Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sourav Ganguly backs BCCI's decision about DRS
6 views
Skip to first unread message
FreedomOfThought
Dec 27, 2011, 4:48:17 PM12/27/11
to
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article2752902.ece
Sourav Ganguly backs BCCI's decision about DRS
Melbourne, December 28, 2011
Former India captain Sourav Ganguly on Tuesday said that the Decision Review System (DRS)
is flawed and there was nothing wrong on the Indian Cricket Board's part in refusing to
use the controversial technology.
Ganguly, who had played the series against Sri Lanka in 2008 when the DRS was first used
on trial basis, said that the problems of the technology were extremely obvious as India
could manage to get only one of their 20 referrals right.
"We had a terrible experience with that, in that first series in Sri Lanka. From that
point of view, we had our issues," said Ganguly.
"It (DRS) should be introduced if it's correct. We were in England in the summer and it
wasn't foolproof," Ganguly was quoted as saying in the 'Sydney Morning Herald'
India agreed to use a modified DRS, excluding lbw appeals, against England but choose to
oppose it completely along with Hot Spot and Eagle Eye for the ongoing four-match Test
series in Australia.
Sourav Ganguly backs BCCI's decision about DRS
Melbourne, December 28, 2011
Former India captain Sourav Ganguly on Tuesday said that the Decision Review System (DRS)
is flawed and there was nothing wrong on the Indian Cricket Board's part in refusing to
use the controversial technology.
Ganguly, who had played the series against Sri Lanka in 2008 when the DRS was first used
on trial basis, said that the problems of the technology were extremely obvious as India
could manage to get only one of their 20 referrals right.
"We had a terrible experience with that, in that first series in Sri Lanka. From that
point of view, we had our issues," said Ganguly.
"It (DRS) should be introduced if it's correct. We were in England in the summer and it
wasn't foolproof," Ganguly was quoted as saying in the 'Sydney Morning Herald'
India agreed to use a modified DRS, excluding lbw appeals, against England but choose to
oppose it completely along with Hot Spot and Eagle Eye for the ongoing four-match Test
series in Australia.
Cicero
Dec 29, 2011, 6:42:01 AM12/29/11
to
"FreedomOfThought" wrote in message news:jddeev$qji$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article2752902.ece
Ganguly, who had played the series against Sri Lanka in 2008 when the DRS
was first used
on trial basis, said that the problems of the technology were extremely
obvious as India
could manage to get only one of their 20 referrals right.
So India are either:
a) a mob of fuckwits who can't count and they condemn the system. They
should try introducing schools.
b) a mob of fuckwits who cheat and the system didn't support this.
FreedomOfThought
Dec 29, 2011, 6:48:24 AM12/29/11
to
"Cicero" <Som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:hlYKq.893$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/cc84949e9c5d7b94?hl=en
Australians CHEAT in Sydney Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92zqspN3W2c
Brian Lawrence
Dec 29, 2011, 12:48:41 PM12/29/11
to
T1 (SSC) India asked for 3 reviews, 3 failed
T2 (Galle) 6 5 failed
T3 (PSS) 10 10 failed
Only one successful out of 19.
Sri Lanka requested 23 and were successful 10 times (T1 4/5, T2 2/9, T3 4/9).
FreedomOfThought
Dec 29, 2011, 5:26:15 PM12/29/11
to
"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9m3nfe...@mid.individual.net...
decision why India failed in their DRS appeals.
Case in point:
If DRS is being used in this series, India would have FAILED twice
in their two appeals on Day 1 in Melbourne test which would have been
UNFAIR since the problem is with DRS.
It would have been UNFAIR for Australia too if the situation is reverse.
From Cricinfo column by Sambit Bal
"The counter-argument came later that evening. An impassioned appeal from the Indians was
turned down after Zaheer Khan pinned Brad Haddin on the back foot. The pitch mat had the
ball pitching in line and the line looked straight. Would India have won the decision had
the review been available? No, as it turned out. Eagle Eye, the technology used in this
series for ball-tracking, couldn't come up with accurate projections because of the
extreme variations in light: it was brilliantly bright on most parts of the field but dark
shadows covered the pitch. Imagine the situation had the DRS been in place. India would
have got two decisions in their favour overturned, but when it came to their turn at
seeking justice, the tool to deliver it wouldn't have been available. "
**matto**
Dec 29, 2011, 6:48:40 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 10:48 pm, "FreedomOfThought"
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
>
> Australians CHEAT in Sydney Testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92zqspN3W2c
Since you love youtube go find the LBW given against Gilchrist from
Harbi in 2001. Classic Indian umpiring.
Or better still the LBW turned against Australia by look at me Bowden
with India 9 wickets down and cost Australia victory.
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
>
> Australians CHEAT in Sydney Testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92zqspN3W2c
Since you love youtube go find the LBW given against Gilchrist from
Harbi in 2001. Classic Indian umpiring.
Or better still the LBW turned against Australia by look at me Bowden
with India 9 wickets down and cost Australia victory.
