Another Ashocking decision
Don speaks the truth
especially Sachin.
It was back in Feb this year that Dhoni literally rested Tendulkar for
the last
two ODIs following 3 horrendous LBW decisions by the SL umpires.
Don
Dave -Turner
news:6d2ccba4-14e2-4efb...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> What is with this guy giving nonsensical LBW
> decisions against Indians especially Sachin.
Strange isn't it, afterall like you say Indians aren't supposed to be given
out LBW.
Don speaks the truth
> "Don speaks the truth" <don200...@rediffmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6d2ccba4-14e2-4efb...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What is with this guy giving nonsensical LBW
> > decisions against Indians especially Sachin.
>
> Strange isn't it, afterall like you say Indians aren't supposed to be given
> out LBW.
They are not supposed to get bad LBW decisions from the same umpire
again and again, you are damn right.
Don
CDK
Karma is a bitch hey Donny.
CDK
viper
Don
Respond to the other posts you pathetic creature, don't fucking hide
Viper
Don speaks the truth
Which Karma? Which Indian umpire gave bad decisions to SL players?
The guy i am talking about was known to make bad decisions esp.
against
Indian batsmen, he was disqualified from the elite panel and has now
resurfaced
to keep making pathetic decisions.
Don
CDK
India voted to get rid of one of the best umpires there is.
I hope they continue to pay for that for decades.
CDK
Geico Caveman
<don2...@rediffmail.com> said:
You are confusing Ashocker with Bucknor.
Bucknor had malice and incompetence. Ashocker is pretty even handed in
screwing people over.
Nirvanam
>
> I hope they continue to pay for that for decades.
>
> CDK
Who are you referring to, CDK? If its Bucknor, I agree he was a damn
good umpire till the late 90s (the ideal one to officiate in Ind-Pak
games) but after that his performance just went down like crazy. For
the last 8-9 years or so Bucknor has been rather ordinary for an elite
ump. He should've taken the cue from Bird, Venkat, and Shep and
retired from umpiring gracefully after the 03 WC.
CDK
>> India voted to get rid of one of the best umpires there is.
>>
>> I hope they continue to pay for that for decades.
>>
>> CDK
>
> Who are you referring to, CDK? If its Bucknor,
Nope. I am referring to the umpire who consistently was found to be one
of the best, who was given the arse in a hissy fit by the subcontinental
alliance. India and a couple of other nations deserve crap umpiring for
that.
As I said Karma's a bitch.
<snip>
CDK
Don speaks the truth
He means Mark Benson, Nirvanam...but you missed the whole
point...scottish kynoch...i was talking abt Ashocker's
disqualification last year or threabouts and subsequent reinduction
into the elite panel. But his atrocious performance continues...
Don
CDK
No I don't mean Mark Benson.
CDK
Andrew Dunford
"CDK" <Michel...@SistineChapel.com> wrote in message
news:QGHIm.52430$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
George Benson?
Andrew
prabhu
>
> - Show quoted text -
you mean the idiot who asked 500,000?
CDK
Asked 500,000 what? questions?
CDK
prabhu
Ha ha! You are such an extraordinary moron, Convict Colin Cockroach.
Surely you should know better than stand behind a demented dimwit who
asked $500,000 in exchange for his resignation. Ah well, deprived
convicts love money :)
Don speaks the truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Easy there man, Kynoch is scottish, i like him despite what he says
here all the time!
Don
CDK
Hair consistently was eitehr #1 or #2 in the rankings of umpires, but
becvause Pakistan didn'y like him following the Laws of Cricket they
organised a subcontinental vendetta to get rid of him.
I sincerely hope that those who voted against him get more crap
ump[iring decisions as it will be their just desserts.
CDK
prabhu
That doesnt give him a license to act like a jackass and expect 500K.
> I sincerely hope that those who voted against him get more crap
> ump[iring decisions as it will be their just desserts.
>
> CDK- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you love both crap umpires as well as cheats. Or worse crooks like
Steve Randell?
prabhu
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I sure agree. Colin Kuppusami has the knack of ending every debate
with egg on his face. Funnily enough, India kick aussie ass within few
hours after another petulant whine.
CDK
Given he was asked by the ICC CEO to make an offer why is that acting
like a jackass.
He deserved at least that for the vilification piled upon him by the
subcontinental mafia.
>> I sincerely hope that those who voted against him get more crap
>> ump[iring decisions as it will be their just desserts.
>>
>> CDK- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So you love both crap umpires as well as cheats.
Hair was neither.
I have long been a critic of Ashocka de Silva, who I believe is the
former and not the latter.
> Or worse crooks like
> Steve Randell?
I despise pedophiles.
I also despise the hatchet job done on Hair by the Subcontinent mafia.
The sub continent mafia were pissed off that an umpire dared to enforce
the Laws of Cricket.
CDK
Nirvanam
CDK, "following the laws of cricket" is all fine but when it is such a
serious charge one is making against a team, he should ensure that he
has enough evidence before "following the laws of cricket". Either
Hair was being dumb to not know what he was doing or he was being pig-
headed in believing a charge will stick without evidence. An umpire is
the authority on the cricket field, but it is such incidents where
umpires act on whims and fancies that they are slowly losing their
rules-given-authority to manage a game. No matter how much you use the
"following the laws of the game" argument it will just not stand up in
any neutral court. Don't you see the gravity of the matter here? What
if your manager in your office claims that you are stealing office
supplies or side-tracking office cash funds for personal use without
any evidence? Should your HR and you accept that whatever he is saying
is true? You will obviously ask for evidence, and in the absence of
evidence there is no way any action can be taken against you.
