Listening to some of the Aussie commentators on Channel 9, one would think that Rahul Dravid was legitimately out and that Technology had been used to reverse a legitimate decision! Mate, Siddle bowled a No Ball and did not deserve a wicket of the ball, get that? I know we all love winning and some like to win at any cost, but this is stretching the limit. A No Ball is a No Ball. Full stop! Always was, always will be. You can't take a wicket off a No Ball, simple as that!
I strongly support the DRS and believe that BCCI has made a mistake by not opting for it and may still pay a heavy price over this. When technology is available, umpiring errors should not allowed to determine the fate of the players and the match. Remember Ponting not given out at 97 at MCG 2003 and Symonds at SCG 2008 and Hussey being given out on Day 1, MCG 2011?
The argument is that because BCCI refused the use of DRS, India should not get the benefit of no-ball line calls. Guys this is the umpire's discretion and was used to check when Haddin was out as well. What next, no 3rd umpire calls for run outs? Will a win caused by taking wickets off no-balls and non-existent run outs cause joy? (Also please remember that the players still need to select to use DRS and by all counts Ed Cowan would have not asked for DRS as Haddin thought he was out.)
A section of the Australian media is behaving like my six year old who has been denied a lolly. Yes, the BCCI refused the use of DRS, but the ICC ruling is that both teams need to agree. If the ACB has a problem with this, it needs to be raised with the BCCI and the ICC. If the BCCI has more clout at the ICC than the ACB, this needs to be dealt with. Don't forget, not long ago, the ICC was ruled by the ECB and the ACB. I so miss the sane voice of Peter Roebuck!
Sai Mahesh
Sydney
I strongly support the DRS and believe that BCCI has made a mistake by not opting for it and may still pay a heavy price over this. When technology is available, umpiring errors should not allowed to determine the fate of the players and the match. Remember Ponting not given out at 97 at MCG 2003 and Symonds at SCG 2008 and Hussey being given out on Day 1, MCG 2011?
The argument is that because BCCI refused the use of DRS, India should not get the benefit of no-ball line calls. Guys this is the umpire's discretion and was used to check when Haddin was out as well. What next, no 3rd umpire calls for run outs? Will a win caused by taking wickets off no-balls and non-existent run outs cause joy? (Also please remember that the players still need to select to use DRS and by all counts Ed Cowan would have not asked for DRS as Haddin thought he was out.)
A section of the Australian media is behaving like my six year old who has been denied a lolly. Yes, the BCCI refused the use of DRS, but the ICC ruling is that both teams need to agree. If the ACB has a problem with this, it needs to be raised with the BCCI and the ICC. If the BCCI has more clout at the ICC than the ACB, this needs to be dealt with. Don't forget, not long ago, the ICC was ruled by the ECB and the ACB. I so miss the sane voice of Peter Roebuck!
Sai Mahesh
Sydney
No comments:
Post a Comment