UDRS STUFF relating to the Australia in the West Indies 2012

[WindieWeathers]

We've been absolutely robbed today!!!.. i can't believe they overturned that decision when there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it wasn't out!!, just disgraceful and it's blatant favoritism like that which brings light to the notion that the ICC are in bed with certain teams!!!.. , they did it to Sri-lanka the other day and they've done it to us today,

I remember when we last toured Australia and we were 33 runs away from victory in the last test and they gave Roach out even though it wasn't conclusive, if the shoe was on the other foot you just know we'd be four down by now, we've been well on top this morning and that would have really put the heat on the Aussies but now they've been given a life line and that might be our chances of winning gone now!! .

 

[Prince EWS]

We've been absolutely robbed today!!!.. i can't believe they overturned that decision when there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it wasn't out!!, just disgraceful and it's blatant favoritism like that which brings light to the notion that the ICC are in bed with certain teams!!!.. , they did it to Sri-lanka the other day and they've done it to us today,

I remember when we last toured Australia and we were 33 runs away from victory in the last test and they gave Roach out even though it wasn't conclusive, if the shoe was on the other foot you just know we'd be four down by now, we've been well on top this morning and that would have really put the heat on the Aussies but now they've been given a life line and that might be our chances of winning gone now!! .

It's one thing to bag the decision (I actually agree with you there) but the conspiracy theories of bias and favouritism are absolutely pathetic. You're better than that.

 

[andyc]

We've been absolutely robbed today!!!.. i can't believe they overturned that decision when there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it wasn't out!!, just disgraceful and it's blatant favoritism like that which brings light to the notion that the ICC are in bed with certain teams!!!.. , they did it to Sri-lanka the other day and they've done it to us today,

I remember when we last toured Australia and we were 33 runs away from victory in the last test and they gave Roach out even though it wasn't conclusive, if the shoe was on the other foot you just know we'd be four down by now, we've been well on top this morning and that would have really put the heat on the Aussies but now they've been given a life line and that might be our chances of winning gone now!! .

Top notch.

 

[Stapel]

We've been absolutely robbed today!!!.. i can't believe they overturned that decision when there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it wasn't out!!, just disgraceful and it's blatant favoritism like that which brings light to the notion that the ICC are in bed with certain teams!!!.. , they did it to Sri-lanka the other day and they've done it to us today,

I remember when we last toured Australia and we were 33 runs away from victory in the last test and they gave Roach out even though it wasn't conclusive, if the shoe was on the other foot you just know we'd be four down by now, we've been well on top this morning and that would have really put the heat on the Aussies but now they've been given a life line and that might be our chances of winning gone now!! .

Agree with the idea the Windies are robbed.

But favouritism? Seems far-fetched to me. Any reasons you go that way, apart from these examples?

 

[WindieWeathers]

It's one thing to bag the decision (I actually agree with you there) but the conspiracy theories of bias and favouritism are absolutely pathetic. You're better than that.

Well what else can it be? i can't recall these sort of decisions going against the top ranked sides!!.. just amazing, the rule is "you can overturn it if there is evidence that suggests it's not out".. there was none, infact there was a clear noise that suggested he nicked it but as i said certain teams are allowed to get a life and others aren't.

 

[social]

Well what else can it be? i can't recall these sort of decisions going against the top ranked sides!!.. just amazing, the rule is "you can overturn it if there is evidence that suggests it's not out".. there was none, infact there was a clear noise that suggested he nicked it but as i said certain teams are allowed to get a life and others aren't.

Yep, those Poms, Kiwis and Saffies really want the MID-TABLE AUSSIES to succeed

 

[Stapel]

Sorry for going a bit academical on the statistics road, but here we go:

Well what else can it be?

That's simply not an arguement. To suspect there is any favouritism, you need a dozen of examples of decision referrals gone wrong. To solidly claim there is any favouritism, you really need a data set of hundreds of examples of decision referrals (good ones and wrong ones). Other wise n is too small .

 

[Jacknife]

We've been absolutely robbed today!!!.. i can't believe they overturned that decision when there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it wasn't out!!, just disgraceful and it's blatant favoritism like that which brings light to the notion that the ICC are in bed with certain teams!!!.. , they did it to Sri-lanka the other day and they've done it to us today,

I remember when we last toured Australia and we were 33 runs away from victory in the last test and they gave Roach out even though it wasn't conclusive, if the shoe was on the other foot you just know we'd be four down by now, we've been well on top this morning and that would have really put the heat on the Aussies but now they've been given a life line and that might be our chances of winning gone now!! .