We don't need to defend such acts just for the heck of it using
arguments like "following the laws of cricket".
CDK
Interesting how both umpires agreed on the charge yet only one got
kicked off the elite panel. I wonder why that was? Hmmm I wonder if
pigmentation had anything to do with it.
> An umpire is
> the authority on the cricket field, but it is such incidents where
> umpires act on whims and fancies that they are slowly losing their
> rules-given-authority to manage a game. No matter how much you use the
> "following the laws of the game" argument it will just not stand up in
> any neutral court.
Yet both umpires agreed.
> Don't you see the gravity of the matter here?
Yes I see a distinct racist bias in how the TWO umpires were treated.
> What if your manager in your office claims that you are stealing office
> supplies or side-tracking office cash funds for personal use without
> any evidence?
Not analogous, the umpires had evidence. They saw the changed condition
of the ball.
> Should your HR and you accept that whatever he is saying
> is true? You will obviously ask for evidence, and in the absence of
> evidence there is no way any action can be taken against you.
If a police officer clocks me as speeding with a radar gun, I am gone.
That police officer can only stand up in court and say the radar said I
was speeding, and unless i can prove that the radar gun was wrong or
somehow calibrated incorrectly I will be found guilty of speeding.
Even if I am able to do that, if I punch the police officer out because
he booked me for speeding, it wont excuse my punching the police
offiecer out.
The Pakistan team could have challenged the charge of ball tampering in
the appropriate forum, but instead they had a hissy fit and deservingly
had the test awarded against them.
> We don't need to defend such acts just for the heck of it using
> arguments like "following the laws of cricket".
I take it by your tone you condone the appaling behaviour of the
Pakistan team.
CDK
piker
Very good post!
Nirvanam
> kicked off the elite panel. I wonder why that was? Hmmm I wonder if
> pigmentation had anything to do with it.
I think both umpires were questioned on the matter but it was pretty
clear whose idea it was to claim that Pak were tampering with the
ball. When one of the umpires is hell bent on an opinion, the other
one can do nothing else but agree with his partner. And by the way the
decision was not made by both the umpires. It was Hair's decision.
Going by the rules book, you would be aware that it is not necessary
for both umpires to agree or have a conversation before making a
particular decision whether it be for no-balling a bowler or upholding
a run out appeal or declaring 1-run short or whatever other decision.
In this case also Hair took the decision and Doctrove went along with
it just as in any other decision: you don't see one umpire giving
someone "not out" when the other umpire gives him "out".
> Yet both umpires agreed.
Agreed probably after the decision was made. I am not sure if Hair had
a conversation with Doctrove and then both of them together gave the
decision that was given.
> Yes I see a distinct racist bias in how the TWO umpires were treated.
Again you are assuming the decision was made together. If it really
was so then why didn't Hair argue that even Doctrove was involved in
the decision making process, and that Doctrove also should be held
accountable? You think Hair's lawyers would've let such an obvious
thing slip thru?
> Not analogous, the umpires had evidence. They saw the changed condition
> of the ball.
Lol! the "changed condition of the ball" is not evidence. The evidence
has to be the "act of tampering", not the "tampered" ball. Also,
neither in court nor elsewhere (commentary, other forums, etc) there
was not a single person who attested that the condition of the ball
was caused by any unnatural wear and tear. The wear and tear on the
ball was confirmed by everyone except Hair to be consistent with any
other ball which was used for a similar amount of time.
> If a police officer clocks me as speeding with a radar gun, I am gone.
> That police officer can only stand up in court and say the radar said I
> was speeding, and unless i can prove that the radar gun was wrong or
> somehow calibrated incorrectly I will be found guilty of speeding.
This is exactly what Hair did. Hair is the police officer, the law
i.e. cricket rules give him the power to claim anything. Pakistan who
is you in your example was alleged to have sped i.e. tampered the
ball. Luckily common sense prevailed and the cop (Hair) was asked to
show evidence. Problem with Hair was that he did not use any
instrument (radar gun) to even have any logical grounding for his
decision. If the police officer did not have the radar gun with him
then there is no way a judge can accept his "word" against yours. You
will be innocent until proven guilty.
> The Pakistan team could have challenged the charge of ball tampering in
> the appropriate forum, but instead they had a hissy fit and deservingly
> had the test awarded against them.
I agree with you that they should've gone on to the field and played
and at the end of the day's play taken up the matter. But Inzi and PCB
felt what they were doing was right. Whether it was the right thing to
do is a matter of subjective inference. Some people feel it was right,
some feel it was wrong. I personally feel they should've continued
playing and handled it after the day's play.
> I take it by your tone you condone the appaling behaviour of the
> Pakistan team.
Nope I ain't condoning Pak's behavior at all. I am criticizing Hair's
whimsical accusing Pak of ball tampering without any objective
evidence to back his decision.