TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
so **** when a bad umpiring decision decides a result
no one feels good when that happens
no one feels good when that happens
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Pakistan in New Zealand - T20/ODI series - Jan 2016
- Thread starter Zinzan
- Start date
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Arguably it was Pakistan's bad decision to review the KW lbw shout that led to them being unable to challenge the Anderson non-dismissal.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
pretty sure that post was a joke in reference to the events of the Adelaide test
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Well, I don't feel very good about the win. Anderson scored 16 runs off the next 3 balls he faced, and we won with 2 or 3 balls to spare. So Pakistan can rightly feel ripped off.
However, they need to ask themselves why they let themselves get into that position in the first place. The DRS is for outcomes exactly like the Anderson ball. It's not for gambling on maybe getting Kane Williamson out with.
However, they need to ask themselves why they let themselves get into that position in the first place. The DRS is for outcomes exactly like the Anderson ball. It's not for gambling on maybe getting Kane Williamson out with.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
I think in ODIs it's just one. And honestly I don't think this is necessarily an issue of national loyalty.
Bowden has made blunders before even when NZ were not involved. And even if he was a super nationalist, I doubt he would risk his integrity for a 2 game ODI series.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah you're right, but I think he has a history of pandering to the home crowd. So maybe not nationalist bias, but he does tend to make the popular decision IMO.
He's been crap for a long time.
Billy Bowden is nowhere near one of the best decision makers in world cricket anymore. Can't remember if he ever was. Guys like Wayne Knights, Tony Gillies, Chris Brown and the best of the lot for me, Phil Jones are the next wave (all Auckland obviously, given that's what I know) All have strong rapport with players, which should be as nearly an important consideration as making the right decisions.
But the notion of neutral umpires in a professional environment with the amount of electronic scrutiny is silly. The best adjudicators get the biggest matches, or it should be. If you make more decisions right than anyone else, you get the biggest matches - whether it be your country or whomever. When Simon Taufel (where's he now?) was the best umpire in the world by aeons, he never got an Ashes Test or a WC final given Australia's dominance. It robbed matches of the best adjudicator.
Add to it that it's probably economically not feasible to have neutrals all the time, especially for short tours such as Pakistan's.
No forgiving him here, it was an awful decision and one that completely changed the odds of the match. They were favourites if that was correctly given.
Playing devil's advocate, the Kane review never looked in real time or otherwise that it was going to be anything but an on-field call at best. It was a gamble based on the ability of the batsman. Would they have reviewed it for Grant Elliott on 1? I doubt it.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
If you're asessing Bowden's umpiring here, you have to do it independently. Whether Pakistan made a bad review or not is irrelevant.
I do believe that neutral umpires are important for a variety of reasons but one of them being the issue today. Bowden is not a very good umpire, but when he makes a bad decision favouring New Zealand, the insinuation is that he did it out of national bias. Umpiring blunders already cause tons of controversy, this is one that can easily be avoided.
Simon Taufel has retired.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Before DRS most of the bad decisions Bowden made went against New Zealand
smash84
The Tiger King
This
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Question: Did Anderson know that he hit it?
jcas0167
International Regular
The reality is that all umpires screw up because they are human. Hence the need to give greater power to the 3rd umpire to intervene on howlers. Limiting it to one challenge is arbitrary and takes responsibility away from the officials who should have access to the best evidence possible.
It probably seemed like I wasn't doing it independently, but I was. Awful decision.
With a side bar that the DRS, as said ad nauseum in the past, is essentially for the howler. So they should have had it.
Which also brings me to the point that 1 unsuccessful is essentially the right amount, but teams will still **** it up.
Last edited: