2007-04-24 23:59:00 · 29 answers · asked by virus-o-mania a 2 in Sports ➔ Cricket
yes i agree,its a good idea.
2007-04-25 00:03:05 · answer #1 · answered by toploser 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the decisions for lbw were taken as given by umpire impartially.yet there were several incidents such as the umpire either giving decision correctly,wantonly and without actually convinced himself.
now ,with the third umpire ,With a technically advanced viewing action in frame to frame lbw should also be included ,to the final decision by third umpire,who could never do anything other than what is real.so, it is to be given after consulting the third umpire ,even if either batsman or the fielding team raise any objection in the decision of the two umpires.IT WOULD BECOME FAIR FOR THE TEAMS AND THE GAME.
2007-04-25 00:15:37 · answer #2 · answered by dpkdrj 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Consulting the third umpire in lbw decisions will remove the chances of even any marginal error. Then, there will be no grievance of either the batsman or the bowler. Such a step is therefore highly welcome. But it is also being noticed that most of the lbw decisions being taken by the umpires nowadays come with a high degree of accuracy.
2007-04-25 02:36:53 · answer #3 · answered by Modest 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there should be a way for on-field umpires to be informed if there's been an obvious mistake. For example, if the ball hit the bat before hitting the pad, or if it pitched outside leg, or if hawk-eye shows the ball missing the stumps by a long way. I don't think it would be good if hawk-eye was used to make marginal decisions: i.e. if the ball is shown barely missing the stumps, then the decision should be left to the discretion of the on-field umpire.
I think there's some merit to the idea of batsmen challenging decisions they feel are unjust. Such a scheme would have to be rigorously controlled. Maybe we could give each batting side a single challenge per innings, which they would keep if the batsman wins the decision?
2007-04-25 01:32:28 · answer #4 · answered by SampaioX 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the light of the besy umpire in cricket Simon Tauffel erring on two occasions in SL innings y'day, it could be a good idea but as a former umpire from India opined, it will undermine the very aspect of umpire in cricket if every appeals are left to the third umpire. The best option therefore would be to let things be as they are now. Certain decisions this or that way is tolerable.
2007-04-25 01:31:56 · answer #5 · answered by Bulty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
properly i've got seen those hi-tech issues get the respond very incorrect. yet there is an excellent greater reason ... think of going to the third ump each time Warne or Mulitharan appealed? it would be woeful. If an umpire replaced into basically left with one doubt (say 'did the ball hit the bat?' or 'replaced into it too extreme?'), then in step with possibility then shall we bypass to the field however the final determination if so is incredibly "not out"! i think of it would be a shame by way of fact the personalities and talents of umpires have been necessary to this great sport for extra desirable than a century. One final theory - would new information below a third umpire scheme be such as old ones. effectively the excellent thing related to the doubt would be bumped off.
2016-11-27 19:18:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we should not use any more technology to cricket any more like Hawk eye or something to analyze and see whether ball hitting the stumps when bowler appeal.. some times it is not 100% correct... it is it so difficult for spinner like Murali and swing bowlers... Hawk eye is not right for me... So I prefer still it should be Umpire decision..
Another thing is if we start putting may technology to cricket it is sucking the beauty and the interest of the cricket way and giving disappointment to fans... example.. newly introduces ear peace for umpires to help to listen sounds for thin nick of the bat... but we all seeing umpires not happy with it and some times they give wrong decisions.
2007-04-25 00:35:26 · answer #7 · answered by rahul 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it will be better in all fairness to batsmen as well as bowlers to give the LBW decisions, which are subject to lot of controversey now a days, after consulting 3rd umpire.
2007-04-25 17:05:51 · answer #8 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some times the benefit of doubt favouring Batsmen only. If third umpire consulted before raising the finger I feel better. Politicians ruling the sports spoils the spirits. They infuse politics of varied dimensions, but they do not exhibit/or imbibe sportive spirit from sports. Like Suresh Kalmadi. We can not improve and win medal as long as such people hanging to power.
2007-04-25 07:04:30 · answer #9 · answered by Srirambhaktha 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should be given to the third umpire if the umpire is doubtful of his decision.
2007-04-25 01:03:47 · answer #10 · answered by money_inc. 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes and good thought and i will go after u that lbw should be given by third umpire
2007-04-25 20:05:25 · answer #11 · answered by maddirala a 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