Ricky Ponting and Umpires

6ry4nj

International Coach
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Location
Brisbane
Online Cricket Games Owned
I'd say that's the umpires fault for being weak.

It's the umpire's fault for being weak. If he knew his original decision was right, then that makes him complicit in the cheating. If he was "persuaded" by the players, he is only guilty of making a wrong umpiring decision. Which umpires do all the time. Which is why you'll hear me thanking all that's holy for UDRS.

It is also the player(s)' fault for continuing to "appeal" after the decision had been made. I have appeal in quotes because once the umpire has made a decision, it is no longer an appeal. It then becomes dissent against an umpire's ruling. Normally dissenting from an umpire's ruling is dealt with harshly. I say normally because that is what the rules say should happen. I'm not saying people aren't getting away with this stuff left, right and centre.

Bringing about a wrong decision which alters the result of the game (and surely it is at least arguable that the dismissal of a top-order batsman would come into this category), is effectively the same offence as match-fixing. And deserves the same penalties.
 

Cricketman

ICC Chairman
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Location
USA
3363285240_8739919120.jpg

126302.2.jpg


Utter tool. Can't wait till he is sacked and we no longer have to see him on the international scene.
 

Left_Hander

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Online Cricket Games Owned
Ponting's act wasn't right and I don't condone it but at least we didn't threaten to call off the tour after that.
 

iridescentt

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Location
Sydney, Australia
Online Cricket Games Owned
  1. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Utter tool. Can't wait till he is sacked and we no longer have to see him on the international scene.

So subtle yet so sharp.

I'd say what I probably would've had to say about Ponting, which has been said time and time again - but you just can't deny his legacy and his batting. Sure its been shithouse over the last year or so but I wouldn't in a million years echo what you've said.

Put yourself in his shoes. I've met him a couple of times and talked to him. He's not stuck up nor is he cocky, he's just doing what a captain trying to hold his team together instinctively does.

To what you've said, given what he's done. Never.

Side note, had these discussions aplenty on anti-Australia/pro-Subcontinent Youtube videos :p
 

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
Born of frustration, I think one of the TMS guys asked if it would have happened had the aussies not been getting their ar'ses kicked.

The review system is a bit of a nightmare, technology had to be used in some way because TV was showing replays and umpiring errors exposed anyway so it simply left the umpires exposed to "trial by TV" without the same technology to aid them. Now the umpires are in the unenviable position of still not being in control of technology, it is now the plaything of the teams/captains.

Smith was right that reviews should either be for all series or not at all, I think not at all is now no longer an option. The issue for me with the "review system" is whether it achieves what it intends to ie get wrong decisions made right. With only two reviews, of which LBW calls are too tempting and have been Strauss' downfall, so the bottom line is wrong decisions can go without being made right. A simpler system is that calls are reviewed via one replay watched by the third umpire. If he believes, either by the live play or by the replay, that there may be an error, he calls for play to be delayed for TWO more replays. If in those two additional replays he has cause to reverse or review the call even further then so be it. This way you don't have the players effectively challenging the umpires' decisions which can't help the umpires. It also takes the focus (of blame) off them and puts it on someone they can't speak to as he's tucked away.

I don't think gimmicks like snickerometer and snotspot should be used, snickerometer in particular is not an exact science. If there is an edge then it should be visible via replay, if it is not visible TO THE NAKED EYE then why should it be made audible or visible by other gadgets? The inevitable quest of s*y and its minnions has undermined cricket, taking a simple game and making everyone play it their way.

If those two gimmicks aren't permitted to be used by the TV company, only replays, then the amount of controversy would be reduced no end. If it isn't visible to the naked eye then people will accept mistakes, now there is the expectation of an absolute right answer. Why was there less questioning of an umpire's decision and authority back in the day (of Dickie Bird)? Maybe some umpires commanded that respect for other reasons, but would they have had technology been exposing mistakes they made but TV didn't make a song and dance about. Same goes for football, no doubt there were loads of goals not given where the ball crossed the line, and vice versa, but many years ago TV didn't slow motion overanalyse every incident.

And that was marvellous, like fair catches everyone just accepted a decision as the best the HUMAN making it could make and got on with it. Now the focus seems so heavy and intense on these one or two controversial decisions that get analysed 99,000 times more than the rest of the game which influences the game 99,000 times more than those one or two controversial decisions. Did that goal not given cost a team the point or two? Or were the other 89 minutes and 50 seconds more than enough time to shape the game? Even a throw in given the wrong way can change the course of a game, for example that happened for the very first goal Liverpool scored in an 8-0 win over Besiktas yet that wasn't overly focused on as a key moment.

Was the catch not given actually important in the context of the match or series? As it turns out Pietersen didn't last much longer, kinda reinforces my point that the once overanalysed review and aftermath was insignificant in the greater context. People go on about dropped catches, THE topic of discussion back when Jones was keeper, but didn't the 1st innings show that catches go down yet the aussies were still skittled for 98? Maybe it was the emotion and pressure of the situation, but was Ponting really that worked up and angry about a decision that was unlikely to change the game? A few runs off that block of wood he carries about with him might have.

