Worst Decisions by an Umpire...

[Legglancer]

Hair is probably the worst umpire ive seen. His decisions are almost always biased against asien countries. This year Murali got Peterson out LBW on both innings plumb and was not given. I remember in the 1st test the Ball was hitting " the exact middle of middle stump". However the umpires gave Jayasuriya out LBW when the ball hit him Outside the off stump off Panesar. Also when Australia toured SL in 2004 the lankans got some horrible decisions.

 

[marc71178]

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

To be honest, a case can be made for either meaning.

 

[Goughy]

To be honest, a case can be made for either meaning.

Can it? Please, do explain.

 

[Sanz]

So now Marc's English Language skills are questioned. Out of curiosity, did Sunny use the word 'Even if' as Swervy was suggesting.

 

[Goughy]

So now Marc's English Language skills are questioned. Out of curiosity, did Sunny use the word 'Even if' as Swervy was suggesting.

I was actually questioning my own. I was wondering how something that I see so cut and dry could be interpreted so differently. I was wondering if I missed something because as it reads and as it sounds on the commentary I can only see one possible interpretation.

 

[Swervy]

To be honest, a case can be made for either meaning.

how?

 

[Top_Cat]

b. it was still rising when it hit the shoulder and

I don't know what footage you were watching but it definitely appeared that the ball's trajectory had flattened and may have been about to head down or had started (had to tell without decent cameras). There's no way it was still on the way up.

As for Sunni's comments guys, it's pretty clear from his susequent an vehement complaits about the decision he meant something along 'the ball would have hit the stumps if they had been six inches higher'. Bearing in mind the fact it was a real-time comment and that English is not Sunni's first language and he might have just muddled his words. Either way, what he said later in the telecast and in news columns after it tells you that was DEFINITELY not in favour of the decision.

 

[Sanz]

I don't know what footage you were watching but it definitely appeared that the ball's trajectory had flattened and may have been about to head down or had started (had to tell without decent cameras). There's no way it was still on the way up.

As for Sunni's comments guys, it's pretty clear from his susequent an vehement complaits about the decision he meant something along 'the ball would have hit the stumps if they had been six inches higher'. Bearing in mind the fact it was a real-time comment and that English is not Sunni's first language and he might have just muddled his words. Either way, what he said later in the telecast and in news columns after it tells you that was DEFINITELY not in favour of the decision.

Thank You for confirming that, I hope it is enough for Goughy, Swervy et all to believe what Sunny meant.

 

[Jono]

Yeah TC hit the nail on the read regarding what Sunny meant. Mind you, why are we having an argument about that? It doesn't really prove anything one way or another.

Just because it's Tendulkar doesn't mean it's automatically a more important error than any other umpiring one.

You realise you're talking to Sanz here right?

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.

What he means is, the 3rd umpire jumped the gun. It was obvious that he caught it, but the third umpire should have checked whether Warne hit it straight into the air or into the ground first right? The only camera angle he used was behind the short-leg.

Mind you it was going to be out anyway if he used the second camera angle, so to even suggest its one of the worst decisions ever is a bit silly.

 

[Swervy]

Thank You for confirming that, I hope it is enough for Goughy, Swervy et all to believe what Sunny meant.

all it needed was the explanation that TC provided...based on the footage at the time, what Sunny said gave the impression he thought it was a good decison, I was just wonder how you could interprete what he said at the time (ie. the 6 inches higher line) in any other way than we did.
Obviously with the context that TC has brought in, he was hacked off with the decision...whatever that proves anyway.(he never was one to accept LBW decision gracefully was ol' Sunny ...only kidding)

 

[Swervy]

Thank You for confirming that, I hope it is enough for Goughy, Swervy et all to believe what Sunny meant.

anyway....you have still yet to justify why this decision was the worst ever!!!!!

 

[marc71178]

Can it? Please, do explain.

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

The key word is the it in bold.

That it can be thought of as the ball but it could also (and I actually think in this case) could be the stumps (ie he thought that if the stumps were 6 inches higher then it would've hit them)

The reason I think that this is Sunny's meaning is because clearly the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher.

 

[benchmark00]

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

The key word is the it in bold.

That it can be thought of as the ball but it could also (and I actually think in this case) could be the stumps (ie he thought that if the stumps were 6 inches higher then it would've hit them)

The reason I think that this is Sunny's meaning is because clearly the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher.

Sunny meant what you said he meant, but he said it wrong, and if English was his first language there would be no excuse. The ball is the subject, so when he says 'it' he's referring to the ball. Also, stumps/wickets is a plural, which would mean he'd have to say 'they' or something to that effect.

 

[Sanz]

all it needed was the explanation that TC provided...based on the footage at the time, what Sunny said gave the impression he thought it was a good decison, I was just wonder how you could interprete what he said at the time (ie. the 6 inches higher line) in any other way than we did.
Obviously with the context that TC has brought in, he was hacked off with the decision...whatever that proves anyway.(he never was one to accept LBW decision gracefully was ol' Sunny ...only kidding)

Knowing you, I was certian that you will accuse Sunny Gavaskar and you did just that, it was just a matter of time. And no, you are not really kidding.

It's also amazing that how you took T_C's explanation of context but chose to ignore when I mentioned it :-

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=869494&postcount=130

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm going to make another (probably futile) attempt to move this thread away from a decision that was a bit iffy, but I've seen a worse LBW than that at the Oval this morning.

What about Rob Bailey given out caught off his hip in the West Indies in 1990. The umpire appeared not to be about to give him out until Viv Richards came charging down the wicket with his third appeal. He was no where near it and Christopher Martin-Jenkins was prevented from commenting further on the match for suggesting that the umpire was intimidated by Richards into making the decision.

 

[Goughy]

I'm going to make another (probably futile) attempt to move this thread away from a decision that was a bit iffy, but I've seen a worse LBW than that at the Oval this morning.

What about Rob Bailey given out caught off his hip in the West Indies in 1990. The umpire appeared not to be about to give him out until Viv Richards came charging down the wicket with his third appeal. He was no where near it and Christopher Martin-Jenkins was prevented from commenting further on the match for suggesting that the umpire was intimidated by Richards into making the decision.

The Bailey one was terrible. Richards was a disgrace.

 

[Sanz]

anyway....you have still yet to justify why this decision was the worst ever!!!!!

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=869604&postcount=138

 

[BoyBrumby]

Early shout for Messers Hair & Doctrove over the replacing of the ball & 5 penalty runs, anyone?

 

[Isolator]

One horrible one that comes to mind is Brett Lee to Pietersen, Koertzen umpiring. Full toss, hit him a bit below the knee in front of middle stump. Given not out. Even more irritating was Nasser Hussain going "THAT WAS A BEAMER! THAT WAS A BEAMER!".

 

[Fusion]

Early shout for Messers Hair & Doctrove over the replacing of the ball & 5 penalty runs, anyone?

Too early to say anything. Have to see what explanation Hair gives afterwards.