***Official*** India in West Indies

[silentstriker]

Look, here's the thing. The first and most important thing is the third umpire. He had a look, and it was inconclusive. Even though the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, in this case you have to take the fielder's word for it. If he says he got it, then you have to take that at face value and follow it.

 

[adharcric]

You're biased, I'm not.

End of story.

Distinct possibility that you pity the West Indies or have a little anti-India bias?
No, I won't accuse you of bias because I don't know you that well.

Seriously, though, the actual decision was very close and it comes down to what matters more: the benefit of doubt to the batsman by default or the word of the fielder?
I'm not that furious about the decision, but Lara's approach after the incident was poor. Anyone accusing Dhoni of showing poor spirit is clearly biased.

 

[viktor]

In myYou're biased, I'm not.

End of story.

Please refrain from making such unsubstantiable claims. I do not claim to know your biases when I respond to your posts. Like I say everytime, play the ball, not the bowler.

 

[silentstriker]

OOPS double post -- See next page.

 

[Sanz]

I dont get this, It is India which accepted the decision of the umpires when it had the opportunity to clearly stand its ground like one Mr. Lara and yet our player gets accused of violating the spirit of the game ?

And then Eddie has the guts to say that Indian fans are biased. How un-Biased of him, I am clearly impressed.

 

[adharcric]

I think the difference is one of outlook. In the abscence of other evidence, do you presume that a fielder is lying, or do you presume he is telling the truth? Obviously, the fielder wants his side to win, so its not exactly an unbiased opinion. So can you take the word of the fielder every time?

I think you have to, because cameras can't be everywhere, and in the end it comes down to trust.

Makes sense. You tell me this, what means more: giving the benefit of doubt to the batsman or trusting the word of the fielder? Keep the situation in mind, as you said that fielder isn't necessarily unbiased.

 

[luckyeddie]

Please refrain from making such unsubstantiable claims. I do not claim to know your biases when I respond to your posts. Like I say everytime, play the ball, not the bowler.

Where's the fun in that?

If I can upset someone from America, I consider it a job well done.

()

 

[adharcric]

Some people here don't realize what bias is all about.
I know I have a little for India, but some others here have quite the opposite.

 

[viktor]

Where's the fun in that?

If I can upset someone from America, I consider it a job well done.

()

Ahh, but its the Brown Indians of US of A yer hurting my friend. What you want go after is the white trash.

 

[Sanz]

I think the difference is one of outlook. In the abscence of other evidence, do you presume that a fielder is lying, or do you presume he is telling the truth? Obviously, the fielder wants his side to win, so its not exactly an unbiased opinion. So can you take the word of the fielder every time?

I think you have to, because cameras can't be everywhere, and in the end it comes down to trust.

SilentStriker, dont beat on the the point none of us are saying. No one is questioning the decision of the umpire.

The discussion is about whether or not Dhoni violated the spirit of the game. Unlike most of us, He clearly had no way of knowing that the replays were inclonclusive and he was merely waiting for 3rd umpire's decision. It is ridiculous to accuse him of violating the spirit of game and reeks of some peoples bias when they should have questioned Lara's stand on the matter.

 

[silentstriker]

I think the difference is one of outlook. In the abscence of other evidence, do you presume that a fielder is lying, or do you presume he is telling the truth? Obviously, the fielder wants his side to win, so its not exactly an unbiased opinion. So can you take the word of the fielder every time?

I think you have to, because cameras can't be everywhere, and in the end it comes down to trust.

However, it is unreasonable to accuse Dhoni of poor sportsmanship as he was not sure whether he was out or not, and you can't expect batsman to walk on every appeal. On the other hand, should Lara have been this adamant about Dhoni being out, whenI'm sure there's been quite a few times when he KNOWS he's out and yet has refused to walk?

Its a tough question, but I think they were both looking out for the team and I can't blame either of them. But I was still sad to see Lara acting as angry as he did - even if he really felt that anger. It's important to note that Lara didn't accept Dhoni's decision, but in the end Dravid accepted the fielder's decision and declared the innings.

 

[viktor]

I think the difference is one of outlook. In the abscence of other evidence, do you presume that a fielder is lying, or do you presume he is telling the truth? Obviously, the fielder wants his side to win, so its not exactly an unbiased opinion. So can you take the word of the fielder every time?

I think you have to, because cameras can't be everywhere, and in the end it comes down to trust.

However, it is unreasonable to accuse Dhoni of poor sportsmanship as he was not sure whether he was out or not, and you can't expect batsman to walk on every appeal. On the other hand, should Lara have been this adamant about Dhoni being out, whenI'm sure there's been quite a few times when he KNOWS he's out and yet has refused to walk?

Its a tough question, but I think they were both looking out for the team and I can't blame either of them. But I was still sad to

see Lara acting as angry as he did - even if he really felt that anger. It's important to note that Lara didn't accept Dhoni's decision, but in the end Dravid accepted the fielder's decision and declared the innings.

I don't think Lara has ever done that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think the difference is one of outlook. In the abscence of other evidence, do you presume that a fielder is lying, or do you presume he is telling the truth? Obviously, the fielder wants his side to win, so its not exactly an unbiased opinion. So can you take the word of the fielder every time?

I think you have to, because cameras can't be everywhere, and in the end it comes down to trust.

However, it is unreasonable to accuse Dhoni of poor sportsmanship as he was not sure whether he was out or not, and you can't expect batsman to walk on every appeal. On the other hand, should Lara have been this adamant about Dhoni being out, whenI'm sure there's been quite a few times when he KNOWS he's out and yet has refused to walk?

Its a tough question, but I think they were both looking out for the team and I can't blame either of them. But I was still sad to see Lara acting as angry as he did - even if he really felt that anger. It's important to note that Lara didn't accept Dhoni's decision, but in the end Dravid accepted the fielder's decision and declared the innings.

I think you might finally have got yourself a CW award.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think Lara has ever done that.

I'd be suprised if he hasn't...unless he walks every time (which he doesn't). I'm sure in the hundreds of times that he's been dismissed in international cricket, a few of them he was sure, and still waited for the umpire's decision.

 

[viktor]

Well, okay, may be I shouldn't make such a sweeping statement but Lara has been by far the most honest batsmen in world cricket.

 

[Sanz]

Would Lara have walked in this case, without waiting for 3rd Umpire's decision ?

 

[Sanz]

I think you might finally have got yourself a CW award.

Why, because he agrees with you ?

 

[silentstriker]

In any case, should be exciting tomorrow. India will need a couple quick wickets in the first session.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Why, because he agrees with you ?

Because it's a balanced, reasonable viewpoint taking into account both sides of the argument and summing it up fairly and accurately...?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well, okay, may be I shouldn't make such a sweeping statement but Lara has been by far the most honest batsmen in world cricket.

Churchy?