howzzat????

The Indians need to be as good (or as bad - depending on your point of view) as the aussies when it comes to appealing. And in most cases, we are! The Indians should and DO appeal for any possible chance that the umpire will give it out. Kumble is no saint in that matter. And why not?

As is evident in the current Ind-Aus Test series, the Aussies are more effective, though.

Unfortunately, there is no great yardstick in determining whether it all evens out for a player in the end, and going by memory is certainly not a good yardstick because it is always selective. I
don't care if it evens out or not for a particular player, because circumstances are different on each occasion. It should be about whether the player is OUT or NOT OUT on that occasion, and given today's technology, it is outright STUPID that the administrators do not allow the use of technology to make decisions or offer some sort of a challenge system. Cricket will suffer until some action is taken regarding this. All this talk about umpires being human and should be allowed to make mistakes is BULLSHIT - no one watches the game to see umpires making mistakes.

Its so ironic that cricket introduced "hawk eye" to the world - but its tennis and other sports that are benefiting from the technology to bring fairness and justice to the game, while all the ICC can do is set up an exploratory committee to figure out if it is worth introducing more technology into the game.

Wake up, ICC, before its too late!

Where is our coach?

Remember this incident:

Port Elizabeth, December 9, 1992

A straightforward win by South Africa will be remembered less than the controversy which ensued when Kapil Dev ran out Gary Kirsten for backing up before he bowled the ball.
Kapil did not warn the batsman, having done so three times previously on the tour. Kirsten reacted angrily before walking off.
Later, in the same over, Kepler Wessels appears to collide with Kapil as he turned for a second run. India complained that Wessels had hit Kapil on the shin with his bat. The Indians said Kirsten had shown dissent and incited the crowd.
Clive Lloyd, the match referee, announced the next day that Wessels had admitted that his bat had come into contact with Kapil, but said it was unintentional.
Llyod did not see the incident and, as the television cameras had been following the ball, he said the truth could not be established. Kirsten was fined 50 per cent of his match fee for unacceptable conduct.

http://penthegame.blogspot.com/2006/12/india-south-africa-odi-encounters.html

Two cases in point:
1) Since the Wessels incident could not be proved, he was let off. I am sure there have been many instances like this where the player has been let off because of lack of concrete evidence - the real problem in the Bhajji-Symonds case is not whether 'monkey' should be
considered a racial slur, its that there is NO proof Bhajji said that. It's Symonds' and Ponting's (who was nowhere near the location where the incident occurred) word vs. Bhajji's and Tendulkar's (who was within hearing distance and categorically denied that Bhajji made a
racial slur) word. This is just ridiculous. The match referee should also be fired - India can suggest that Bhajji was wrongly accused by a bunch of white blokes (including the referee) and we should bring in racial connotations to this incident.

2) I wonder why Gary Kirsten hasn't said anything regarding this incident. I would have expected him to whole-heartedly support the Indian case (no matter whether he is with the team or not for now), since he is going to join the Indian team as a coach very soon. I am
very surprised that he hasn't come all out in support of the team. I don't get a good feel about this. This almost reeks of disinterest, and is not the best way to start a coaching stint.

We should get back at the aussies by reporting any verbal abuse - I don't think the aussies can play without abusing. If they call someone a 'bastard', that should be reported as an insult. The
batsmen should wear some audio recording equipment when they are out in the middle for proof - the whole world will then have proof of the cheats and hooligans that the aussies are!

Or do what Sarwan did to McGrath - McGrath asked Sarwan how did Lara's c*ck taste in the dressing room, to which Sarwan replied, 'How should I know -- ask your wife'.

Cricket needs more technology for umpiring decisions

Cricket coverage these days provides great slow-motion replays, and the recent introduction of "hot spot" replay, "snicko" and extra-slow-motion replay has certainly allowed the viewer to see cricket in a new light. But it has also highlighted the gross ineptitude of cricket UMPIRES in this game. We really need this advanced technology to be used in making sound umpiring decisions, or atleast helping the umpires make correct decisions.

The "conservative" folks of this game say that umpires are humans and they make mistakes just like batsmen and bowlers, and therefore should be acceptable. I think that is ridiculous!! The umpires are supposed to "rule on the plays of a game"... it is their job get it RIGHT. If technology can provide a better way of making decisions, or can support more sound decision-making, then it is imperative that the game of CRICKET use what is available.

Besides, no spectator wants to watch an umpire make mistakes. They do want to see batsmen, bowlers, and fielders make mistakes, because that is part of the entertainment the game provides. There is no other sport in my mind that lets go so many bad umpiring decisions to "human" error.

I right this blog on the 5th day of the India-Australia Test Match being played at Sydney Cricket Ground. Steve Bucknor has made so many errors in the Test match, it is not even funny!! He gave Dravid out caught behind as it flicked the pad when the ball was no where near the bat.

Given today's technology available in every cricket match, it is imperative that cricket introduces some sort of a CHALLENGE system akin to NFL and Grand Slam Tennis tournaments. In this system, the captain from either side has 2 (or 3) challenges, and can use it if he wants to question a decision of the umpire. Only if there is conclusive evidence from replays to over turn the decision, should the decision be overturned. If the challenge over turns the decision then it should not deduct the number of available challenges.

As a spectator, I do not pay my time or money to watch umpires make mistakes. As far as I am concerned, given the available technology, it is just NOT cricket to not use it!