Worst Decisions by an Umpire...

[Goughy]

It was a brilliant catch if I recall. And I think Warney did hit it. And I have watched it only like a 100 times.

It was a great catch and obviously Warne hit it. The question is whether it was hit into the ground. It doesnt look that bad a decision for me. Again marginal.

Regarding that hattrick, Im amazed that the Warne dismissal was brought up as a shocker when the 2nd dismissal (Gilchrist) was the real shocker.

Gilchrist was given out LBW to a ball that pitched a mile outside leg that he proceeded to inside edge onto his pad. Cannot be out x 2

Again, I dont see too much wrong with the Warne one but Gilchrist was robbed.

Clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc4d86HEWV8

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, the Gilchrist one was a shocker. Far worse for instance than the Tendulkar decision, because not only did he edge it, but it also pitched outside leg.

 

[honestbharani]

I remember that. But hey, you have to give us some slack. We were playing with one and a half bowlers throughout the whole series.

 

[shankar]

There was another shocker in the same innings when Gillespie was given not out (by Bansal again, obviously) after a huge edge behind off Prasad at the beginning of his record partnership with S.Waugh.

 

[Sanz]

"From this angle It does look that the ball would have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher".

Sunny obviously knows a lot about cricket but you dont. He is saying that if the ball had been 6 inches higher it would still have hit the stumps. That means the ball is easily hitting the stumps and is not going over.

You are doing what you always do. Make an extreme statement and then refuse to back it up. Again, why was it a bad decision against Tendulkar?

I knew you could twist sunny's statement to suit your logic, you are a master of that art.

 

[Swervy]

I knew you could twist sunny's statement to suit your logic, you are a master of that art.

but that is what Gavaskar was saying...even if the ball was 6 inches higher, it would have hit the stumps...Sunny was saying the ball wasnt too high

 

[Sanz]

Yeah Sure...Here is the sequence of what some of you have argued :-

a. It was close but it was wrong
b. Harper got it right but If I were the umpire I wouldn't give him out
c. It was wrong decision but not the worst decision ever
....
....
.....
z. it would have hit the stumps even if the ball were six inches higher.

My expressions after the last statement :-

 

[benchmark00]

Sanz mate, you've totally missed the point. The issue isn't whether it was out or not, the issue is that in no way is this even close to the worst decision of all time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And seriously Sanz, parse that sentence you quoted from Sunny in the commentary.

"From this angle It does look that the ball would have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher."

He defines the subject as the ball, so in "the ball would have hit the stumps if it had been six inches higher", "it" has to be "the ball". In other words: "if the ball was six inches higher, it would have hit the stumps".

It may be that it's simply a speaking error from someone with english as a second language, but it really does appear from that sentence that he was saying the ball was going to hit the stumps.

To clarify, nobody here is saying that the ball would have hit the stumps if it was six inches higher. That's what Gavaskar said.

 

[Sanz]

Anyone who has followed the test match and Gavsakar's reactions of that dismissal would know what was being said there.

 

[Goughy]

Anyone who has followed the test match and Gavsakar's reactions of that dismissal would know what was being said there.

Its so funny that Sunny meant the exact opposite of what the words he said meant

This is crazy, it was not a bad decision. Get over it and accept you are wrong rather than continue making things worse. Already you have shown you know little about the rules of cricket and what certain words in the English language mean. Again, this is typical. You make an 'out there' statement and then provide no information to back up your claim when people prove you to be wrong.

All you do is attack their details and usually in a clumsy and inaccurate fashion.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've umpired a bit at a school level and I can say that the worst decision I ever made was saying "I do" at my wedding.

 

[Sanz]

Its so funny that Sunny meant the exact opposite of what the words he said meant

That's rich coming from someone whose only source of information is a youtube video.

This is crazy, it was not a bad decision. Get over it and accept your wrong rather than continue making things worse.

Else ?? Try to control the tone of your language, if you think it was a right decision then good for you. IMO it was the worst decision ever, It still is, it always will be until I see someone ducking a bouncer, hit on the head, and is given LBW.

