Controversial Decisions In Cricket: There Is Something To It
The recent uproar about some controversial decisions given by umpires in the ongoing India-Australia Test series is not without a reason. Those who were watching the fourth day's play (Australia's second innings) in the second test live will understand it better. It was Anil Kumble bowling to Michale Clarke, the first and eventually the last delivery faced by the latter in the innings. Clarke nicked it to Dravid at first slip, who took the catch with a "thank you". However, Clarke did not move. The nick was clear enough even for someone visually challenged to understand that the batsman was out. The deflection was so huge that even the commentators said (for Clarke who did not walk away), "what was he waiting for?".
This episode prompts me to think that Clarke expected the umpire at the other end to have missed the nick, or at least not rule him out even if he knew the batsman was out.
Strange.

1 Comments:
I would rather say it a decision on parciality (infavour of Australia) than a controversial decision. I think Clarke was expecting the same decision (not out) that Symonds was given (twice or thrice!!) in the 1st innings of the second test of the India-Australia series.
A commentator was commenting after Clarke's dismissal and I quote "What was he waiting for? Was he waiting for the headline of tomorrow's news paper?"
Haha haaaaa!!!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home