Very poor decision against Tendulkar
Vinay
about the light by Sachin. Then Razzaq bowls one, it misses Sachin's bat by
about 2 inches. No one even appeals except Razzaq. Bucknor gives him out.
Sachin as livid as I have seen him at a decision.
A very poor decision at a crucial juncture.
yeskay
Call it the curse of Gilly on all non-walkers!!!!
31.2 Abdul Razzaq to Tendulkar, OUT: short delivery, pitched outside the
off stump and moving away, Tendulkar tries to defend it on the
back-foot but gets beaten by the away moment, Razzaq appeals for
the caught behind, umpire Bucknor raises him finger after
deliberating for a long time!
India 121/3, Partnership of 98
SR Tendulkar c Kamran Akmal b Abdul Razzaq 52 (91b 9x4 0x6)
R Dravid 47* (87b 7x4) Abdul Razzaq 4.2-1-12-1
Tendulkar walks away shaking his head, tv replays clearly indicate
that the ball swung away after passing the bat, Bucknor gets it
terribly wrong on this occasion
dodo
Bad light affecting Bucknor ... also Buc has this authoritarian streak
... once the bats appealed for light a couple of times, and were
denied, I was looking for the next fielding appeal to be upheld ... but
this was totally inept
CiL
>A very poor decision at a crucial juncture.
Ah! Another Bucknor moment. I wonder when they would force him to
retire. only wehn the no 1 team - Australia suffer at his hands .
maybe. and then all hullagulla will break out in their agp.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Now there's an idea for helping England win the Ashes....
Cheers,
Mike
suresh....@gmail.com
packs his bags and goes home. I just wish he had stuck to football.
Suresh
psha...@watt.csl.uiuc.edu
mistakes all the time..as was in case of Tendulkar today.
So why should one walk ..if there's a bad decsion in store for you on a
later day.
--
Cricketwallah
It was a very poor decision, and a vital one as said - IMHO might
have turned the entire series.
Basically the way the pitch behaved when our spinners bowled
post-lunch, I thought 250 lead would be enough - thats how
difficult it looked (though, of course, one wants a whole lot
more). Then Sami got a couple to keep low too, and one wondered
if even 200 was enough? But probably not, its slow still (though
at 23/2 even 200 looked a long bloody way away).
Then Sachin joined Dravid and looked very shaky - Dravid looked
fine, Sachin was bothered by movement behind the sightscreen
etc, played and missed a couple times, and as usual nowadays
was taking his time getting started (thats the huge difference
with him, he used to get started as soon as he was in, middle
of the bat right away when younger - now he starts iffy like
most mortals, and has compensated by being very very slow at
the start, today 1* off 16 balls at tea IIRC). Meanwhile
Dravid at the other end was looknig fine.
After tea Sachin was suddenly totally different - he was suddenly
like the old Sachin, in the sense that he was positive even
on this pitch, looking for runs every ball. One streaky shot,
ball outside off wide and he gave it everything and edged
past 2nd slip for four (this was in like the 2nd over after
tea). But that was it, after that it seemed the pitch had
lost all its demons, both Dravid and Tendulkar batting
very very well, cautious but hitting fours all the time
too (Sachin was trailing Dravid 1* to 17* before tea as
Dravid had played shots and Sachin looked shaky; after tea
Sachin took over his old role, and Dravid dropped solid
anchor as in his old days, Sachin caught and passed him
and reached fifty with 8 fours after tea while Dravid was
still about 42 IIRC). It was terrific batting, and the
match was being taken away completely - the way it looked
they would go well past the hundred partnership and continue
on to tomorrow, and on this pitch that would probably be
decisive. Dravid was totally solid and putting away the bad
ball beautifully, and Tendulkar was playing almost like the
old days, a fair few shots and no alarms whatsoever, which
was remarkable on this pitch.
Right about the time Sachin got his fifty, the light was getting
very poor - they had been showing pictures of clouds for
a while, they had swithced on the floodlights but they
hadnt taken full effect. There were several complaints
about the light - Sachin was easily lip-read after one
ball saying he couldnt see it, one ball was dug in at him
and he didnt pick it at all, just managed to fend it away
with his bat. Dravid also complained about the light.
After a couple of times, Bucknor seemed just irritated with
it, and refused to give it any consideration anymore - he
seemed more annoyed at the several appeals against the
light as much as anything (in the meantime, Pakistan, which
had been looking quite clueless about how to break the
partnership that was moving beautifully, had noted the
fading light and brought back Sami, bowlnig at 90mph in
that spell, to take full advantage :-) Hair was appealed
to about the light as well, and he seemed willing to
consider it, walking over to Bucknor to consult (Bucknor
never took the question to Hair at all, in any of several
complaints), but they decided against granting it.
Then came the decision above. The ball moved away *a lot*,
which is a mitigating factor in Bucknor's error. But still,
there was no sound (confirmed on mic-replay, which showed
no change whatsoever as the ball went past). And the replay
showed distinct light between the bat and ball as they
passed (though there was a lot of movement after it went
by the bat). Kamran Akmal caught the ball and didnt even
really appeal - Razzak did, and kept appealing on no reaction
from Bucknor, sort of a hand-raised continuation of the
appeal for a bit. And after a *loong* wait (I mean long by
Bucknor's standards, by anyone else's standards it was
enough of a wait for the bowler to restart the runup :-)
Bucknor raised his finger.
Anyway. Ive actually always been a Bucknor-fan, I think he
was a great umpire (and actually a nice guy too, once in
Toronto we accosted him while there was a rain-delay and
he came over and talked to fans too, very civilly, even
though we joked with him etc). Even when India had all the
troubles with him in Australia I didnt have too much of a
problem with Bucknor myself - he made a clear error in the
Tendulkar LBW in Australia, but that happens, I really dont
think it was too awful. He was clearly annoyed with the
Indians by the end of that tour, but there was some
excessive appealing by the Indians and we did at times
seem to have a bit of a persecution complex with him.
Bucknor was making errors, more than he used to, but I thought
he was still a pretty fine umpire and not biased at all.
In this match, I think Bucknor has done a very fine job
before now - he has made the odd error (the no-ball etc),
but basically he has also made some excellent decisions.
This decision today however was awful - but not just because
it was a poor decision IMHO. He just seemed annoyed by
the appealing for bad-light, and seemed to be more and more
unwilling to even consider the appeals out of annoyance
(as the light was getting worse). The Indians didnt help
by appealing repeatedly - maybe just a quiet word would have
worked better. But still, that isnt how one should react as
umpire - Hair seemed much more amenable even with the appealing.
I really do think, give how long he waited to make the
decision (again, long even by his standards) that he might
not have gotten a great look at the ball - and that was probably
*because* the light had faded so much. But, almost on
instinct, he gave it anyway. I dont think he's biased - he
has made basically fair and pretty good decisions for 3 days
so far other than this one. But it seemed almost that he
was just pissed off at the Indians for their appeals against
the light, and it felt as if he let it cloud his judgement
on the caught-behind appeal. Which, IMHO, is worse than
actually just making a poor decision to give it out.
Relations were deteriorating even more after that happened -
Tendulkar looked unhappy as he walked off, but first I thought
it was just frustration due to the light-issue, it was as he
neared the boundary that he clearly seemed upset by the decision
itself (and replays confirmed it wasnt close). Ganguly obviously
thought so too - he came in shaking his head and asking about
the light before he played a ball, and continued to ask for
it almost every ball. After being turned down a couple more
times (almost lost a bouncer directed at him once, taking
his eyes off and hooking/fending), he smacked a ball thru
cover for four almost out of spite, and then still shook his
head as if he couldnt believe he wasnt being given the
light :-) He talked to Hair about it too, at square-leg
IIRC. Finally it was in the middle of next over that Hair
walked over to Bucknor again, and they decided to offer
the light.
Anyway. It was a terrific day, and some wonderful batting
after tea that had almost taken the game away completely
from Pakistan, with seemingly no chance of a reprieve.
