***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[Slats4ever]

what does "blatant refusal" of the umpires decision mean? How does is differ from going up for an appeal and having it given not out and then looking upset?

 

[What-A-Player]

And there goes Ponting.....

Windies making the Aussies wobble a bit...

Except the english (in umpiring) they would wobble regularly..they get all the decisions in their favour and when it comes to them, it becomes talk of the town..it's time like these, the Pakistani umpires look descent

 

[marc71178]

Bring in Hawkeye i say, at least its the same for everyone

Another problem just found about that is that not all countries have access to it.

 

[marc71178]

Any bowler is going up for that, did you watch the Poms in the Ashes?

The decisions in this series look good in comparison to that.

Any connection between them all going the one way rather than being more spread out?

 

[marc71178]

maybe he should. nothing illegal, unfair or wrong about it.

Try sportsmanship.

 

[marc71178]

what does "blatant refusal" of the umpires decision mean? How does is differ from going up for an appeal and having it given not out and then looking upset?

It involves players racing up to the umpire moaning...

Typical perpertrators are R Ponting, S Warne, B Lee.

 

[andyc]

This has been a great few tests from Bravo, hopefully he can improve and turn into a real class player for the Windies. Pity about Australia losing those two wickets, but Hayden Hodge and Hussey should see it through with little problems tomorrow. Looks like Hayden will miss out on five consecutive test centuries, unless Hodge is being very generous.

 

[Slats4ever]

All this talk of "moaning" etc is all so subjective. I could easily add numerous names to that list as well.

 

[parttimer]

It involves players racing up to the umpire moaning...

Typical perpertrators are R Ponting, S Warne, B Lee.

You forgot S. Jones. Or was it your blinkers?

 

[Slow Love™]

what does "blatant refusal" of the umpires decision mean? How does is differ from going up for an appeal and having it given not out and then looking upset?

IMO, what makes the difference is the conduct after a decision is given (usually against the bowler, obviously).

I have a very high tolerance actually for demonstrations of disappointment by a bowler. A bowler goes up, gets excited, pleads for the decision - and when it's not given, bows his head - looks at the ground, purses his lips, stays on his haunches for a few seconds, gives the batsman a stare, whatever. All fine in my book.

Where I think it crosses the line (and it seems to work similarly for Ian Chappell, who's also quite tolerant of certain behaviour and who was definitely seen as a larrikin in his day) is what happens after that. Warne and Ponting have a tendency to directly challenge the umpire afterwards - either arguing about decisions or appearing to lecture the umpire.

I can't conclusively comment on Lee, 'cause I've missed large sections of this particular series, but what I will say is that in the past, I haven't seen him do anything that objectionable (well, to an umpire anyway... ).

 

[Slow Love™]

Strangely, the reference to Warne being reported for dissent is now missing from the cricinfo bulletin. And there appears to be no reference to it whatsoever at foxsports.

 

[Pratters]

The law says showing dissent to an umpiring decision is unacceptable.

Now asking the umpire why he gave a decision what he did is fine in my book. But when you stare at an umpire or keep arguing with him as Slow Love mentioned - challenge the umpires decision - it is clearly dissent. And their is nothing spectacular about that either - it is just ugly and not cricket according to me even if the decision is wrong.

Now what should be done to reduce the wrong decisions - the whole technology debate is a separate issue.

 

[Linda]

I dont have an article, but on the Channel 10 news just then it said that Warne had been charged with dissent ("trial" went for 20 mins apparently) and the judge would sleep on the verdict.

 

[Dasa]

IMO, what makes the difference is the conduct after a decision is given (usually against the bowler, obviously).

I have a very high tolerance actually for demonstrations of disappointment by a bowler. A bowler goes up, gets excited, pleads for the decision - and when it's not given, bows his head - looks at the ground, purses his lips, stays on his haunches for a few seconds, gives the batsman a stare, whatever. All fine in my book.

Where I think it crosses the line (and it seems to work similarly for Ian Chappell, who's also quite tolerant of certain behaviour and who was definitely seen as a larrikin in his day) is what happens after that. Warne and Ponting have a tendency to directly challenge the umpire afterwards - either arguing about decisions or appearing to lecture the umpire.

