We must maintain 'spirit' of the game

[Baddaz]

that was the worst part... really poor sportsmanship... symonds action was the problem... if yuh out just walk... he should be punished severly his admission... what happen to the gentleman game...

[Peter R]

Remember Daryl Hair? the Aussie umpire who had to resign completely from the elite squad...

Maybe the good to come out of this is that the ICC will make bolder steps to use the technology that is victimising umpires. Super slo mo is picking up everything so what is clear to all at home is perceived in a fraction of a second by the umpire who then makes a decision based upon what he sees as truly fact.

Symonds, the dog, should have walked...he damn well knows he played the ball and he and players like him leave the umpires out to dry.

Anyway, the players need a system like the one used in tennis , or some version of it in order to incorporate the technology. Umpires need not walk alone.

pr

[Gamma]

we all know that australia was a colony of criminals.....

[Karl]

FROM THE BOUNDARY - Come on, ICC, let's do it ...

FROM THE BOUNDARY - Come on, ICC, let's do it ...
published: Friday | January 11, 2008


Tony Becca
LOOKING AT the scoreboard at the end of it all, the second Test between Australia and India which ended in Sydney on Sunday was a great Test match - or so it appeared. At the start, Australia were 45 for two, then they were 134 for six and then, with Andrew Symonds scoring a magnificent 162 not out, the home team, the champions of the world, recovered to reach 463.

Batting like champions, India scored 532 with Sachin Tendulkar scoring 154 not out, Australia, trailing by 69, returned and scored 401 for nine declared with Matthew Hayden scoring 123, with Mike Hussey scoring 145 not out, and after declaring their second innings closed and leaving India 333 to win in 72 overs, after what many considered a late declaration, Australia won the match by 122 runs.

With three wickets and only two overs to go, part-time bowler Michael Clarke, with his left-arm spinners, picked up three wickets in the penultimate over to hand Australia victory.

With Australia scoring 463 and 401, with India scoring 532 and the Test match still ending with one side defeated - the one which had scored more than 500 runs in their first innings at that, and one side celebrating victory, it was cricket at its best.

One of the worst
The fact, however, is that as far as umpiring decisions were concerned, it was one of the worst Test matches of all time. In fact, as good as Mark Benson is or was, as great as Steve Bucknor is or was, the decisions were so bad that that was probably, or rather most likely, the reason why India lost the match which, had they won, would have levelled the series count at one-one and why Australia won it for a 2-0 lead.

Even without taking into account the leg before wicket decisions - many of which are always debated regardless, they were at least eight decisions - five catches and two stumpings - in which the batsmen were out and ruled not out, or were not out and were ruled out. And on every occasion the decisions went in favour of Australia, bar one.

At 45 for two in Australia's first innings, Ponting, on 17, edged medium-pacer Sourav Ganguly to wicketkeeper Mahedndra Dhoni and was ruled not by Benson; at 193 for six, Symonds, on 30, edged pacer Ishant Sharma to Dhoni and was ruled not out by Bucknor; at 238 for six, Symonds, on 48, was stumped off Harbhajan Singh and the third umpire ruled him not out; and at 421 for seven, Symonds, on 148, was again stumped off Harbhajan Singh and this time Bucknor ruled him not out without even referring it to the third umpire.

And it did not end there.

At 188 for two in Australia's second innings, Hussey, on 45, edged R.P. Singh to Dhoni and was ruled not out by Benson.
Again it did not end there.

Bump ball
With India fighting to save the game, with the score on 115 for three, Rahul Dravid, on 38, was ruled out caught by wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist off Symonds by Bucknor, when the batsman had not touched the ball; and with the score moving from 115 for four to 137 for five, Ganguly, on 51 and batting well, was caught by Clarke off an apparent bump ball, and Benson ruled him out at 137 for six.

The two that really left the Indians hopping mad, however, were those against Symonds on 30 and Ganguly.

According to them, even a blind man would have seen that the ball had touched Symonds' bat which was nowhere near to his body, even a deaf man would have heard when the ball touched the bat, and as far as Ganguly was concerned the umpire had a doubt as to whether the catch was taken, he, Ganguly, was ruled out without Benson checking with Bucknor, without Benson referring it to the third umpire and only after Benson had checked with Ponting - the captain of Australia who, like an umpire, lifted his finger in reply to the question from Benson.

Umpiring mistakes have always been a part of the game and will always be a part of the game. This time, however, it was horrendous.

When one remembers that apart from the leg before decision that got rid of Ponting when he had obviously played the ball, there were about five leg before decisions that were given that should not have been given, and which were not given when they should have been given.

Miserable umpiring
And when one remembers that at least one catch was dropped by Australia off a no-ball that was not called, that runs were signalled when the ball had passed the bat without touching it, it was a Test match that will be remembered not for some good batting - including by Symonds after his many innings, and for some good bowling, and especially so from Harbhajan Singh for a spell, but for some miserable umpiring.

It was a bad match for cricket, and especially so when one remembers that one of the umpires, Bucknor, is not only the game's most experienced but also, based on his skill and on his reputation over the years, probably the best of his time and undoubtedly one of the best of all time.

The events in Sydney underlined once again the need for the use of technology to assist the umpires, and the time has definitely come for the ICC, as conservative as that body may be, to protect the integrity of the game and go for more use of technology.

Technology is not foolproof but it can help, and once it can help it should be used.

Snicks
Technology should never be used for something like leg before wicket decisions - except probably to determine where the ball pitches - and it probably should not be used for thin edges. It can, however, be used for obvious snicks to the wicketkeeper, it can be used to determine if the ball has bounced before a catch is claimed, and it does not have to be used every time an appeal is made and a decision given.

One way to use technology more than it is now being used is to allow teams to refer decisions to the third umpire - two or three times an innings with penalties - if they believe they have got a bad decision.
The penalties, probably the loss of one's right to appeal, would apply whenever the umpire's ruling is upheld.

Technology is being used in tennis for line calls in an effort to protect the game and to make the calls as correct as is possible.
Technology is being considered for the goal line in football in an effort to get things as correct as is possible, and there can now be no question about it - cricket also needs to protect its image by trying to get decisions as correct as possible.

[Mosiah]

Sure is not "was"?

[Karl]

Sure is not "was"?

Well all good men become a 'step slower' as later years set in!
Good man. Did not deserve such treatment.