The game seemed to change completely with the light
fading - the batsmen seemed more agitated when it was
not considered, and the bowling side suddenly seemed to
get life from nowhere. Then came the wicket (albiet by a
very poor decision), and the pressure in the game shifted
totally - it looked totally to be going the other way right
at the end (though thats only a myth, because tomorrow will
be a fresh start which will favour India probably). It was
intensely absorbing cricket, an awesome post-tea session
especially between two sides trying very hard - the *only*
thing that marred it was the acrimony over bad light and
the poor decision that turned a hard-fought game around.
Hopefully that alone hasnt changed the course of the match
(and/or series) - and hopefully tempers will be much
cooler between the umpire and team tomorrow ,than they were
by days end. It doesnt do much good for anyone if the
team feels theyre being victimized on purpose, and the
umpire feels mostly just annoyance towards one of the
sides (as it seemed for the first time in the match this
evening).
Sadiq [ Dravid and Sachin had looked *really* good ] Yusuf
CiL
<cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>excessive appealing by the Indians and we did at times
>seem to have a bit of a persecution complex with him.
>Bucknor was making errors, more than he used to, but I thought
>he was still a pretty fine umpire and not biased at all.
Nonsense.. then you havent been watching much of Bucknor., he has been
quite awful and his behaviour towards indians has been really awful.
the gestures, the petulance has been absoultely disgusting. and for
quite some time now.
CiL
<cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sadiq [ Dravid and Sachin had looked *really* good ] Yusuf
Yeah terrific Test match cricket it was. luved it. It would have
been even more great if Shoaib Akhtar was there.... pity..
Halekala
news:1111145181....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Bucknor is an A!!@#$e - and that's an understatement.
We need Sucknor to make up this horrible decision!
H
Prakash Melwani
"CiL" <cricke...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:5nkl31phc3p5ro8la...@4ax.com...
Absolutely agreed CIL.
The joke of course is that we were supposed to be celebrating Bucknor's
100th Test.
I have not been reading RSC recently but this decision was so farcical that
I just had to write in. If anything, I hope it strengthens the case for the
early introduction of technology to counter the whims of the elite
umpire(s).
Sure hope this ridiculous decision doesn't decide the match.
Prakash
kipps
kipps
"Halekala" <hale...@volcano.com> wrote in message
news:np-dnQtFpZ6...@comcast.com...
shariq...@yahoo.com
not out off Kaneria when he thick edged the ball onto his pad and the
rebound was snapped up by the fielder at Mohali. Anyways, a bad
decision is a bad decision and something needs to be done to improve
the quality of umpiring. It is obvious the current system is not
working all that well with umpires not being able to see or hear
properly
Shariq
Chacko
opposition to have another go. But when a batsman is given out he can't
make up for it.
amukhop
> Interesting that none of this outrage was around when Sachin was
given
> not out off Kaneria when he thick edged the ball onto his pad and the
> rebound was snapped up by the fielder at Mohali.
I agree that both decisions were really bad. As one of the commentators
(Arun Lal?) said, it evens out in the end. (But what price benefit of
doubt?) I think the outrage - and bewilderment - stems from the events
that preceded the decision. Tendulkar edged one and immediately
gestured and said, "I did not see that ball" (or maybe "I did not see
that at all" - excuse my lipreading). But despite his and then Dravid's
repeated requests, it was incredible that the light meters never came
out. Did they not have them? Then it became evident that the artificial
lights, although on, were lighting up very slowly. Manjrekar suggested
that it would take a few minutes for them to intensify, and maybe the
umpires could wait a little for that to happen. Dravid probably thought
the same, because he asked for a change of gloves - that too, the
inners. And then Sami was brought on, bowling bouncers at 91 mph in
poor light. I thought there may have been a case for a quiet reminder
about intimidatory tactics there. But at each stage, Bucknor and Hair
acted as if there was no problem at all. I too hope that this decision
hasn't decided the match / series, but that's probably more because I
thought India held the upper hand up till that point. The larger point
is that an absurd decision was made at a critical juncture. Surely
there should be some corrective mechanism -- for instance the third
umpire being allowed to step in quickly on howlers such as this one.
