Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Deadly Earnest
19 Nov 09 15:29
Date Joined: 16 Mar 04
| Topic/replies: 3,707 | Blogger: Deadly Earnest's blog
Rahul Dravid Harpooned b. Welegedara 38
Pause Switch to Standard View We now have an 11th mode of...
Show More
Report brentford November 19, 2009 2:37 PM GMT
seen a lot worse decisions,
was clipping leg on hawkeye so technically correct though a touch unlucky by standard modern definitions..

by the time you narrow the off and leg stump and shorten all 3 stumps by a margin, you may as well give up on lbw's that aren't hitting middle of middle as you have to have such small margin of error...presumably (poor ump though he is) he believed it was knocking out leg stump in order to give it with conviction...he was marginally wrong as it was clipping leg....technically still a corrct decision but still criticised.
Report STEPTOES YARD November 19, 2009 2:42 PM GMT
Awful decision for my book

Was going to take a nice green at around 1.1 at stumps

Ended up having to take a hit overnight for small loss :(
Report spassky November 19, 2009 3:03 PM GMT
Never understood this ** that if it is only just lbw then the batsman should be given not out. That's just ridiculous. How nearly to getting in should he be before it is correct to give him run out ? If he is stumped by less than an inch, should he be let off that, too ?

The umpire thought it was going to hit the stumps. Hawkeye "proves" that it was going to hit the stumps. STILL, people want to give the batsman not out. It's boring enough on these wickets, as it is.

On pitches like these I would like to see a new rule ......... an 11th mode of dismissal if you like :
you get hit on the pads three times and you're out. Doesn't matter where it pitches or anything. These pitches are killing Test cricket. Got to give the batysmen out. Wearing a loud shirt or having an offensive wife. Anything. Give the fekkers out, and get on with the game.
Report Deadly Earnest November 19, 2009 3:10 PM GMT
Totally agree with you Brent. It didn't especially impact on my bets one way or the other. I always take the view that if hawkeye says it's out then the umpire should not be criticised. Afterall, if the only thing stopping the ball hitting the stumps is a batsman's pads(and the other conditions are met such as not pitchng outside leg etc) then out LBW is the correct ruling.

I was just looking for an opportunity to have a bit of fun at Daryl Harper's expense with a play on his name really. I almost see his outs as beng like a patented wrestling move now, the 'harpoon.' Especially the controversial or incorrect ones. I think he would be proud to know his out decisions are accorded this exalted status in the game.
Report Deadly Earnest November 19, 2009 3:16 PM GMT
With you on that too Spassky, but some proper pitches would be better received really.
Report brentford November 19, 2009 3:22 PM GMT
too subtle for me Deadly - sorry ;)
Report Deadly Earnest November 19, 2009 3:26 PM GMT
My fault not yours Brent. He hasn't been the best of ump over time but even the best of umps don't seem the best of umps these days.
Report Injera November 19, 2009 4:42 PM GMT
Is it fair to say the powers that be in Indian cricket are quite happy to see a pitch as good as this and the game ending in a draw?

I'm getting more cynical with age. (Please don't get me started on these moaning Irish footy people..)
Report Injera November 19, 2009 4:52 PM GMT
Just seen Dravid's LBW.

I guess the discussion needs to be centred around what the law actually states. I'm guessing a bit but I thought the ump has to be 'in no doubt' that the ball would have hit.

So therefore it has to be plum. It should surely be a dismissal that is as conclusive as any other. i.e. ask 10 people if it would have hit and 8 say 'of course!'

Not sure about that one Darryl...
Report spassky November 19, 2009 10:16 PM GMT
inj, I have not read the law either, but I am prepared to bet that it doesn't say anything about benefit of the doubt, or being 100% certain. I think that is a myth that has grown up as commentators have spent fifty years trying not to criticise umpires when they make a howler.

Dicky Bird gives a plumb one, not out .... it wasn't the done thing to call him a tw@t in those days, so they pretend there must have been an element of doubt. Thirty years of justifying bad decisions and it becomes enshrined. Just a theory. Nothing to back it up.
Report spassky November 19, 2009 10:18 PM GMT
oh and deadly, I didn't get the "harpooned" pun either. I stopped watching this towards the end of day one. Test cricket is committing suicide with these pitches.
Report thetitan November 19, 2009 10:20 PM GMT
saw it once in real time and it looked absolutely plumb to me.....
Report mafeking November 19, 2009 10:37 PM GMT
nothing in the laws about benefit of the doubt going to the batsman. just a convention that taken root over the years.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539