Oxenford ...
SportsFan
everything has been swept under 'its a mistake in real time' etc etc.
There also has been a lot of talk of increasing technology to support
the on-field umpires.
Will that really help with the likes of Oxenford as an official ?
Really, on what basis can 3rd umpire Oxenford's denial of the Symonds
stumping appeal be justified ? If there is an open and shut case of
cheating - it is of a home team 3rd umpire making such a call.
And yes, there is enough evidence on this one to provide this was a
home boy call.
Who gets to appoint the 3rd umpire ? Is it ICC or the home board.
Either way - there is no doubt whatsoever that a neutral 3rd official
is required to prevent such blatant acts of cheating.
Sports Fan
Paul Robson
> Will that really help with the likes of Oxenford as an official ?
> Really, on what basis can 3rd umpire Oxenford's denial of the Symonds
> stumping appeal be justified ? If there is an open and shut case of
> cheating - it is of a home team 3rd umpire making such a call.
> And yes, there is enough evidence on this one to provide this was a
> home boy call.
I tend to agree. In his defence, I believe the bails has to be completely
removed and on that showing he could only see one side of it. However,
that is a very generous interpretation of it ; it should have been out.
However, I think this was a hometown call, not bias or cheating. People
see what they want to see. I recall a borderline catch a few years ago
where us Poms were convinced the ball bounced, the Aussies thought it went
straight in. You couldn't really tell, to be honest, and I think people's
desire to see what they wanted convinced them of what they saw.
Dave -Turner
spadma...@blgcanada.com
> It looked out to me.
It looked out to me too but I can see how the third umpire might see
it differently i.e. he may have ruled (though I disagree) that Dhoni
broke the stumps before the foot came down but the bails had not
completely dislodged. Alluding to the burden of proof in a court of
law, I said in another thread that Symonds probably coudl not be
convicted on that one on a "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard but
could be found liable on a "balance of probabilities" standard.
I don't know what standard applies on third umpire stumping
referrals: the criminal standard or the civil standard.
The stumping that wasn't referred at all to the third umpire (by, you
guessed it, Bucknor) looked even more out than the one that Oxenford
got involved with. Even those who would say that Symonds was not out
on that one would have to concede that it was insane of Bucknor to not
refer it to the third umpire.
Ian Galbraith
> It looked out to me.
It looked out but the camera didn't show the relevant portion actually
proving it. This has happened before and will happen again.
--
"The Mennonites are even better but if you copy the recipes you have to
understand they were intended for people who do a lot of difficult farm
work every day. Mr. 'I sit at a desk all day' eats that stuff
and soon a one legged man is hunting him with a harpoon." - James Nicoll
Madhav
<spadma...@blgcanada.com> wrote in message
news:e5fc771d-1cc3-4c66...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Australian commentators at the time Ian Chappell, Slater etc
rightaway said Andrew Symonds was out on the first replay.
It was a no brainer.
Oxenford couldnt even defend itself in the media for his
ruling as per even the Australian columnists.
You dont have to CONCEDE some undeserved space to
Australian cheating pussies to argue about the other
stumping decision.
coops
"SportsFan" <Crick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfa305bb-fa6d-4aa0...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Obviously there is some doubt, and any doubt HAS to go to the batsman.