Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[RicePlateReddy]

In the 6th England - India ODI, a debutant umpire, Peter Hartley, decided to not refer a runout appeal to the third umpire. Then, he saw the replay on the big screen and decided to refer it. The batsmen, Collingwood, was eventually ruled out. He was annoyed with the umpire during the referral prompted by the large screen.

ICC, predictably, acts ineptly following this fiasco.

1. The umpire should be suspended from umpiring international matches for 1 year. If you have the facility of a 3rd umpire precisely for such decisions and choose not to use it when the fielding team is convinced, you have serious issues, including at least multiple church abuse incidents when a yengster.

2. The ICC backed the umpire after the game saying he realized his mistake and corrected it before the next ball was bowled.
Oh, what a subtle inference from the ICC.

The spokesman added, "Imagine if he had not referred it when Collingwood was clearly out." Okay - let me imagine. Oh my god, what a travesty that would have been! Day in and day out the metronomic accuracy of these umpires decisions floods the TV. When the WC finals umpires didn't know a simple weather-play rule that was obvious to a 10 year old, expecting this umpire to ignore and move on would have been intolerable.

3. Collingwood was clearly annoyed and expressed dissent in his reaction. Nothing is done. Now let us review the common situation. A batsman is given out when he clearly isn't, shows dissent (quite naturally) at the decision and moves on. ICC dings the arrogant fool for showing dissent and vitiating the sanctity of a gentleman's game.

Now, the batsmen is really out - the camera replay proves it. The umpire reverses his obvious mistake in not referring it when it becomes so blindingly obvious. But the batsman is annoyed.  Specifically, he is annoyed that he was going to be out when he was incompetently adjudged not out by an umpiring error of the most basic variety. ICC will not ding him for dissent (he was merely annoyed of course).

[ruchir]

3. Collingwood was clearly annoyed and expressed dissent in his reaction. Nothing is done. Now let us review the common situation. A batsman is given out when he clearly isn't, shows dissent (quite naturally) at the decision and moves on. ICC dings the arrogant fool for showing dissent and vitiating the sanctity of a gentleman's game.

Now, the batsmen is really out - the camera replay proves it. The umpire reverses his obvious mistake in not referring it when it becomes so blindingly obvious. But the batsman is annoyed.  Specifically, he is annoyed that he was going to be out when he was incompetently adjudged not out by an umpiring error of the most basic variety. ICC will not ding him for dissent (he was merely annoyed of course).

Another reason can be that Collingwood in a Gora!! 

[dextrous]

I have to say, fine interprations of rules aside, if he's out, give him out 

but we can cut peter some slack--he was a nervous debutant. i remember when i played my first game for india. boy, that was nerve wrecking. then i woke up.

[kban1]

but we can cut peter some slack--he was a nervous debutant. i remember when i played my first game for india. boy, that was nerve wrecking. then i woke up.

 

[RicePlateReddy]

Another reason can be that Collingwood in a Gora!! 

No smilie required Ruchir - there is some truth in that, IMO.

But the Indians sit quiet and let it pass. It would have been totally appropriate to ask whether an Indian would have gotten away without a reprimand in this scenario. The Pak and SL boards never hesitate to act in such a fashion.

[broadbat]

Another reason can be that Collingwood in a Gora!! 

No smilie required Ruchir - there is some truth in that, IMO.

But the Indians sit quiet and let it pass. It would have been totally appropriate to ask whether an Indian would have gotten away without a reprimand in this scenario. The Pak and SL boards never hesitate to act in such a fashion.

Well Hartley should be given a kick for starting a controversy in the first place. What would he stand to lose by asking the third umpire in such a close call? Colly may have been annoyed by the method used by Hartley to ask for a replay. Does this mean that umpires can now wait for a big screen replay to ask the third umpire on other contentious decisions?

[pipsqueak]

Another reason can be that Collingwood in a Gora!! 

No smilie required Ruchir - there is some truth in that, IMO.

But the Indians sit quiet and let it pass. It would have been totally appropriate to ask whether an Indian would have gotten away without a reprimand in this scenario. The Pak and SL boards never hesitate to act in such a fashion.

didn't anderson shove gambhir in ODI#5? sreesanth got fined for the same but nothing for anderson?

[pieterSAN]

Another reason can be that Collingwood in a Gora!! 

No smilie required Ruchir - there is some truth in that, IMO.

But the Indians sit quiet and let it pass. It would have been totally appropriate to ask whether an Indian would have gotten away without a reprimand in this scenario. The Pak and SL boards never hesitate to act in such a fashion.

Well Hartley should be given a kick for starting a controversy in the first place. What would he stand to lose by asking the third umpire in such a close call? Colly may have been annoyed by the method used by Hartley to ask for a replay. Does this mean that umpires can now wait for a big screen replay to ask the third umpire on other contentious decisions?

Good question. I also agree that Colly was guilty of dissent....but I don't believe that the match referee would have been harsh if the roles were reversed and someone in the Indian team was annoyed at being given out as it happened to Colly.

[dextrous]

Another reason can be that Collingwood in a Gora!! 

No smilie required Ruchir - there is some truth in that, IMO.

But the Indians sit quiet and let it pass. It would have been totally appropriate to ask whether an Indian would have gotten away without a reprimand in this scenario. The Pak and SL boards never hesitate to act in such a fashion.

Well Hartley should be given a kick for starting a controversy in the first place. What would he stand to lose by asking the third umpire in such a close call? Colly may have been annoyed by the method used by Hartley to ask for a replay. Does this mean that umpires can now wait for a big screen replay to ask the third umpire on other contentious decisions?

Good question. I also agree that Colly was guilty of dissent....but I don't believe that the match referee would have been harsh if the roles were reversed and someone in the Indian team was annoyed at being given out as it happened to Colly.

I have to agree with jiet. Collingwood's reaction was quite normal--there was confusion as to what the heck the umpire was doing and in that situation his behavior was excusable. With an Indian player, we the fans would crucify him rather than the match refree. If harbhajan did something like that a thousand knives would be pulled out. Of course, if Ganguly did something like that, the English media would say all sorts of rubbish. And the Indian media would duly repeat all of it.

[pieterSAN]

Another reason can be that Collingwood in a Gora!! 

No smilie required Ruchir - there is some truth in that, IMO.

But the Indians sit quiet and let it pass. It would have been totally appropriate to ask whether an Indian would have gotten away without a reprimand in this scenario. The Pak and SL boards never hesitate to act in such a fashion.

didn't anderson shove gambhir in ODI#5? sreesanth got fined for the same but nothing for anderson?

yeah and anderson got away with it. Rather than blame the world for all these troubles I wish we would learn to channel our aggression a little better. We saw Zaheer get carried away in the last game; thankfully it did not hurt the team.

Going back to Sreesanth's shove, not only did he shove Vaughan, in the same game he delivered a beamer at Pietersen and bowled a deliberate no-ball. In the process Vaughan raised hell about all of this in the middle - Sreesanth did everything possible to make it a spectacle for the audience.

Anderson on the other hand, smartly nudged Gambhir, who meekly went about his own business. When Aleem Dar spoke to Anderson, he smiled it away like "no harm intended". Job well done.