The bottom line is this kind of incident can hardly be defended as
"adding to the charm of the game of glorious uncertainties".
Halekala
news:1111161547.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It is a bad decision, no doubt. We can live with bad decisions but Sucknor
has been doing this time and time again. There is no excuse for it. No other
umpire (even Javed Akhtar) has this kind of history of giving out so
horribly repeatedly. That is where this outrage stems from. It is not that
we are targeting Sucknor exclusively.
One more thing, why the light meter was not used? What was the problem?
What's the rule to use the light meter?
H
suresh....@gmail.com
This outrage is not just this incident specific. Bucknor has
been fingering India right from the time he refused to ask the third
umpire to adjudicate in a run-out decision against Jonty Rhodes. The
decision turned the match. Yes, I agree that there is no need make
racist comments.But Fucknor is fine by be.
Suresh.
Madhusudan Singh
One wonders what is the penalty for physically assaulting an umpire. If some
non-performing batsman/player (say Karthick or Laxman), while at runner's
end, just gives *ucknor a mild going over with a bat (a few broken bones,
nothing serious). Should put this 12th man out of commission for a few
weeks or months, and then the Indian team can resume playing against 11 man
teams like every team is supposed to.
My frustration with this joker is showing, I guess.
Vinay
"Madhusudan Singh" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:423b0547$0$29279$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> One wonders what is the penalty for physically assaulting an umpire. If
> some
> non-performing batsman/player (say Karthick or Laxman), while at runner's
> end, just gives *ucknor a mild going over with a bat (a few broken bones,
> nothing serious). >
Yesterday for a while I thought Sachin was going to find out for himself :-)
But seriously, I have never seen Sachin like that. There is this anecdote
about the only time Sachin lost his cool totally - supposedly when his wife
was going in for labour and he had a minor car accident on the way. But
yesterday he was pretty darn upset too. Infact he seemed to try to cool
himself down by taking 3-4 deep breaths as he headed to the pavilion. I
think this incident is really going to put another nail in the relationship
between Indians and Bucknor. Ganguly continued to express resentment for the
few minutes that he had to come in and face. When light was finally offered,
after over 10 appeals by the Indians, Ganguly walked off pretty fast, as if
to show his disgust at the delay, and stopped just short of the boundary
like to allow Dravid to lead him in.
Vinay
<shariq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111159854.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting that none of this outrage was around when Sachin was given
> not out off Kaneria when he thick edged the ball onto his pad and the
> rebound was snapped up by the fielder at Mohali.
>
Shariq,
First of all let me say that that decision was also a very poor one, and in
my email to you I said as much.
There is a subtle point here though - the laws of cricket say that benefit
of doubt must always be given to the batsman. That is for a reason. This
reason, if you stretch the analogy a little bit, is the same reason that
justice says that it is more acceptable for 1000 criminals to go free than
for one innocent to be falsely convicted. A batsman gets out only once, and
then his impact on that innings is over. OTOH the bowling team gets many
more opportunities to have a go at a not out batsman.
There is this fundamental difference, and the laws of cricket recognize
this, which is why they clearly state that benefit of doubt must always go
to the batsman.
Also, and this is my personal feeling, yesterday's incident was made worse
because of the light issue. Tendulkar had repeatedly complained about the
light. Just prior to his dismissal, he faced a short one from Sami and took
his eyes off it, and then went to the ump and said that he couldnt see it
properly. To be given out soon after that wrongly is what has upset Indian
fans.
I will be the first to say that the decision that went for Sachin in T1 hurt
Pakistan badly - he was on 2 and went on to make 94. It is quite possible
that had he be given out then, India might have conceded the lead to
Pakistan. As I said, that decision was just as bad as this one.
