Worst Decisions by an Umpire...

[Sanz]

but the point we all seem to be maiking is that it was an understandable mistake to make, because it was damned close either way...and therefore not the shocker you are making it out to be.

And what you lot do not seem to understand is that it seems any closer only AFTER the replays. Without the replays it doesn't look anywhere near as out.

You have probably gone through the last 6 years thinking it was a shocker simply because it didnt hit his leg, have a look at it again, it was pretty close either way to be fair

Yes and I was also thinking how could our 'god' be given out in such way.

 

[Sanz]

actually, looking at it again, I think the ball had stopped rising.
Looking at it after all this time, I am going more towards it being a pretty good decision.

Did you figure that out in the side-on replays or front-on real time motion between the time when ball bounced off the ground and umpire made the decision ?

 

[Swervy]

And what you lot do not seem to understand is that it seems any closer only AFTER the replays. Without the replays it doesn't look anywhere near as out.

At the time it happened, I thought tendulkar was a goner, absolutly out, no doubt..it was then with the replays that the doubt came into it for me.
But now looking at it, the ball really does look like it has already reached maximum height and so is a dropping ball, which therefore means it wasnt to high and would probably have hit the stumps.
It was a decision that could have gone either way, and so cannot be call a shocker, or the worst one of all time or whatever

 

[Sanz]

At the time it happened, I thought tendulkar was a goner, absolutly out, no doubt..it was then with the replays that the doubt came into it for me.

Thank You. I guess I cant argue with you on this any furthur.

 

[Swervy]

Did you figure that out in the side-on replays or front-on real time motion between the time when ball bounced off the ground and umpire made the decision ?

Tendulkar didnt play a shot, it hit him in line, and the umpire may well have felt the ball was going to hit..I am struggling to see what the problem is

 

[Swervy]

Thank You. I guess I cant argue with you on this any furthur.

a shocker of a decision is one where there is no way on earth it could have been out..it is clear that the ball may well have hit, but it may well not have done..that is where the doubt comes into it for me...the umpire however may not have had that doubt

 

[Matteh]

I'm quite late with this but meh. Watching the Sachin LBW, it's clearly out, I don't see how you can even question it. The ball is definitely on the way down and if you pause it a moment before it hits Tendulkar the ball is level with the bails and would have comfortably hit the stumps.

 

[Armadillo]

a shocker of a decision is one where there is no way on earth it could have been out..it is clear that the ball may well have hit, but it may well not have done..that is where the doubt comes into it for me...the umpire however may not have had that doubt

No swervy, a shocker of a decision is when Sachin Tendulkar gets out.

 

[Goughy]

He cannot and will not explain why it was a bad decision. He can only state that it was a shocker without giving reasons. Despite looking out and being very close, it was obviously one of the worse decisions ever, but god knows what evidence that is based on or what reality we are dealing with.

OMG, one little opportunity and people come off bragging about their cricketing knowledge (which incidently has nothing to do with the visuals you presented) as if they know all the rules and how they are always right.

And it has nothing to do with bragging. It is one step up in knowledge from knowing that if the batsman hits the ball in the air and is caught then they are out. Why would I brag about something I would expect a 6 yr old to know. Its like trying to show off about being able to clap my hands. You got to understand that not knowing something so very very basic undermines your general cricket knowledge.

 

[Sanz]

You got to understand that not knowing something so very very basic undermines your general cricket knowledge.

It doesn't undermine my vision though.

 

[Sanz]

He cannot and will not explain why it was a bad decision. He can only state that it was a shocker without giving reasons. Despite looking out and being very close, it was obviously one of the worse decisions ever, but god knows what evidence that is based on or what reality we are dealing with..

I am sure you are a bigger and better expert than the likes of Sunny Gavaskar and Richie Benaud. Hear the live commentry and what Sunny Gavaskar s has to say about the decision "...From this angle It does look that the ball would have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher"

Obviously Sunny doesn't know anything about cricket after all he is not the qualified umpire like you are.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Mate, what you're missing is that a decision being slightly off doesn't make it "one of the worst ever". How can an LBW that is perhaps wrong because the ball might have gone over the top as bad as decisions with are absolutely, 100% incorrect and could never have been right in anyone's mind? I'm talking about massive inside edges, balls which pitch way outside leg, deliveries which were neither in line with the stumps nor the right height, and by some distance in both cases.

