So this means that if the umpires are not sure, it's OUT instead of NOT OUT?? Its like saying, "We don't know if the fielder has touched the boundary, so you are out". That's so stupid.
Na na, it means "Look we dont know if its out, and we dont want to burden anyone (read: umpires) to make the decision if they dont know hoe to, so you as a batsmen, save us all the trouble and just walk. We realised this is the best bet out and it gives us more time to twiddle our fingers and do nothing. - regards ICC(Idiots of Cricket Central)"
It is against the basic principle of cricket - benfit of doubt to go to the batsman only. And the ICC has forgotten about it conveniently.
Suppose the next time Ricky Ponting or Sachin create a hue and cry about an LBW decision where ball pitched outside legstump saying it was so obvious that giving not out will be against the spirit of the game. Will the ICC do the same thing???
I disagree. In the case where there is no attempt at a dismissal, the benefit of the doubt goes to the fielder (if you can't see him touch the rope while he's touching the ball, it's not a boundary). If there is an attempted run-out or a catch taken, the same benefit should be given.
If the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, consider the following (pathological, granted) situation. A fielder fields the ball very close to the rope and throws it back to the keeper. If the keeper breaks the stumps and the batsman's out of his ground, the umpires can refer it upstairs and then perhaps a boundary would be awarded. If the keeper doesn't break the stumps, the benefit of the doubt goes to the fielder and the batsman scores however many runs they ran. This would be an anomaly.
The only other way to remove this inconsistency would be to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman on all referrals for fielding near the rope. I don't think this is fair.
I agree. With regards to scoring runs, benefit of the doubt at the boundry line should go to field, this is not a way of taking something away from batsmen, its just away of being consistent.
No one would complain if it was just about runs, but because it may now be about a wicket everyone complains, what are we... all batters in our souls??
I do not see anything grossly injust about this decision.
The key here is that in the case of one run scored or the same not given will not make too much of a difference (granted, exceptions exist).
However, when it comes to the question of a wicket, by allowing the fielder to take the call in doubtful situations, you are terminating the innings of a batsman.
Cricket laws this far have always been consistent -- the burden of proof is always on the fielder. A batsman, in legal parlance, is like the defendant -- innocent until proven guilty; or not out until proven otherwise.
The key here is that in the case of one run scored or the same not given will not make too much of a difference (granted, exceptions exist). But I see the exceptions, albeit somewhat contrived, to be quite important. Suppose it's the last ball of a one-dayer, the batting team needs four runs to win, and a run-out is affected. If there's doubt about the fielding of the ball, it's a victory to the batting side. In such a case, the fielding side would then withdraw their appeal for the run-out and claim victory. This sort of thing should be avoided.
You just cannot have aspect of the game giving the BOD to the batsman and one to the bowler. Give the BOD completely to the batsman or to the bowler if want to lead to lesser confusion.
"give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman on all referrals for fielding near the rope. I don't think this is fair." Why is it not fair??? The fielder has n number chances to rectify his mistakes, the batsman has only one. If you declare him out, his role in the innings goes out forever. While the fielder can keep on contributing. In the end, see who stands a chance to lose more due to a contentious decision: the batsman or the owler/fielder??
Why is it not fair??? Because if I field the ball legitimately, I would feel very hard done by if the umpires gave a boundary to the batsman.
I'm pretty sure that umpires have been using this principle until now anyway (if you can't see him touching the rope and the ball, it's not a boundary), and it's only controversial now because we've realised that a principle has to be sacrificed - either the benefit of the doubt doesn't always go to the batsman in cases of potential dismissal, or the benefit of the doubt doesn't go to the fielder on rope decisions.
So anyway, it comes down to a choice of principles, and it is one of those things on which reasonable people can disagree.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
huh? 
June 14 2006, 09:34:24 UTC 5 years ago
June 14 2006, 09:40:16 UTC 5 years ago
June 14 2006, 09:45:33 UTC 5 years ago
June 14 2006, 09:57:57 UTC 5 years ago
"And please, give more respect to the umpires. Australians are exempt from this rule, infact a new rule is being formulated for it. - ICC"
June 14 2006, 14:42:38 UTC 5 years ago
June 14 2006, 17:44:09 UTC 5 years ago
Suppose the next time Ricky Ponting or Sachin create a hue and cry about an LBW decision where ball pitched outside legstump saying it was so obvious that giving not out will be against the spirit of the game. Will the ICC do the same thing???
June 14 2006, 22:10:53 UTC 5 years ago
If the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, consider the following (pathological, granted) situation. A fielder fields the ball very close to the rope and throws it back to the keeper. If the keeper breaks the stumps and the batsman's out of his ground, the umpires can refer it upstairs and then perhaps a boundary would be awarded. If the keeper doesn't break the stumps, the benefit of the doubt goes to the fielder and the batsman scores however many runs they ran. This would be an anomaly.
The only other way to remove this inconsistency would be to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman on all referrals for fielding near the rope. I don't think this is fair.
June 15 2006, 00:59:14 UTC 5 years ago
No one would complain if it was just about runs, but because it may now be about a wicket everyone complains, what are we... all batters in our souls??
I do not see anything grossly injust about this decision.
June 15 2006, 05:06:33 UTC 5 years ago
However, when it comes to the question of a wicket, by allowing the fielder to take the call in doubtful situations, you are terminating the innings of a batsman.
Cricket laws this far have always been consistent -- the burden of proof is always on the fielder. A batsman, in legal parlance, is like the defendant -- innocent until proven guilty; or not out until proven otherwise.
June 15 2006, 05:45:02 UTC 5 years ago
But I see the exceptions, albeit somewhat contrived, to be quite important. Suppose it's the last ball of a one-dayer, the batting team needs four runs to win, and a run-out is affected. If there's doubt about the fielding of the ball, it's a victory to the batting side. In such a case, the fielding side would then withdraw their appeal for the run-out and claim victory. This sort of thing should be avoided.
June 16 2006, 09:14:30 UTC 5 years ago
June 16 2006, 09:19:11 UTC 5 years ago
Why is it not fair??? The fielder has n number chances to rectify his mistakes, the batsman has only one. If you declare him out, his role in the innings goes out forever. While the fielder can keep on contributing. In the end, see who stands a chance to lose more due to a contentious decision: the batsman or the owler/fielder??
June 16 2006, 22:51:31 UTC 5 years ago
Because if I field the ball legitimately, I would feel very hard done by if the umpires gave a boundary to the batsman.
I'm pretty sure that umpires have been using this principle until now anyway (if you can't see him touching the rope and the ball, it's not a boundary), and it's only controversial now because we've realised that a principle has to be sacrificed - either the benefit of the doubt doesn't always go to the batsman in cases of potential dismissal, or the benefit of the doubt doesn't go to the fielder on rope decisions.
So anyway, it comes down to a choice of principles, and it is one of those things on which reasonable people can disagree.