I can't conclusively comment on Lee, 'cause I've missed large sections of this particular series, but what I will say is that in the past, I haven't seen him do anything that objectionable (well, to an umpire anyway... ).

The problem I have with Lee is the way he appeals. Often he just assumes he'll get LBWs (in particular) in his favour and runs down the pitch celebrating, yet never gets punished for it. Wasn't Hoggard punished for pretty much exactly the same thing in the last Test? Yet I've never seen Lee have any sort of punishment imposed on him, when what he does is far worse than what someone like a Hoggard does, and Lee does it regularly.

Other than that, I agree with all you've said there.

 

[Slow Love™]

The problem I have with Lee is the way he appeals. Often he just assumes he'll get LBWs (in particular) in his favour and runs down the pitch celebrating, yet never gets punished for it. Wasn't Hoggard punished for pretty much exactly the same thing in the last Test? Yet I've never seen Lee have any sort of punishment imposed on him, when what he does is far worse than what someone like a Hoggard does, and Lee does it regularly.

Other than that, I agree with all you've said there.

On the "running down the pitch" issue - I've never been totally sold on this as such an offence. I understand the argument - that it intimidates the umpire, because, should he say, "not out", everybody will whirl around and demonstrably show dissent.

I think that's the problem though - we should wait until that happens, and then maybe the referee can take action. Just running down the pitch doesn't bother me that much - perhaps running into people's arms and prematurely celebrating in that way is more egregious. I still think though, that it should come down to the dissent being shown. The umpire should feel comfortable to give the decision he believes in, and if dissent is then shown, punish the offender.

I guess the ICC is trying to just simplify things in how they police it (which is not to suggest they police it consistently, 'cause I don't think they do) and if that works well, so be it, but I don't have that strong an opinion on the running down the pitch thing (or sendoffs, within reason, but I guess that's another topic).

 

[Jono]

what does "blatant refusal" of the umpires decision mean? How does is differ from going up for an appeal and having it given not out and then looking upset?

I think there is obviously a difference, seeing as finally Warne has been reported for dissent. Something many on this forum have been calling for since the Ashes.

 

[chalky]

I've got to say I have listened to some of worst most biased commentry ever in this match however Mark Taylor takes the biscuit with Symonds shout against Lara in the 1st innings "plumb LBW" despite the fcat that replays couldn't determine if it pitched outside leg stump or not and hawkeye indicated it was missing. He then uses hawkeye to back up a decision later in the day - Pathetic.

Ian Healy runs him close though with the line that the Windies can't expect many 50/50 decisions when there bowling because they don't appael loud enough .

I'm sure Bill Lawry has made much worse comments but I tend to mute the TV when he is commentating.

P.S. If this has been said before I apologise.

 

[Slats4ever]

I think there is obviously a difference, seeing as finally Warne has been reported for dissent. Something many on this forum have been calling for since the Ashes.

He was called for one instance though. Not for continual or a series of instances and hasn't even been found guilty yet. If the match officials had a problem with the Aussies attitude they'd have made it clear by now.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I've got to say I have listened to some of worst most biased commentry ever in this match however Mark Taylor takes the biscuit with Symonds shout against Lara in the 1st innings "plumb LBW" despite the fcat that replays couldn't determine if it pitched outside leg stump or not and hawkeye indicated it was missing. He then uses hawkeye to back up a decision later in the day - Pathetic.

Ian Healy runs him close though with the line that the Windies can't expect many 50/50 decisions when there bowling because they don't appael loud enough .

I'm sure Bill Lawry has made much worse comments but I tend to mute the TV when he is commentating.

P.S. If this has been said before I apologise.

Tend to find that Taylor pales in comparison to Healy.

 

[chalky]

Tend to find that Taylor pales in comparison to Healy.

I used to think Taylor was pretty good though, Healy for me was always very biased, that is probably why the stupiditity of his commentrey so startling. I mean even after he had watched replays and seen hawkeye he was stll adamant it was out. It just reinforces the view that recently retired players should not be allowed in the commentry box as they have to many ties with the current players to even pretend to be neutral. It is the same in England with Hussain.