Fine, you think the decision is wrong, and fair enough, but there's be 50 decisions worse than that in international cricket every year.

 

[Swervy]

I am sure you are a bigger and better expert than the likes of Sunny Gavaskar and Richie Benaud. Hear the live commentry and what Sunny Gavaskar s has to say about the decision "...From this angle It does look that the ball would have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher"

Obviously Sunny doesn't know anything about cricket after all he is not the qualified umpire like you are.

Am I being stupid here, or does that quote suggest the commentator thought the height was ok...

'From this angle It does look that the ball would have hit the stumps if it (the ball???) had been 6 inches higher'...so even if the ball had have been 6 inches higher, it would still have hit the stumps.

Am I missing something really obvious here???

 

[Craig]

why was it???....it hit him in line and he didnt play a shot...it may have been a few inches high, but I have seen much much worse

I can never work out why players always duck on the later days at the Adelaide Oval, especially when the bounced gets lower and lower, and a lot of players have played there more then once (say a Tour match on a another tour). Or at least speak to the groundsman if they have the chance.

 

[Craig]

Who said it had to hit the leg?;

1. Out LBW
The striker shall be out lbw in the circumstances set out below:
a) Striker attempting to play the ball
The striker shall be out lbw if he first intercepts with any part of his person, dress or equipment a fair ball which would have hit the wicket and which has not previously touched his bat or a hand holding the bat, provided that:

(i) the ball pitched in a straight line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker’s wicket, or was intercepted full pitch and;
(ii) the point of impact is in a straight line between wicket and wicket, even if above the level of the bails.
b) Striker making no attempt to play the ball

The striker shall be out LBW even if the ball is intercepted outside the line of the off stump if, in the opinion of the umpire, he has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, but has intercepted the ball with some part of his person and if the other circumstances set out in (a) above apply.

And I have the footage of that dismissal on video and on replays, the ball looked to be on its downward path when it hit Sachin and looked to be heading towards the top of the stumps. It certainly hit him in line too. If it was done on replays, I'd say it woud have had a fair chance of being given.

That said, if I was the umpire out on the field, I wouldn't have been able to give it out because I would have thought from that perspective, I woud have enough doubt to give it not out. But then, I'm not an international standard umpire.

Worst decision I've seen; Alan Donald to Geoff Marsh in the 1992 WC, first-ball of the innings. Donald bowled a quick short and wide ball and Marsh got the biggest edge on the cut you've ever seen. Was given not-out for some inexplicable reason by Brian Alridge. Not that it mattered; Saffies won the match easily.

Tell me do you have a secret basement at your house where you keep footage of every Test and ODI ever played all categatorised in order of Test and/or ODI played so you can whip it out when ready?

Reminds me of the Simpsons once when Comic Book guy had all these secret police videos hidden a secret basment...

 

[honestbharani]

Aleem Dar's decision to Katich was one of the worst ones I have ever seen. IT happened during the last Ashes, I think.

 

[Goughy]

I am sure you are a bigger and better expert than the likes of Sunny Gavaskar and Richie Benaud. Hear the live commentry and what Sunny Gavaskar s has to say about the decision "...From this angle It does look that the ball would have hit the stumps if it had been 6 inches higher"

Obviously Sunny doesn't know anything about cricket after all he is not the qualified umpire like you are.

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

Sunny obviously knows a lot about cricket but you dont. He is saying that if the ball had been 6 inches higher it would still have hit the stumps. That means the ball is easily hitting the stumps and is not going over.

You are doing what you always do. Make an extreme statement and then refuse to back it up. Again, why was it a bad decision against Tendulkar?

 

[AussieDominance]

i could not be stuffed to read throught the whole thread but the decision to give Warne out to give Harbajhan his hattrick was a shocker

 

[Arjun]

On-field umpires have a tough time out there, so they're excusd of most of the mistakes they make. However, we've even seen third umpires, taking all their time, in their technology-laden cabins, make silly mistakes. Eddie Nicholls and Billy Doctrove gave several dubious run-out decisions when the Indians toured the Windies in 2002, especially one of Carl Hooper, which may have changed course of the match at Bridgetown. There were suspect decisions in the third and fourth ODI between England and NZ in NZ in the same year.

 

[honestbharani]

i could not be stuffed to read throught the whole thread but the decision to give Warne out to give Harbajhan his hattrick was a shocker

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.