Vinay
shariq...@yahoo.com
It's not about having another go.... it's about getting your decision
right. I support a plan like in the NFL, to have any side given 3
chances per inning to appeal a decision with the help of the television
umpire with the decision being only reversible if there isn't the
slightest doubt in the replay
Shariq
Prakash Melwani
"Vinay" <vin...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:d1ebd7$dvm$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
To add to the absolute farcical umpiring, the umpires stopped play for bad
light in the middle of the subsequent Razzaq over after Rahul had scored 6
runs in the 3 balls and the batsmen had just given up complaining because
they realised they were wasting their time.
The only reason that technology is not being introduced to have a level
playing field is because these supposedly elite (and this word really is a
joke) umpires would be out of a job earning money for making wrong decisions
Prakash
Take it easy
news:3a1bvaF...@individual.net:
> "Vinay" <vin...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> news:d1ebd7$dvm$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
>> A crucial partnership broken in fading light amidst repeated
>> complaints about the light by Sachin. Then Razzaq bowls one, it
>> misses Sachin's bat by about 2 inches. No one even appeals except
>> Razzaq. Bucknor gives him out. Sachin as livid as I have seen him
>> at a decision.
>>
>> A very poor decision at a crucial juncture.
>
> To add to the absolute farcical umpiring, the umpires stopped play
> for bad light in the middle of the subsequent Razzaq over after
> Rahul had scored 6 runs in the 3 balls and the batsmen had just
> given up complaining because they realised they were wasting their
> time.
>
> The only reason that technology is not being introduced to have a
Since you mentioned technology, there is a proven one for deciding bad
light. I don't know the rules on when the umpires should refer to that,
but when the batting team appeals, checking the light meter will result
in unbiased results. Not sure why it was not used.
Takeiteasy.
malad...@yahoo.com
the umpire.
Not suggesting anything, but giving tendulkar out just after he made
his 50 and before he went on to make 75 would make a lot of money for a
lot of bookies..
does the "Anti Corruption " thing of ICC check for Umpires involved in
corruption or is it just the players investigated for match fixing?
e_h...@yahoo.com
fans in this forum about how lucky Sachin was in the first test. But
that decision was like any other close lbw decisoins, which went both
ways in that test. While we are talking about first test, Youhana was
also not given out, when he should have been. This is the from the
cricinfo commentary.
33.6 Kumble to Yousuf Youhana, no run, the googly again, but pitching
on
leg, Youhana tries to nudge it down to fine leg, gets beaten,
Karthik does well to gather the ball behind the stumps
End of over 34 (7 runs) Pakistan 136/3 (trail by 68 runs)
A Kumble 9-1-27-0 - City End
Inzamam-ul-Haq 79* (96b 10x4 1x6) Yousuf Youhana 41* (89b 7x4)
The last ball of Kumble's over, there was a mild appeal by
Kumble
alone, television replays suggest there could have been an
edge.
Anyhow I think the comments made by any indian commentators and ex
players, clearly acknowledged that this decision evened out the one
sachin did not get in T1. But what about from your side?. There were
lot of attention given to the LBWs given to Inzmam in the first test.
Gambhir got one similar in this match, and lakshman was very unlucky to
be given out in the first ball with the ball clearing going to leg.
There is no outrage about these decisions. Anyhow, what do you think
about the decision Ganguly got in 1999 madras test?. when moin khan
applied successfully for the bumpy catch in madras 1999 test?. I did
not recollect any outrage about that incident from Pakistan fans.
kaneria got away luckily with out being pulled over by mentioning about
not getting sachin wicket in the press. While in madras test, though
every one knew how bad that decision was and how unsportive it was for
Moin to appeal that catch, No indian player had mentioned it openly in
the press or anything.
I really don't think that indian fans are not being objective here.
sidd
<malad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111196778.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Its so easy for a bookie to manipulate betting results by just bribing
> the umpire.
>
Now here is a guy finally trying to get to the heart of the matter
regarding "buck"nor!
Cheers!
Prakash Melwani
"Take it easy" <takeitea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961DAE6DB70C9t...@82.106.6.176...