Already you have shown you know little about the rules of cricket and what certain words in the English language mean.

And you have already shown your penchant for twisting stuff up to suit your argument in more than one threads. I know how good(or bad) my English language skills are, I have managed to survive on this forum (and many other forums and above all in an English speaking country).

As for my knowledge of rules of cricket, Yeah I dont know much about those and I have never claimed to have known either. Didn't know it was going to be such an issue here.

I hope James takes note of that and makes sure all other members of this forum memorize all the cricketing rules before they make any new post on CC. I also recommend that he hires you 'a qualified umpire' as the sole judge of this whole process. And posting should resume on CC only after all the remaining members are fully conversant with cricket rules. Until then all except 'The Qualified Umpire' should be confined to OT.

 

[Swervy]

That's rich coming from someone whose only source of information is a youtube video.



Else ?? Try to control the tone of your language, if you think it was a right decision then good for you. IMO it was the worst decision ever, It still is, it always will be until I see someone ducking a bouncer, hit on the head, and is given LBW.



And you have already shown your penchant for twisting stuff up to suit your argument in more than one threads. I know how good(or bad) my English language skills are, I have managed to survive on this forum (and many other forums and above all in an English speaking country).

As for my knowledge of rules of cricket, Yeah I dont know much about those and I have never claimed to have known either. Didn't know it was going to be such an issue here.

I hope James takes note of that and makes sure all other members of this forum memorize all the cricketing rules before they make any new post on CC. I also recommend that he hires you 'a qualified umpire' as the sole judge of this whole process. And posting should resume on CC only after all the remaining members are fully conversant with cricket rules. Until then all except 'The Qualified Umpire' should be confined to OT.

Sanz, I think the thing that is confusing people here is how you can say it was the worst decision ever...it would appear as though you are saying this because the ball hit him on the shoulder...but as that is within the laws for an LBW, that can't be the sticking point for you surely. If Sachin had have padded up without playing at the ball, and the ball hit him on the pads at the same height and position relative to the stumps would you still have a problem with the decision???

Its just you still havent really justified why you think it was the worst LBW of all time!!!

 

[Goughy]

Its just you still havent really justified why you think it was the worst LBW of all time!!!

And he wont. As I said in my previous post. He makes lots of outlandish statements and then never backs them up, he just attacks those that disagee or talk sense.

 

[Sanz]

And he wont. As I said in my previous post. He makes lots of outlandish statements and then never backs them up, he just attacks those that disagee or talk sense.

Dont flatter yourself.

 

[Goughy]

Dont flatter yourself.

Again, just as I said. Refuses to back his own arguments and attacks others. Typical and embassrasing.

 

[Sanz]

One can explain it only to those who have a proper vision(not tinted one) and to those who can read properly.

 

[Neil Pickup]

One can explain it only to those who have a proper vision(not tinted one) and to those who can read properly.

You've made one attempt to explain why you think it was the "worst decision ever" on this thread so far, and that was based on an entirely erroneous interpretation of the LBW law.

I'd never seen nor heard of this incident before, but the evidence and arguments I've seen suggest that if wrong - and it's a big if - it's only cause it's just going over the top. I'd certainly have given it out in realtime.

 

[Sanz]

Actually it was explained very well here (without wanting to drag Jono in this discussion) :- http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=868041&postcount=78

Then again I made an attempt here :- http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=868257&postcount=82 and then again here :- http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=868676&postcount=99

Anyways to sum it up :-

a. The ball did hit in line and didn't bounce bounce as much as it should have but
b. it was still rising when it hit the shoulder and
c. Tendulkar's shoulder was at least couple inches higher than the stumps
d. ball was still in motion at avour 130 kmph there was no way it was going to lose any more height for next couple yards or so
e. from the front on (without the replays) it never looked like plumb(in terms of height and not line) as claimed by swervy
f. Last but not the least every single commentator was shocked when the decision was given and only after watching replays folks like Mark taylor came up with the justification.