STEVE BUCKNOR - crap decision vs Australia 1998

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
26,166
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Apr 18, 2011

No description available.

Category:

Sports

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 10 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • @jc55 You idiot.

  • Of all the terrible decisions from Bucknor, this one doesn't really belong. You can claim it's a 50/50 call maybe, but it's pretty close.

see all

All Comments (46)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • he has given worse.. haha

  • Seeing it live sure, it looked like a howler, but the replay showed the ball was an angled-in top-spinner and it might have clipped off. I'll agree that it was a marginal decision, but not quite a crap one.

  • Cut the guy some slack will you. He couldn't have managed to Umpire in over 100 tests and ODI matches if he was a crapper.

    How many times have we watched a game in a tele where we thought the batsman was out on the first instance but had to change our mind after watching the replay?

  • fuck off morgan freeman.

  • @quogequox I can tell you the benifit isn't in the laws, however, as an umpire there is a difference between the laws themselves and the applications of them. If you are not an umpire you will not fully understand that. The laws arn't always carried out to the letter. On training courses and such like you are taught if in doubt not out. I have been given many handouts by very good and experienced umpires saying exactly that.

  • Any bastman who cops out by padding up to a ball pitched outside off stump always runs the risk of being given out if he fails to offer a shot. Negative play encourages the umpire to go with the bowler every time.

  • Peter Such, he never bowled badly for England and won a couple of matches on his own. Far better than Robert Croft

  • I'm pretty sure benefit of the doubt isn't written in the rules of cricket, for the batsmen or otherwise. Umpires shouldn't make their decisions based on doubt.

  • @thebrooksy011 I didn't say that you should give a batsman out if he's not playing a shot and its missing. In pratice some umpires (at all levels of cricket) are more inclined to judge in favour of the bowler when the batman doesn't play a stroke, (I've seen it happening league matchs. We don't live in an ideal world, I'm saying how things happen in practice, not in theory, Personally, if I'm not 100% sure i say "not out". I have done that throughout my umpiring career and it has served me well.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more