**Official** India v Pakistan

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by ReallyCrazy

No he doesn't cheat. He just is not good enough anymore. He has gotten old and incompetent.

ok..but Sanz implies he is cheating when using words like 'prejudice'

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Arjun

If you had watched Fourth Umpire on DD Sports, you would think twice. All the experts, including Roshni 'Meow' Chopra (expert?) and all the callers were complaining about it throughout that session.

Oh...totally forgot about that other forum!

Dont make fun of others 'knowledge' when you yourself are no better. Are you saying that callers shouldn't be allowed to say that it was a wrong decision. I have an idea, Since ICC has already banned cricketers, cricket boards, coaches and every other person related to cricket, Let's suggest them to ban fans as well from talking on the issue.

That will really solve the situation.

[ReallyCrazy]

Originally Posted by Sanz

"Ajit Agarkar had got Justin Langer lbw twice, with balls that pitched on leg, straightened and were hitting middle stump. Both were plumb, but both were given not out by Steve Bucknor. Later, Damien Martyn was plumb to Murali Kartik, and again Bucknor, who had made that shocking decision against Sachin Tendulkar at Brisbane, adjudged it not out. His decisions threatened to affect the outcome of a tense, even series. And it is surely unjust that the final result could be determined not by the excellence of the cricket, but the ineptness of the umpiring."

Kumble had hayden plumb in the same match but hayden was given not out by Bowden i think (beside the point, i know lol)

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Swervy

ok..but Sanz implies he is cheating when using words like 'prejudice'

prej·u·dice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds) n. - An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Now since when has the word 'Cheat' become synonymous with 'Prejudice' ?

[ReallyCrazy]

Originally Posted by Swervy

ok..but Sanz implies he is cheating when using words like 'prejudice'

Bucknor may not be blatantly prejudiced. But subconsciously, he may not "like" India too much and this can make him give marginal decisons against them. This is what is happening...a not out decision he will give to some other team will be an out decision against india.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Sanz

prej·u·dice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds) n. - An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Now since when has the word 'Cheat' become synonymous with 'Prejudice' ?

An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand.....well it kinda suggests that you therefore feel that Bucknor decided before the dismissal ball that he was going to give the batsman out the next opportunity given(ie the next time the ball went close to the edge)..well if he did think that, then in my book thats cheating

[ReallyCrazy]

Originally Posted by Swervy

An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand.....well it kinda suggests that you therefore feel that Bucknor decided before the dismissal ball that he was going to give the batsman out the next opportunity given(ie the next time the ball went close to the edge)..well if he did think that, then in my book thats cheating

read my post before this one

[Jono]

Its not the point that Bucknor got the the decision wrong (although that is pretty common now-a-days), its the fact that the light was CLEARLY an issue, Bucknor ignored it, and it resulted in him making a horrible decision.

Minutes later, after Sachin's dismissal, they go off for the light.

Someone make some sense out of that please, because I can't find it, and don't just say 'move on' because that was said back during the Australia series. This isn't about his umpiring quality per se, its his attitude. Why didn't they go off for the light?

And don't bring the SA/Eng series or the Taibu dismissal and what not into this. Bringing up other situations when errors were made doesn't justify any error made, it just intensifies the problem even more.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Swervy

ok..but Sanz implies he is cheating when using words like 'prejudice'

And Sanz doesn't represent all of India.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Swervy

An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand.....well it kinda suggests that you therefore feel that Bucknor decided before the dismissal ball that he was going to give the batsman out the next opportunity given(ie the next time the ball went close to the edge)..well if he did think that, then in my book thats cheating

I couldn't care less on what cheating 'means' in your book. I know what I meant.

If I wanted to call him a 'Cheat' I would have used the word 'cheat'. It is both easier and faster to type than typing prejudice.

[telsor]

Originally Posted by Jono

Its not the point that Bucknor got the the decision wrong (although that is pretty common now-a-days), its the fact that the light was CLEARLY an issue, Bucknor ignored it, and it resulted in him making a horrible decision.

Did they check the light on their light-meters both times? I can only assume they did and the readings were different.

Originally Posted by Jono

Bringing up other situations when errors were made doesn't justify any error made, it just intensifies the problem even more.

But it does indicate that the problem isn't bias, predjudice or cheating but rather 'honest errors'..

[shankar]

Originally Posted by Jono

ts not the point that Bucknor got the the decision wrong (although that is pretty common now-a-days), its the fact that the light was CLEARLY an issue, Bucknor ignored it, and it resulted in him making a horrible decision.

Minutes later, after Sachin's dismissal, they go off for the light.

Someone make some sense out of that please, because I can't find it, and don't just say 'move on' because that was said back during the Australia series. This isn't about his umpiring quality per se, its his attitude. Why didn't they go off for the light?

I agree. It's inexplicable why they didnt take out the light meter to satisfy the batsmen.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by ReallyCrazy

Bucknor may not be blatantly prejudiced. But subconsciously, he may not "like" India too much and this can make him give marginal decisons against them. This is what is happening...a not out decision he will give to some other team will be an out decision against india.

well considering that pretty much all umpires at the moment are getting a lot of flak for bad decisions, then would it be fair to say all umpires are subconsciously biased against one team or another (Infact I think it would be fair to say that there is a good chance that we are all guilty of being subconsciously biased against a group of people, whatever it may be,people from Mongolia,people called Jeremy,people with shaved heads..whatever)...but if they are, well there isnt much that can be done about it, its human nature....and unless we replace human umpires with electronic umpires, I think we have to live with it....and without psychoanalysing the guy with a series of interviews by psychologists, I dont think we can ever prove Bucknor is down right biased against the Indian cricket team, unless he admits it himself.

I am more of the opinion that maybe he just isnt performing the way he used to, I really dont think there is anything more sinister than that going on

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Jono

And Sanz doesn't represent all of India.

never said he did

[telsor]

Originally Posted by Sanz

If I wanted to call him a 'Cheat' I would have used the word 'cheat'. It is both easier and faster to type than typing prejudice.

An umpire basing a decision on anything but the facts, as observed by the umpire on the spot, is outside the rules and therefore cheating.

Whatever you want to call it suggesting the former means you're suggesting the latter.