FreedomOfThought
Dec 29, 2011, 7:05:34 PM12/29/11
to
"**matto**" <canterb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9baede74-92e3-4a03...@l16g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 10:48 pm, "FreedomOfThought"
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
>
> Australians CHEAT in Sydney Testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92zqspN3W2c
>>Since you love youtube
Another DUMB western psychoanalyst matto. I never mentioned anywhere I love Youtube.
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
>
> Australians CHEAT in Sydney Testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92zqspN3W2c
>>Since you love youtube
>go find the LBW given against Gilchrist from
>>Harbi in 2001. Classic Indian umpiring.
>>Or better still the LBW turned against Australia by look at me Bowden
>>with India 9 wickets down and cost Australia victory.
1) One or two bad decisions were the norm in almost every test during that period.
2) Sydney test had way tooo many decisons that were wrong and directed against one team.
It was deliberate CHEATING.
3) You have a confused brain equivalent to that Indian lunatic "Call Centre"
**matto**
Dec 29, 2011, 7:08:20 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 30, 11:05 am, "FreedomOfThought"
did not appeal and normally India appeals if the ball goes near the
bat or pad .....
The Sydney Test had one howler being the Symonds decision. That was
it :)
DRS is the 2nd best decision maker and umpire I've seen after the
great Darrell Hair.
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
>
> FACTS:
>
> 1) One or two bad decisions were the norm in almost every test during that period.
>
> 2) Sydney test had way tooo many decisons that were wrong and directed against one team.
> It was deliberate CHEATING.
>
> 3) You have a confused brain equivalent to that Indian lunatic "Call Centre"
You can't claim one of the LBW decisions against Hussey because you
>
> FACTS:
>
> 1) One or two bad decisions were the norm in almost every test during that period.
>
> 2) Sydney test had way tooo many decisons that were wrong and directed against one team.
> It was deliberate CHEATING.
>
> 3) You have a confused brain equivalent to that Indian lunatic "Call Centre"
did not appeal and normally India appeals if the ball goes near the
bat or pad .....
The Sydney Test had one howler being the Symonds decision. That was
it :)
DRS is the 2nd best decision maker and umpire I've seen after the
great Darrell Hair.
FreedomOfThought
Dec 29, 2011, 7:22:36 PM12/29/11
to
news:a52a6525-7660-42e9...@j1g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
4) Darrell Hair who ONLY sees ball tampering by colored players
and DRS which is used by UMPIRES to blatantly CHEAT and get away.
and DRS which is used by UMPIRES to blatantly CHEAT and get away.
**matto**
Dec 29, 2011, 7:27:31 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 30, 11:22 am, "FreedomOfThought"
by Ponting LBW and Hussey hot spot in the second innings. The Hussey
LBW doesn't count as India didn't appeal lol.
> 2) Sydney test had way tooo many decisons that were wrong and directed against one team.
> It was deliberate CHEATING.
Yes the Symonds decision was a howler. The rest was inflated because
Australia was too good.
> 3) You have a confused brain equivalent to that Indian lunatic "Call Centre"
>
> 4) Darrell Hair who ONLY sees ball tampering by colored players
> and DRS which is used by UMPIRES to blatantly CHEAT and get away.
Darrell Hair was a brilliant and courageous decision maker and his
decision making once cost Australia a series victory. DRS has an
accuracy that is Bradman-esque average.
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
>
> FACTS:
>
> 1) One or two bad decisions were the norm in almost every test during that period.
Cowan and Hussey when we batted and the not out of Ashwin. Compounded
>
> FACTS:
>
> 1) One or two bad decisions were the norm in almost every test during that period.
by Ponting LBW and Hussey hot spot in the second innings. The Hussey
LBW doesn't count as India didn't appeal lol.
> 2) Sydney test had way tooo many decisons that were wrong and directed against one team.
> It was deliberate CHEATING.
Australia was too good.
> 3) You have a confused brain equivalent to that Indian lunatic "Call Centre"
>
> 4) Darrell Hair who ONLY sees ball tampering by colored players
> and DRS which is used by UMPIRES to blatantly CHEAT and get away.
decision making once cost Australia a series victory. DRS has an
accuracy that is Bradman-esque average.
FreedomOfThought
Dec 29, 2011, 7:29:41 PM12/29/11
to
news:29d84ff5-f89e-472a...@t36g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
5) It is impossible for a westerner to post a comment "without spin"
6) Pretty much all westerners follow Joseph Goebbel's principle of repeating a "lie" a
thousand times until it is accepted as truth.
6) Pretty much all westerners follow Joseph Goebbel's principle of repeating a "lie" a
thousand times until it is accepted as truth.
trailer trash will
Dec 29, 2011, 11:01:27 AM12/29/11
to
CHANGE YOUR SIG YOU GUTLESS WONDER
+
Brian Lawrence
Dec 30, 2011, 3:24:06 AM12/30/11
to
"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_...@msn.com> wrote:
> Checking with Cricinfo - Three Tests in the 2008 series:
>
> T1 (SSC) India asked for 3 reviews, 3 failed
> T2 (Galle) 6 5 failed
> T3 (PSS) 10 10 failed
>
> Only one successful out of 19.
