Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

India get the wrong finger, yet again

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • It’s more like those Balaji Telefilms soaps on the tube. New characters come and go, the old fellows walk in back again, and the story moves on endlessly. Much similar to what this Indian team has been facing over the last year or so as the ICC’s Elite umpires continue to dole out appalling decisions.

    The 61-year-old Steve Bucknor obviously tops the list with the maximum number of faulty decisions against India while a close second is Asoka De Silva, whom the Indians have named Shocker de Silva.

    India have faced the brunt of all wrong decisions through 2007-08 from leading umpires, including Simon Taufel, Aleem Dar, Rudi Keortzen, Billy Bowden, Asad Rauf, Peter Hartley, Ian Gould, Ian Howell, Mark Benson, and of course Bucknor. It’s a new record in itself, but one that the team isn’t enjoying.

    Consider this:

    Billy Bowden ruled out Yuvraj Singh and Anil Kumble wrongly in the Melbourne Test

    Ads by Google

    Aleem Dar gave two decisions in the seventh and final ODI in England that broke the back of India’s batting

    Asad Rauf had a bad patch in India’s home series against Australia when he failed to locate a big no-ball from Brett Lee that dismissed MS Dhoni in the last game.

    Hartley denied Ramesh Powar a caught-behind appeal against Owais Shah in the 6th ODI in England

    Gould gave Tendulkar out on 92 in the Bristol one-dayer

    Howell ruled Sourav Ganguly lbw when there was a big inside edge in the third Test against England

    In the same match, Wasim Jaffer was shockingly declared lbw to James Anderson while RP Singh and Sreesanth were denied the wickets of Alastair Cook and Anderson.

    Simon Taufel famously started Tendulkar’s nervous nineties in England Test series

    Keortzen sent back Rahul Dravid in the Kolkata Test against Pakistan when the former captain had just begun to hit form.

    In Sydney today, Mark Benson denied a strong appeal after Ricky Ponting snicked Sourav Ganguly down the leg side when the Australian skipper was on 17. Ponting went on to score his half-century as he and Michael Hussey put on a 92-run partnership for the third wicket

    Worse was to come. After having packed off four Aussie batsmen since lunch, Bucknor turned down a loud caught-behind appeal against Andrew Symonds off rookie pacer Ishant Sharma. Even Symonds admitted later that he had “hit the ball.” Symonds was on 30, he’s now unbeaten on 137 after adding 173 for the seventh wicket with Brad Hogg.

    And, as if all this was not enough, Bruce Oxenford, the television umpire, ruled Symonds not out — on 48 — when his back foot was clearly in the air as Dhoni removed the bails, off Kumble.

    Admitted Symonds: “I was out but I was given not out (referring to the caught behind decision) but that’s the way the game goes. It’s just one of those things. People do make mistakes but if you start referring everything to the third umpire, things can get difficult.”

    Interestingly, Bucknor was also standing in the last Test match India played here in 2004 and handed out four bad decisions that prevented India from sealing a historic series win. Obviously, Sourav Ganguly’s red mark in the captain’s report then has had no impact.

    As for India, the only consolation today was another wrong decision — Ricky Ponting lbw Harbhajan Singh 55. This time it was Benson who failed to spot the huge inside edge.

    Comments
    Post comment

    Be the first to comment.

    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.