**Official** Australia in India Thread

[JustTool]

There are always going to be poor decisions once in a while. But, when, with some consistency, there are too many rank bad decisions at CRUCIAL junctures in Test matches then the umpire must be answerable to the Match referee in as public a manner as are players who shake their heads. Wouldn't it be nice to know what Bucknor was thinking when he gave someone out when ball was outside the off stump (batsman playing a shot) or when the ball was clearly high ? Or Bowden, when he gave Sehwag out, when the press had this to say (this is not about Indians saying this or that - EVEN Dean Jones and Mike Atherton (the English genetleman who had dirt in his pocket to scruff the ball) have been merciless in pointing out that there have been 3 to 5 shockers against India given at CRUCIAL points in the match (Clarke was clearly LBW at 92 if the same 'judgement' was being applied to height. Here is what the Press wrote:

The decision to send Virender Sehwag (0) back to the hut, leg-before the wicket off a McGrath delivery, was a shocker. The thick edge was even visible from the press box, which is at least 150 yards away from the pitch. But Bowden, somehow, did not hear nor see the edge. (1 for 1)

Sehwag threw his head up in absolute disgust at the decision, and as he walked back brushed shoulders with Bowden. It also begs the question: can the Indians trust the Australian fielders and walk on their word?

McGrath has taken over 400 wickets in Test cricket, yet he appealed for what was a clear edge. Would the Indians ever trust McGrath in this series? Would they take his word for anything?

Next to go was Chopra. This time it was the handiwork of Bucknor. It is almost like the umpires were taking turns at giving bad decisions. Gillespie was the bowler and the ball seemed destined to go down the leg-side. But not according to the umpire. Another disappointing decision, another batsman back in the pavilion. (7 for 2)

 

[JustTool]

For those people who are obviously UNAWARE of the rule:

The BENEFIT of DOUBT MUST got to the batsman.

This rule was rewritten:

The BENEFIT of DOUBT MUST got to the Aussies and no one shall be allowed to complain about this.

 

[JustTool]

The best summary is from highly regarded Harsha Bogle. Remember what Sri-Lankans say about Aussies being whiners and cheaters - and yet they RECALLED Symonds when he was given out with a much fainter edge than Sehwag's. Admittedly Australia is the strongest side in World Cricket but definitely not the fairest or most sporting - far from it. Look how they treat Murali - it's disgusting.

Here's Harsha:

But the people at the centre of it all on Day 4 were the umpires and that is bad for the game. For all Harbhajan's guile - he bowled as well as any Indian off-spinner has - and Warne's approach to the world record, it was Billy Bowden and Steve Bucknor who played the lead role.

They had a terrible day. Bowden is an affable man but twice in this game he has cost India the initiative; first when he sent off Pathan before lunch on Day 3 and then when he somehow missed Sehwag's big inside edge onto pad when India came out to save the game. It was difficult to tell which was poorer.

And I'm afraid the time has come for Steve Bucknor to look inward. When he made his reputation, he was a quiet, dignified man, someone whose presence on the field you felt reassured by.

Increasingly he has grown intrusive and bossy and while he got two wrong as well, his gesture to Zaheer Khan when he ran onto the pitch on his follow through was offensive. Good umpires are firm and friendly but if you saw Bucknor you would have thought Zaheer had pinched his wallet.

A judge cannot have the demeanour of a lawyer. Sadly the umpires also gave the impression they were being influenced by the intensity of the appeal and you have to wonder about this whole sportsman spirit thing when fielders and bowlers jump up and down in front of umpires fully aware that the batsman is not out.

Australia have often argued for a fielder to be trusted when the validity of a catch is in question. But I'm afraid their case has grown terribly weak after their appeals against Pathan and Sehwag when they knew the batsmen weren't out.

You can't ask for honesty if you don't exhibit it and I thought the traditional Aussie approach was more forthright: I do my job and the umpire does his.

Everyone appeals when batsmen are not out these days, and no team can claim exception to it, but to cheat with one hand and ask for morality with the other is to pray in the morning and sin in the afternoon. It cannot happen.

But India focus on the umpiring at their own peril. The top order needs to pull its weight and I am afraid the reliance on a strong opening partnership is becoming too acute. When the openers play well, India bat well but when they don't India crumble. It is happening too often and as India head to Chennai, they need to ensure that their performance is better than that of their administration.

 

[superkingdave]

For those people who are obviously UNAWARE of the rule:

The BENEFIT of DOUBT MUST got to the batsman.

This rule was rewritten:

The BENEFIT of DOUBT MUST got to the Aussies and no one shall be allowed to complain about this.

Why don't create a petition to have the result of the game overturned?









Alternatively, here's a picture of some Grapes, they look quite sour.

 

[JustTool]

Why don't create a petition to have the result of the game overturned?


Alternatively, here's a picture of some Grapes, they look quite sour.

I'd rather petition to use more technology and make umpires more answerable. Of course, that probably is so sensible that it is beyond your comprehension

 

[JustTool]

By the way, what is really impressive is how the Australians NEVER EVER complain, whine or moan about Murali; or the fact that Brett Lee chucks. Too bad Murali is too much of a genetleman to give it back to the Aussie press.