>
> Sri Lanka requested 23 and were successful 10 times (T1 4/5, T2 2/9, T3 4/9).
India's batsmen reviewed their dismissals eight times, only one was successful:
> Checking with Cricinfo - Three Tests in the 2008 series:
>
> T1 (SSC) India asked for 3 reviews, 3 failed
> T2 (Galle) 6 5 failed
> T3 (PSS) 10 10 failed
>
> Only one successful out of 19.
>
> Sri Lanka requested 23 and were successful 10 times (T1 4/5, T2 2/9, T3 4/9).
2nd Test
Inns Ovr Req. by Bowler Mode Result
=======================================================
1 31.5 Gambhir Mendis lbw FAILED
2 65.4 Ganguly Muralitharan lbw SUCCESSFUL
2 70.5 Kumble Mendis lbw FAILED
3rd Test
Inns Ovr Req. by Bowler Mode Result
=======================================================
1 22.1 Tendulkar Prasad lbw FAILED
1 56.1 Patel Mendis lbw FAILED
2 27.4 Ganguly Muralitharan lbw FAILED
2 34.5 Tendulkar Mendis lbw FAILED
2 75.5 Kumble Muralitharan lbw FAILED
Sri Lanka also reviewed eight dismissals, succeeding 5 times:
1st Test
Inns Ovr Req. by Bowler Mode Result
===========================================================
1 105.3 Dilshan Zaheer ct/wk SUCCESSFUL
2nd Test
Inns Ovr Req. by Bowler Mode Result
============================================================
1 52.3 Samaraweera Harbhajan lbw FAILED
2 40.1 P Jayawardene Harbhajan lbw SUCCESSFUL
3rd Test
Inns Ovr Req. by Bowler Mode Result
============================================================
1 44.4 Vaas Kumble bat/pad SUCCESSFUL
1 49.1 Jayawardene Harbhajan lbw FAILED
1 60.2 Samaraweera Kumble bat/pad SUCCESSFUL
1 88.3 Dilshan Kumble lbw FAILED
1 89.1 P Jayawardene Harbhajan lbw SUCCESSFUL
India's captain, Anil Kumble, reviewed 11 rejected appeals, none were successful:
Test 1
Inns Ovr Bowler Batsman Mode Result
=============================================================
1 45.4 Harbhajan Warnapura lbw FAILED
1 119.1 Harbhajan Dilshan lbw FAILED
1 158.6 Zaheer Vaas lbw FAILED * (3rd failure)
Test 2
Inns Ovr Bowler Batsman Mode Result
=============================================================
1 27.3 Kumble Warnapura lbw FAILED
1 54.1 Harbhajan Jayawardene lbw FAILED
2 33.3 Sharma Samarawera ct/wk FAILED
Test 3
Inns Ovr Bowler Batsman Mode Result
=============================================================
1 56.6 Kumble Samaraweera lbw FAILED
1 127.2 Zaheer Mendis ct/wk FAILED
2 5.5 Harbhajan Warnapura lbw FAILED
2 25.5 Sehwag Jayawardene lbw FAILED
2 30.2 Sehwag Jayawardene lbw FAILED * (3rd failure)
Sri Lanka captain Mahela Jayawardene reviewed 17 rejected appeals and was
successful six times:
Test 1
Inns Ovr Bowler Batsman Mode Result
============================================================
1 24.6 Mendis Ganguly lbw FAILED
2 6.4 Muralitharan Sehwag lbw SUCCESSFUL
2 23.4 Muralitharan Tendulkar ct/slp SUCCESSFUL
2 33.6 Muralitharan Karthik ct/slp FAILED
2 34.2 Mendis Dravid bat/pad SUCCESSFUL
Test 2
Inns Ovr Bowler Batsman Mode Result
============================================================
1 10.2 Mendis Sehwag bat/pad FAILED
1 38.5 Vaas Laxman lbw FAILED
1 68.5 Muralitharan Sehwag lbw FAILED * (3rd failure)
2 22.4 Mendis Gambhir lbw FAILED
2 55.6 Muralitharan Dravid lbw SUCCESSFUL
2 68.3 Mendis Ganguly lbw FAILED
2 71.6 Muralitharan Zaheer lbw FAILED * (3rd failure)
Test 3
Inns Ovr Bowler Batsman Mode Result
============================================================
1 18.3 Prasad Dravid lbw SUCCESSFUL
1 42.1 Mendis Gambhir lbw SUCCESSFUL
2 26.6 Mendis Ganguly lbw FAILED
2 33.3 Muralitharan Tendulkar lbw FAILED
2 33.4 Muralitharan Tendulkar lbw FAILED * (3rd failure)
* Only 3 unsuccessful reviews allowed per innings.
Cricinfo commentary describes each review.
0 new messages