> "Prakash Melwani" <prak...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:3a1bvaF...@individual.net:
>
> > "Vinay" <vin...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> > news:d1ebd7$dvm$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
> >> A crucial partnership broken in fading light amidst repeated
> >> complaints about the light by Sachin. Then Razzaq bowls one, it
> >> misses Sachin's bat by about 2 inches. No one even appeals except
> >> Razzaq. Bucknor gives him out. Sachin as livid as I have seen him
> >> at a decision.
> >>
> >> A very poor decision at a crucial juncture.
> >
> > To add to the absolute farcical umpiring, the umpires stopped play
> > for bad light in the middle of the subsequent Razzaq over after
> > Rahul had scored 6 runs in the 3 balls and the batsmen had just
> > given up complaining because they realised they were wasting their
> > time.
> >
> > The only reason that technology is not being introduced to have a
>
> Since you mentioned technology, there is a proven one for deciding bad
> light. I don't know the rules on when the umpires should refer to that,
> but when the batting team appeals, checking the light meter will result
> in unbiased results. Not sure why it was not used.
LOL. And that is part of the the problem :-)
Prakash
Ron Knight
<takeitea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Since you mentioned technology, there is a proven one for deciding bad
>light.
Yes, there is. It is called the opinion of the umpires in
consultation (not one umpire alone).
Law 3.8: "The umpires shall be the final judges of the fitness of the
ground, weather and light for play. ..."
Law 3.9(b): "If at any time the umpires together agree that the
condition of the ground, weather or light is not suitable for play,
they shall inform the captains, and unless ... in unsuitable light the
batting side wish to continue, or to commence, or to restart play,
they shall suspend play, or not allow play to commence or to start."
Law 3.9(c)(ii): "After deciding to play in unsuitable light, the
captain of the batting side may appeal against the light to the
umpires before the next call of time."
Note that this is the first mention of appeals against the light being
allowed.
> I don't know the rules on when the umpires should refer to that,
>but when the batting team appeals, checking the light meter will result
>in unbiased results. Not sure why it was not used.
It was not used because that would have been a violation of the ICC
playing conditions. Players are not allowed to appeal against the
light, and haven't been allowed to appeal against the light since at
least the 1980 Code. I suppose there is nothing to be done to stop
them from whining, but a formal appeal against the light is not
allowed until after the light has been offered by the umpires.
The use of light meters is governed by the ICC playing conditions,
which modify the Laws of Cricket. (The Laws of Cricket do not mention
light meters.) The ICC playing conditions recognize that, as
objective and unbiased as it may be, a simple light meter reading
cannot tell whether the light is or is not suitable for batting.
These would include the nature of the sightscreen and other
background, the presence or absence of glare and the type of bowling.
The decision as to whether the light is suitable for play is one for
the umpires alone to make, and the decision that the light is
unsuitable is one for the umpires to initiate, without reference to
appeals from the players or light-meter readings.
The procedure for using light meters is given very clearly in the ICC
Test Match Playing Conditions:
3.7.5 The following procedure will apply for the use of light meters
on the field of play:
a. Once the umpires have judged the light to be unfit for play, the
umpires shall offer the light to the batting side and immediately take
a reading of the light level.
b. The reading should be taken from the pitch, pointing the light
meter (if the hand held version) at the sightscreens and in any other
direction as the umpires see fit.
c. Once the umpires have agreed on the reading it should be noted and
used as a benchmark reading for the remainder of the stoppage.
d. Only when the reading has subsequently increased above the
benchmark reading should the umpires consider the light level is
sufficient for play to resume.
End quote. Note in a: "Once the umpires have judged the light to be
unfit for play", the rest follows. The essential first step is that
the umpires judge the light to be unfit for play. As long as this not
occurred, the opinions of the players and light meter readings are not
relevant. Once the light has been offered to the batting side, if the
batting side refuses the light and continues to bat, they are then
allowed to appeal against the light until the next call of Time. This
is the only circumstance in which the batting side can appeal against
the light.
