When India was touring Australia, in one of the tests, Dhoni stood leg side to Kumble ( or was it Harbhajan, I forget who).
And the umpires warned him from standing leg side to the spinner ie - he had to stand in line of the stumps or off side. And I recall Ian Healy making a big fuss about it in the commentary box.
Imagine my surprise then, during the 76th over of India's innings when, Vettori, bowling over the wicket , had Brendon McCullum standing well outside the leg stump.
Perusing through the laws ( specifically Law 40),
3. Position of wicket-keeper
The wicket-keeper shall remain wholly behind the wicket at the striker's end from the moment the ball comes into play until
(a) a ball delivered by the bowler
either (i) touches the bat or person of the striker
or (ii) passes the wicket at the striker's end
or (b) the striker attempts a run.
In the event of the wicket-keeper contravening this Law, the umpire at the striker's end shall call and signal No ball as soon as possible after the delivery of the ball.
Every single ball of the Daniel Vettori over was, by law, a no ball.. None of which were called.
And then they turn around and say that we have a chip on our shoulder!
19 comments:
Homer, this is a little confusing. Law 40 seems to refer to just standing "behind" the wicket. Dhoni was warned for standing on the leg-side? Or was it for moving as the bowler bowled?
Samir,
for standing leg side. Dhoni took his stance on leg stump or slightly outside.
Cheers,
Homer, there's nothing there about standing in line with the stumps.
Ben,
In line is fine.. Outside leg is not
Cheers,
The umpiring standards in this series has been poor. NZ had a few more bad decisions than India in the previous test. Now this.
As for the media, it is less objective than many fans. So the whining on sky is 'business as usual' (re: your previous post)
More the pity adverbin... If the ICC cannot mandate umpiring standards, it will lead to more ill will.
And the media, the less said the better,
Cheers,
But does the law say anything specifically about standing in line with the stumps ?
maybe i dint spot it.
Well, homer, it is just a coincidence that an Indian was penalised and NZ-er wasnt. You know, these coincidences will keep happening - if you question, you are a reverse racist. More dangerous than racists who call someone a black moneky are the ones who keep talking about treating everyone equally but keep justifying such obvious discrimination as coincidence and hide behind the rule book by giving some convoluted explanations. Give me Darren Lehmann any day over these closet racists. (I guess they know who they are!)
In line is fine.. Outside leg is not
Well law 40 has nothing to say about that.
This law, as stated in the post, seems to refer to the wicketkeeper having to stand entirely BEHIND the line of the stumps, and nothing to do with being outside off or leg stump.
We are quite used to keepers standing regularly outside the off stump, when a left arm fast bowler bowls over the wicket to a right handed batsman - as that is the line of the ball.
Homer, I don't remember it happening in Australia with healy commentating, but I remember it happening in India. And the umpire didn't no ball Dhoni, they told him to move back. I thought it was wrong at the time, because the rule says you only nneed to be behind the stumps, not on what side of the stumps. I think it was a case of over officiating. Some times umpires do that and it's not a conspiracy against India.
Ben, PSK and Damith,
UJ knows what I am talking about ( though I got my matches confused :) ).
The point is not about victimization, it is about consistency.
If wicketkeeper A is pulled up for being leg side to the bowler before the delivery, why is it so hard to do the same for wicketkeeper B? After all, its the same damn law that governs both.
PSK,
Thanks for your comments and welcome to the blog :)
Cheers,
If wicketkeeper A is pulled up for being leg side to the bowler before the delivery, why is it so hard to do the same for wicketkeeper B?
In this case Homer I think the laws were incorrectly applied for keeper A, so we don't want them to be applied the same way for keepers B, C and D.
Consistency is important, but not as important as getting things correct.
As several have said, the laws only say things about "length", not "line". Vettori and McCullum were fine, whatever happened in India is the problem...
Homer... at least the umps got it right this time!
Ben,Jonathan and Scorpi,
Agreed the umpires got it right this time. But they did get it wrong in the Dhoni case.
And there has not been a peep from the ICC about the first gaffe.
If we all agree that in the Dhoni case, the umpires erred, what prevents the ICC from coming out and stating that it was indeed an error and what are the ramifications for the umpires who were party to that decision?
You cannot have two different precedents for the same case and expect both to be correct.
Cheers,
The ICC does not seem to have a public procedure for dealing with umpiring errors. Either there is a ridiculous ad hoc reaction driven by members and extreme circumstances, or nothing is done publicly.
I'm not sure how public it should be, but giving reports on the more unusual occurrences (not just errors) would certainly resolve a lot of discussion!
A further thought... I don't know what the umpires were doing, but I'd guess that Healy was thinking of the Bodyline clause in Law 41, which only allows 2 fielders on the offside behind the crease. The keeper was excluded from this after Healy stopped playing.
Jonathan,
The best I expect from the ICC is that tired repeated line of how the umpires get their decisions right 98% of the time :)
Cheers,
Post a Comment