 

[superkingdave]

I'd rather petition to use more technology and make umpires more answerable. Of course, that probably is so sensible that it is beyond your comprehension

Indeed, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. And Billy Bowden never returns my calls

 

[Sehwag309]

Care To Make It Interesting

Clarke Thanks Billy for Century

Question: That LBW appeal when you were on 92 . . . Did your heart pop out of your chest?

Answer: As soon as I got hit, it just felt so out. I honestly felt so out it wasn't funny. I looked up at [umpire] Billy Bowden and thought, "Please no, Billy. Please no". For whatever reason, he kept his finger down.


Question: It looked like you actually started to walk.

Answer: No, I sort of just fell across my stumps and then I turned around so I could see if he was going to give me out. It definitely felt, ah, well ... it didn't feel good.

Question: Did you have a word with Billy after that?

Answer: I said to Billy: "I thought that was close, mate." He said: "It was. But it was just going over." I said "Thanks mate!" Glad he thought so!

Question: So, he's your favourite umpire now?

Answer: He's a champion, a genius. I owe him a couple of beers.


____________________________________________________


I thought I was history

""Eight runs shy of his debut ton, Michael Clarke was convinced he was out, he tells David Sygall in an exclusive interview."""

 

[a massive zebra]

Australians NEVER EVER complain, whine or moan about Murali; or the fact that Brett Lee chucks.

Is that a joke?

 

[JustTool]

Indeed, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. And Billy Bowden never returns my calls

I am not surprised since you don't have a clue what you, yourself are talking about. Does anyone ever return any of your calls ? (That's a rhetorical question - no need to answer).

 

[marc71178]

You act like your part of the ICC or something or you have personally appointed them. We as fans have every right to come and bitch about the umpiring especially since its the internet. Yes they have tough jobs but that doesn't stop me from complaining.

There's complaining, and there's accusing the umpires of being cheats.

 

[marc71178]

Exactly, an LBW is a judgement call. Now surely it is easier to make a judgement call like that based on video than with a naked in real time alone?

Because the man being called upon to make the judgement then doesn't make it.

Also the video can only show a picture, it cannot show exactly what the umpire sees.

 

[marc71178]

For those people who are obviously UNAWARE of the rule:

The BENEFIT of DOUBT MUST got to the batsman.

Which is all well when there's doubt, but the chip on your shoulder means you cannot accept that although close calls, some of them you've complained about were actually correct.

 

[JustTool]

Because the man being called upon to make the judgement then doesn't make it.

Also the video can only show a picture, it cannot show exactly what the umpire sees.

Well, at least no one will ever accuse you of knowing anything at all about technology. Or cricket. Or umpiring.

 

[marc71178]

Bowden is an affable man but twice in this game he has cost India the initiative; first when he sent off Pathan before lunch on Day 3

That's it, it's clearly the umpires fault.

No mention there of Patel's first ball in that innings or of the fact that Pathan is a number 8, so to say he's a key wicket is a massive overstatement (and of course no blame to the Indian top order)

 

[marc71178]

I'd rather petition to use more technology and make umpires more answerable.

Technology isn't reliable enough, and what can be more answerable than losing your job?

Of course, that probably is so sensible that it is beyond your comprehension

And yet again, if all else fails, hurl an insult.

 

[marc71178]

Well, at least no one will ever accuse you of knowing anything at all about technology. Or cricket. Or umpiring.

No, I'm just a neutral in all this.

The Technology is not good enough (the only way to get the umpire's view is if he held a camera, and it'd be hard to make any signals if he were filming as well) - it also would remove the judgement from the umpire if used, something which is integral to the game.

As for not knowing anything about Cricket, well I see it's now my turn to be insulted, but I'm pretty happy that I do have a fairly good knowledge of the game, whatever you may think.

 

[JustTool]

That's it, it's clearly the umpires fault.

No mention there of Patel's first ball in that innings or of the fact that Pathan is a number 8, so to say he's a key wicket is a massive overstatement (and of course no blame to the Indian top order)

No one is NOT blaming the Indian top order. Can you read ? However, the incorrect decisions were at a crucial stage and took the initiative away from India. Why are you so hell bent on defending outright miserable umpiring ? Have you every played any cricket at any level ?

 

[Scaly piscine]

No one is NOT blaming the Indian top order. Can you read ? However, the incorrect decisions were at a crucial stage and took the initiative away from India. Why are you so hell bent on defending outright miserable umpiring ? Have you every played any cricket at any level ?

Codswallop, the incorrect decisions were not at a crucial stage and did not take the initiative away from India because they have been getting thrashed for most of the match. Why are you so hell bent on using personal attacks when you're badly losing an argument?

(yes you've guessed it - the last one is a rhetorical question)

 

[viktor]

That's it, it's clearly the umpires fault.

No mention there of Patel's first ball in that innings or of the fact that Pathan is a number 8, so to say he's a key wicket is a massive overstatement (and of course no blame to the Indian top order)

i don't think the entire article was pasted. thats just a part of the article. he then goes on to say that irrespective of the umpiring the indian batting needs to improve. he also goes on to write how bucknor's treatment of zaheer khan was unprofessional when zaheer ran onto the pitch.