• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Worst Decisions by an Umpire...

Legglancer

State Regular
Hair is probably the worst umpire ive seen. His decisions are almost always biased against asien countries. This year Murali got Peterson out LBW on both innings plumb and was not given. I remember in the 1st test the Ball was hitting " the exact middle of middle stump". However the umpires gave Jayasuriya out LBW when the ball hit him Outside the off stump off Panesar. Also when Australia toured SL in 2004 the lankans got some horrible decisions.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Swervy said:
but that is what Gavaskar was saying...even if the ball was 6 inches higher, it would have hit the stumps...Sunny was saying the ball wasnt too high
To be honest, a case can be made for either meaning.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
So now Marc's English Language skills are questioned. ;) Out of curiosity, did Sunny use the word 'Even if' as Swervy was suggesting. ;)
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Sanz said:
So now Marc's English Language skills are questioned. ;) Out of curiosity, did Sunny use the word 'Even if' as Swervy was suggesting. ;)
I was actually questioning my own. I was wondering how something that I see so cut and dry could be interpreted so differently. I was wondering if I missed something because as it reads and as it sounds on the commentary I can only see one possible interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
b. it was still rising when it hit the shoulder and
I don't know what footage you were watching but it definitely appeared that the ball's trajectory had flattened and may have been about to head down or had started (had to tell without decent cameras). There's no way it was still on the way up.

As for Sunni's comments guys, it's pretty clear from his susequent an vehement complaits about the decision he meant something along 'the ball would have hit the stumps if they had been six inches higher'. Bearing in mind the fact it was a real-time comment and that English is not Sunni's first language and he might have just muddled his words. Either way, what he said later in the telecast and in news columns after it tells you that was DEFINITELY not in favour of the decision.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Top_Cat said:
I don't know what footage you were watching but it definitely appeared that the ball's trajectory had flattened and may have been about to head down or had started (had to tell without decent cameras). There's no way it was still on the way up.

As for Sunni's comments guys, it's pretty clear from his susequent an vehement complaits about the decision he meant something along 'the ball would have hit the stumps if they had been six inches higher'. Bearing in mind the fact it was a real-time comment and that English is not Sunni's first language and he might have just muddled his words. Either way, what he said later in the telecast and in news columns after it tells you that was DEFINITELY not in favour of the decision.
Thank You for confirming that, I hope it is enough for Goughy, Swervy et all to believe what Sunny meant. :) :)
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah TC hit the nail on the read regarding what Sunny meant. Mind you, why are we having an argument about that? It doesn't really prove anything one way or another.
FaaipDeOiad said:
Just because it's Tendulkar doesn't mean it's automatically a more important error than any other umpiring one.
You realise you're talking to Sanz here right?
honestbharani said:
It was a brilliant catch if I recall. And I think Warney did hit it. And I have watched it only like a 100 times.
What he means is, the 3rd umpire jumped the gun. It was obvious that he caught it, but the third umpire should have checked whether Warne hit it straight into the air or into the ground first right? The only camera angle he used was behind the short-leg.

Mind you it was going to be out anyway if he used the second camera angle, so to even suggest its one of the worst decisions ever is a bit silly.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Sanz said:
Thank You for confirming that, I hope it is enough for Goughy, Swervy et all to believe what Sunny meant. :) :)
all it needed was the explanation that TC provided...based on the footage at the time, what Sunny said gave the impression he thought it was a good decison, I was just wonder how you could interprete what he said at the time (ie. the 6 inches higher line) in any other way than we did.
Obviously with the context that TC has brought in, he was hacked off with the decision...whatever that proves anyway.(he never was one to accept LBW decision gracefully was ol' Sunny:D ...only kidding)
 

Swervy

International Captain
Sanz said:
Thank You for confirming that, I hope it is enough for Goughy, Swervy et all to believe what Sunny meant. :) :)

anyway....you have still yet to justify why this decision was the worst ever!!!!!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Goughy said:
Can it? Please, do explain.

"From this angle It does look that the ball would have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher."

The key word is the it in bold.

That it can be thought of as the ball but it could also (and I actually think in this case) could be the stumps (ie he thought that if the stumps were 6 inches higher then it would've hit them)

The reason I think that this is Sunny's meaning is because clearly the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
marc71178 said:
"From this angle It does look that the ball would have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher."

The key word is the it in bold.

That it can be thought of as the ball but it could also (and I actually think in this case) could be the stumps (ie he thought that if the stumps were 6 inches higher then it would've hit them)

The reason I think that this is Sunny's meaning is because clearly the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher.
Sunny meant what you said he meant, but he said it wrong, and if English was his first language there would be no excuse. The ball is the subject, so when he says 'it' he's referring to the ball. Also, stumps/wickets is a plural, which would mean he'd have to say 'they' or something to that effect.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
all it needed was the explanation that TC provided...based on the footage at the time, what Sunny said gave the impression he thought it was a good decison, I was just wonder how you could interprete what he said at the time (ie. the 6 inches higher line) in any other way than we did.
Obviously with the context that TC has brought in, he was hacked off with the decision...whatever that proves anyway.(he never was one to accept LBW decision gracefully was ol' Sunny:D ...only kidding)
Knowing you, I was certian that you will accuse Sunny Gavaskar and you did just that, it was just a matter of time. And no, you are not really kidding.

It's also amazing that how you took T_C's explanation of context but chose to ignore when I mentioned it :-

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=869494&postcount=130
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I'm going to make another (probably futile) attempt to move this thread away from a decision that was a bit iffy, but I've seen a worse LBW than that at the Oval this morning.

What about Rob Bailey given out caught off his hip in the West Indies in 1990. The umpire appeared not to be about to give him out until Viv Richards came charging down the wicket with his third appeal. He was no where near it and Christopher Martin-Jenkins was prevented from commenting further on the match for suggesting that the umpire was intimidated by Richards into making the decision.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Lillian Thomson said:
I'm going to make another (probably futile) attempt to move this thread away from a decision that was a bit iffy, but I've seen a worse LBW than that at the Oval this morning.

What about Rob Bailey given out caught off his hip in the West Indies in 1990. The umpire appeared not to be about to give him out until Viv Richards came charging down the wicket with his third appeal. He was no where near it and Christopher Martin-Jenkins was prevented from commenting further on the match for suggesting that the umpire was intimidated by Richards into making the decision.
The Bailey one was terrible. Richards was a disgrace.
 

Isolator

State 12th Man
One horrible one that comes to mind is Brett Lee to Pietersen, Koertzen umpiring. Full toss, hit him a bit below the knee in front of middle stump. Given not out. Even more irritating was Nasser Hussain going "THAT WAS A BEAMER! THAT WAS A BEAMER!".
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
BoyBrumby said:
Early shout for Messers Hair & Doctrove over the replacing of the ball & 5 penalty runs, anyone?
Too early to say anything. Have to see what explanation Hair gives afterwards.
 

Top