View Full Version : ponting fined for dissent
bunsen burner
18 Apr 2006, 00:01
And so he should have been........
but you can't tell me that there aren't umpires on the take. I've thought it for some time now and with some recent umpiring it's hard to dispell these suspicions.
Unfortunately it's time to bring a bit more technology into umpiring and a bit more accountability.
Grimreepah
18 Apr 2006, 00:11
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18838914-23212,00.html
This reminds me of when Stephen Fleming got upset because the umpires didn't call a no ball (too many fielders inside the circle). So what happens - the umpires report him. Surely if the umpires got it wrong, then the person who makes a complaint should be exonerated.
If Ponting had his time again he would do it all the same. He got what he wanted.
eddiesmith
18 Apr 2006, 00:34
Another fine? When will the ICC crack down on serial offenders?
bunsen burner
18 Apr 2006, 10:02
Maybe I should have re titled the thread? The thread was meant to be about whether or not you think there are umpires on bookmaker payrolls?
I can't fathom how a 3rd umpire could have given that not out given the technology at his disposal. I've suspect for some time now that all is not right and this incident does nothing to dispell my suspicions.
Any thoughts? Just how/why did the 3rd umpire initially give that not out?
Blues_Man
18 Apr 2006, 10:17
Maybe I should have re titled the thread? The thread was meant to be about whether or not you think there are umpires on bookmaker payrolls?
I can't fathom how a 3rd umpire could have given that not out given the technology at his disposal. I've suspect for some time now that all is not right and this incident does nothing to dispell my suspicions.
Any thoughts? Just how/why did the 3rd umpire initially give that not out?
Refer back to haydens runout in the first test ...there was no way that the 3rd umpire could make the decision on the evidence he was presented with , however that particular Bangladeshi umpire had no trouble in giving him out and helping his country try and get an historical win .
The umpiring has been pretty bad from the outset ...but to get those 3rd umpire calls wrong goes beyond incompetence...and leans toward favoritism.
PS: I thought you took your bat and ball and went home Bunny ?? :D
bunsen burner
18 Apr 2006, 13:37
PS: I thought you took your bat and ball and went home Bunny ?? :D
Yes and no. I left because one particular clown was deleting all my posts for no reasonable reason. He handed in his modship a few days later for unrelated reasons so I've ruled myself able to come back ever since. I've simply been busy for a few months. You probably won't see much of me after this thread either. I'm snowed under at the moment.
I just couldn't believe what I saw and felt I had sneak on and post this post. I'll be back on a permanent basis, I just don't know when.
Grimreepah
18 Apr 2006, 15:49
I can't fathom how a 3rd umpire could have given that not out given the technology at his disposal.
The excuse was that one of the umpires didn't have very good English and there was a miscommunication. But I can't work out what that would be.
Is a 25% fine a significant deterent? I would have thought 50% or higher might have been more appropriate.
Grimreepah
18 Apr 2006, 20:35
Is a 25% fine a significant deterent? I would have thought 50% or higher might have been more appropriate.
And what fine should the umpires get for originally getting it wrong?
And what fine should the umpires get for originally getting it wrong?
Forced to watch NZ's 2nd inngs in the match in progress on continuous loop.
Grimreepah
18 Apr 2006, 20:40
Forced to watch NZ's 2nd inngs in the match in progress on continuous loop.
Come on son. That's a bit harsh.
ciaobella
18 Apr 2006, 22:10
Maybe I should have re titled the thread? The thread was meant to be about whether or not you think there are umpires on bookmaker payrolls?
I can't fathom how a 3rd umpire could have given that not out given the technology at his disposal. I've suspect for some time now that all is not right and this incident does nothing to dispell my suspicions.
Any thoughts? Just how/why did the 3rd umpire initially give that not out?
BB, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if any of the umpires over there are taking money on the side.
As for Punts getting a fine, it didn't surprise me. The d|cks in the ICC seem to believe that players can turn off their emotions and whenever an umpire buggers up badly - and I do mean BADLY - which has been happening alot lately, the players are expected to just shrug their shoulders, say "oh well, nevermind" and pretend the farce didn't happen! WTF??!! I don't give a rats what sport you're playing in, if an umpire makes a blatantly obvious ******** up, you're going to have some rather upset players out there. These so called d|cks in the know in the ICC need to realise their idiot umpires are the reason for players blowing up on most occasions and cut the players some slack. Sheesh!! Give the players a break!!