How did they do it to SL the other day, they went with the on field call and there was no evidence to over turn it, simple as that.

I completely agree with you in as far as this one should have stayed with the umpire. I'd be interested to hear from the 3rd umpire as to the reason he overturned it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well what else can it be?

Human error? Bad luck? No it has to be a conspiracy. FMD.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Sorry for going a bit academical on the statistics road, but here we go:



That's simply not an arguement. To suspect there is any favouritism, you need a dozen of examples of decision referrals gone wrong. To solidly claim there is any favouritism, you really need a data set of hundreds of examples of decision referrals (good ones and wrong ones). Other wise n is too small .

Erm i've given three already!! ,

1. Roach in the third test of our 2009 tour of Australia

2. The Dilshan decision the other day vs England

3. today's shocking decision

People may disagree, but the fact is overturned decisions without anything conclusive just doesn't happen to the top ranked sides, it's as simple as that.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Human error? Bad luck? No it has to be a conspiracy. FMD.

The problem is the "human errors" seem to only happen to the lower ranked sides!!..if things were more even i wouldn't have made such claims, but sadly it isn't even.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Yep, those Poms, Kiwis and Saffies really want the MID-TABLE AUSSIES to succeed

Against us? yep!!. .

 

[Jacknife]

Erm i've given three already!! ,

1. Roach in the third test of our 2009 tour of Australia

2. The Dilshan decision the other day vs England

3. today's shocking decision

People may disagree, but the fact is overturned decisions without anything conclusive just doesn't happen to the top ranked sides, it's as simple as that.

I'll ask you again, what was wrong with the Dilshan one, if you're saying Clarke was out here, surely that means they got the right call in SL because they were practically the same. The original decision was upheld and since the on-field umpire had given it out, the third umpire didn't have conclusive evidence that he didn't hit it.

 

[Stapel]

Erm i've given three already!! ,

1. Roach in the third test of our 2009 tour of Australia

2. The Dilshan decision the other day vs England

3. today's shocking decision

People may disagree, but the fact is overturned decisions without anything conclusive just doesn't happen to the top ranked sides, it's as simple as that.

Not enough .

I can't recall the Roach decision of 2009. But the Dilshan decision was spot on, according to the rules of UDRS. No conclusive evidence whatsoever, so the on-field decision (OUT) stayed. That's the way the rule currently works, so I don't really see why you put the example up in the first place. Obviously, we are not discussing if the principle is right. Just the execution.

And yes, today the execution was simply wrong. Tough luck for the Windies. But I feel comfortable that Sammy will guide his men to victory nonetheless!

 

[Stapel]

Against us? yep!!. .

I really think most Poms would support WI against those bloody convict inbreeds .

 

[Scaly piscine]

I really think most Poms would support WI against those bloody convict inbreeds .

Absolutely. I think most neutrals generally would want West Indies to win, they're likeable, they're the underdog and they're playing Australia.

 

[Stapel]

Absolutely. I think most neutrals generally would want West Indies to win, they're likeable, they're the underdog and they're playing Australia.

I've been watching cricket since 1993. In 1995, when I was in London, I visited a pub for a drink and guess what: cricket was on. A nice English chap was happy to explain my question about the M in OMRW. I also wondered why the English cowardly took on their former colonies in the west, assuming West Indian Cricket would be as bad as West Indian football....... Hey, what did I know?

Ever since, I've been supporting the Windies

 

[hazsa19]

Erm i've given three already!! ,

1. Roach in the third test of our 2009 tour of Australia

2. The Dilshan decision the other day vs England

3. today's shocking decision

People may disagree, but the fact is overturned decisions without anything conclusive just doesn't happen to the top ranked sides, it's as simple as that.

The Dilshan scenario was pretty much the same as Clarkes today. The right decision was made in Dilshans case.

 

[BeeGee]

Absolutely. I think most neutrals generally would want West Indies to win, they're likeable, they're the underdog and they're playing Australia.

Yep. Us kiwis are definitely supporting the WI in this series.

The plummeting run rate is killing the Aussies.

 

[NasserFan207]

Haven't seen the decision everyone's talking about here, but I remember the Roach one and it was a disgrace.

In any case calling favouritism without any evidence is dumb, particularly with the Aussies, noone likes them FMD