Also once the essential first step has been taken, the umpires are to
take light meter readings. These readings are not used to determine
whether or not the light is unsuitable. These readings are to
establish a "benchmark" against which subsequent conditions can be
compared. If the batting side declines the light and continues
batting, but appeals against the light later, the umpires can then
take further light readings to see whether conditions are the same as
when they offered the light, or are worse or better. If the batting
side accepts the light and play is interrupted, the umpires can use
the meters to see when conditions have improved enough to resume play.
But umpires use neither light meters nor player appeals to determine
when first to offer the light to the batting side.
Take it easy,
Ron Knight
Halekala
news:sdqt31pc9jq6ij586...@4ax.com...
Thank you very much Ron. Excellent quotes and explanation. I had no clue
about the laws of determining light on the ground.
H
Dumpire
3.7.5 The following procedure will apply for the use of light meters
> on the field of play:
>
> a. Once the umpires have judged the light to be unfit for play, the
> umpires shall offer the light to the batting side and immediately
take
> a reading of the light level
If the umpires have a tough time deciding "cricketing" matters like
LBWS, Snicks (for Caught Behinds) And Run Outs (Thank God it is out of
their hands for most part), How in the whole bloody world you want me
to believe that these Moronic, Stupid, Dumb-Ass umpires to make a sound
judgement about the Intensity of LIght which involves some 'Science'
in it. Huh?
So it could be Pitch-Dark and the umpire might think it is perfectly OK
to play the game(This has happened in Sharjah before) and might never
call for the Light Meter and the play should go on?
In Kolkatta Sachin Incident goes on to prove that further. Sachin
complained, it was dark for him to see the ball, Umpire thought
otherwise and finally the Umpire couldnt see ball. Point to be noted
this wasn't even a close decision. I can understand if the player
complains when there is Bright Sunlight, but when it is close, If I am
an umpire I would at the very least check the light meter if not
anything else, atleast to cover my ass, just in case something goes
wrong. Why should you be Bloody Arrogant and say 'nope everything is
right' -- let play continue.
Problem with this is Umpires Have been given Way too much Authority and
there is nobody or nothing out there to question their Actions.
Umpires in general like Bucknor have started to feel that "I am boss
and the sole authority on the cricket field and what I say is right and
what I do is right". This is what is Fucking Wrong with the umpires
and ICC.
Prakash Melwani
> <takeitea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Since you mentioned technology, there is a proven one for deciding bad
> >light.
>
> Yes, there is. It is called the opinion of the umpires in
> consultation (not one umpire alone).
>
> Law 3.8: "The umpires shall be the final judges of the fitness of the
> ground, weather and light for play. ..."
Thanks Ron for the explanation of the decision making process. Interesting
that they do not feel it easier to use a light meter to help make the
process more systematic.
BTW, can you explain who are the people who draft and who approve these
Laws? Thanks.
Prakash
Ron Knight
<prak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>BTW, can you explain who are the people who draft and who approve these
>Laws? Thanks.
The Laws of Cricket have been in the custody of the Marylebone Cricket
Club for umpty hundred years. This may seem to be an outmoded
survival of colonial privilege on first glance, but it should be
remembered that these form a default to which other bodies governing
cricket around the world are free to add their own amendments to suit
their own conditions. This is what the ICC does, in publishing
playing conditions for International Test Matches and ODIs. The ICC
begins with the Laws of Cricket and then makes they changes they think
necessary to govern international play. This is what my own league,
the Mid-Atlantic Cricket Conference, does as well, to take examples
from both ends of the heirarchy. If there were not this default set
of Laws, we would all have to write our own rules from scratch, so
from that perspective the MCC is providing a service to the cricketing
world, not trying to rule it. As I said, anybody can agree on
amendments to the Laws of Cricket, either for an organized competition
or for an individual match.
I don't know what the process was in previous years, but I do know
that the 2000 Code was adopted only after circulation and discussion
throughout the cricketing world, not restricted to the confines of MCC
membership.
The MCC Technical Committee responds to queries about the Laws, within
certain reasonable restrictions. See
http://www.lords.org/cricket/laws.asp