the McGath Sarwan incident or when Hair called Murali (which has been scientificallly proven correct).

 

[Josh]

imo he is now the best in the world.

If not, he's certainly in the top 3

 

[Deja moo]

Yes you are right I should have said some people will try to find ways to degrade Australians and their performances, even digging things up from the past like the McGath Sarwan incident or when Hair called Murali (which has been scientificallly proven correct).

No, it has been scientifically proven incorrect. Murali did not bowl the doosra at that time. It is only the doosra which was found exceeding pre-defined tolerance levels. The normal off-spin he bowled then was proven to be correct.
Anyway, that is not what I was referring to. It was the calling from the bowlers end, and not the square-leg end that points to incompetence. You cannot detect a throw unless you watch the bowler side-on . There is no way of doing it by watching the back of the bowler. Besides, as Bradman questioned, what the hell was he doing looking at the bowler when his job was to keep an eye on the front-foot no balls? He was found incompetent on so many counts.

 

[Richard]

Look, can we just clarify one thing here:
Hair was right in the first instance to call Murali, because that's what the procedures were in those days. It was the procedures, not the Umpiring, that was poor, because to make such decisions on an Umpire's whim is really rather ludicrous, as was shown when it was demonstrated that Hair's suspicions were without foundation, when the science was done after all the furore.
However, his calling Murali from the striker's-end was something I in all honesty had not heard about (not short memory - lack of information!), and was in direct contravention to the procedures. I see what you are on now Karthik.
But of course anyone claiming that Hair's suspicions were correct because of the findings of the Wrong-'Un is clutching at straws.