The review system as it is will still get too many decisions wrong. LBWs are too high risk calls for captains to safely challenge them, I know it is principally to correct clanger calls but why only half use technology? (and by technology I mean TV replays not s*y gimmickery) The fact that dorkeye is used to make crucial decisions and even if that gimmick reckons the ball will hit the bails, if it is only half hitting it apparently that is somehow different :noway Maybe batsmen should request reinstatement if the ball only just clipped the bails or stumps to knock off the bails :rolleyes What they are in fact admitting is margin for error, that dorkeye isn't 100% accurate and for me that is not technology
 

6ry4nj

International Coach
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Location
Brisbane
Online Cricket Games Owned
The review system is a bit of a nightmare,

Only if you want more wrong (and therefore suspect) decisions getting through.

technology had to be used in some way because TV was showing replays and umpiring errors exposed anyway so it simply left the umpires exposed to "trial by TV" without the same technology to aid them. Now the umpires are in the unenviable position of still not being in control of technology, it is now the plaything of the teams/captains.

Umpires who make howlers deserve to have either their competence or integrity questioned. I agree and would like to see umpires able to call for reviews themselves when unsure (if they aren't already). It would be better. But I will settle for the existing system for the time being, as it is clearly better than what went before.

Smith was right that reviews should either be for all series or not at all, I think not at all is now no longer an option. The issue for me with the "review system" is whether it achieves what it intends to ie get wrong decisions made right. With only two reviews, of which LBW calls are too tempting and have been Strauss' downfall, so the bottom line is wrong decisions can go without being made right.

Has it ever happened so far? I don't think so. And if it does happen, it will just make silly captains more circumspect before calling for silly reviews.

A simpler system is that calls are reviewed via one replay watched by the third umpire. If he believes, either by the live play or by the replay, that there may be an error, he calls for play to be delayed for TWO more replays. If in those two additional replays he has cause to reverse or review the call even further then so be it.

Every decision reviewed? Not likely to happen, arguably more convoluted rather than simpler, and unarguably more time-consuming.

This way you don't have the players effectively challenging the umpires' decisions which can't help the umpires. It also takes the focus (of blame) off them and puts it on someone they can't speak to as he's tucked away.

So this is all to protect insubordinate players like Ponting from the consequences of their actions. If the match-ban called for in the rules was imposed when these things happen, the umpires would have all the protection they need.

I don't think gimmicks like snickerometer and snotspot should be used, snickerometer in particular is not an exact science. If there is an edge then it should be visible via replay, if it is not visible TO THE NAKED EYE then why should it be made audible or visible by other gadgets?

This is exactly the attitude that is wrong with Ponting: I'm always right, if reality disagrees with me, that's its fault not mine.

If those two gimmicks aren't permitted to be used by the TV company, only replays, then the amount of controversy would be reduced no end. If it isn't visible to the naked eye then people will accept mistakes

I don't accept mistakes that we have the capacity to prevent. Ponting doesn't either...but only when they go against him.

Was the catch not given actually important in the context of the match or series? As it turns out Pietersen didn't last much longer, kinda reinforces my point that the once overanalysed review and aftermath was insignificant in the greater context.

Oh so now we can't pressure umpires by questioning their decisions, but we just need them to be able to see into the future :facepalm The catch was not out, and that's how it should've been and was given. The lb was out, and was given that way. And that's how it should be.

Maybe it was the emotion and pressure of the situation, but was Ponting really that worked up and angry about a decision that was unlikely to change the game? A few runs off that block of wood he carries about with him might have.

Finally your first mention of Ponting the topic of this thread. Yes he was, because he behaves like a spoilt toddler. And more seriously, because he often gets his way by throwing tantrums. When that happens, that's not just foul play, that's corruption.
 
P

pcfan123

Guest
The only part of Owzats post I agree with is that we cannot go back to not having UDRS now, too many shockers have been overturned this Ashes.

Whether the system is perfect or not is moot to me, because it's better than no system and the ridiculous BCCI suggestion to improve umpiring standards instead.

Also Hot Spot is fantastic and very conclusive technology, it should be part of the UDRS
 

Sureshot

Executive member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Location
England
Online Cricket Games Owned
Hawkeye is way more accurate than any human guessing of a ball path. So what's the issue with using it?

The margin of error aspect is to stop the system getting abused (I don't mean teams trying to use it as a tactical option) by teams. Can you imagine someone being given out after being given not out if the replays showed the ball literally clipping the stumps/bails?

It's in line with what all umpires follow, that is complete assurance in their decision. You can't overturn a decision if the ball is shown to be very slightly clipping the bails or stumps.

I think the problem is that people are looking for a perfect solution. There simply isn't one.
 

Left_Hander

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Online Cricket Games Owned
The only part of Owzats post I agree with is that we cannot go back to not having UDRS now, too many shockers have been overturned this Ashes.

Cook's "lbw dismissal" in Melbourne is a perfect example of why we should have the UDRS. It gets rid of the shocker rather than the 50-50.
 

Themer

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Location
Newark, UK
Online Cricket Games Owned
And talking of Cook there's time he was given out gloved down legside when it in fact smashed him in the forearm.

UDRS isn't going to eliminate every bad decision but it's been proven from ICC tests that it has resulted in the number of correct decisions going up so why wouldn't you want it?
 

6ry4nj

International Coach
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Location
Brisbane
Online Cricket Games Owned
Evidently Ponting isn't the first Australian captain to believe that his opinion ought to take precedence over reality. Taylor (on the **** commentary team) is apparently of the same view, and he's got Lawry and other so-called commentators backing him up.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top