Newzeland vs Westindies

If that boring Srilnaka was England deserves a seprate thread than this one should as well.

I just looked at cricnfo and checked the Windies vs kiwis and and the winning run was scored in the last ball.

Westindies vs Newzeland

49.6 Tuffey to Chanderpaul, FOUR, and Chanderpaul has done it! Comes forward and whips it away through midwicket, over the packed infield, four fours in a row to win the match in an amazing style, and the Westindies win by 4 wickets, and take the series 3-1

Kind of reminds me of Javed Miandad six in Sharjah.

You should read this also, The umpire was too eager see WI home :-

Umpiring controversy mars one-day series decider
Lynn McConnell - 17 June 2002


New Zealand's one-day match with the West Indies ended in confusion today with an umpiring mistake possibly denying Paul Hitchcock the last over.

Uncertainty surrounded the number of overs the Wellington bowler had bowled.

As a result, the West Indies were able to score 15 off the last over, bowled by Daryl Tuffey, who had earlier been hammered for 34 off his first four overs, as the West Indies attempted to chase 292 to win.

New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming had wanted to bowl end-of-the-innings specialist Hitchcock but was told he had bowled his 10 overs. There was considerable dispute about this and a check of the scorebooks after the game showed the New Zealand book with Hitchcock on nine overs and the West Indian book showed 10 overs.

Fleming had sought several assurances from the umpires regarding the overs the bowlers had completed.

He filed a complaint about the umpiring to International Cricket Council match referee Wasim Raja after the game.

Much of the controversy centred around the local umpire Billy Doctrove, who was standing with International Cricket Council elite umpire Asoka de Silva.

Fleming, who believed that Hitchcock had one over left to bowl, was stopped from bowling him by the umpires who said he had bowled his complement.

At one stage during the match, the scoreboard at the ground had Hitchcock having bowled 10 overs when he had bowled only seven.

The umpires apparently admitted after the game they had made a mistake. The consequence of that is that a potentially series-equalling win was denied the tourists.

Doctrove was involved in several controversies on the day.

He gave New Zealand opener Nathan Astle out caught, when the bat hit his pad and not the ball.

When the West Indies appealed for a run out against Chris Nevin, who was clearly out, Doctrove failed to call for the television umpire, and Nevin was given not out.

A few overs later there was a similar call, which was again given not out when a replay may have shown different.

He was also involved in almost allowing a seven ball over to be bowled, only for de Silva to step in and prevent it.

When Shivnarine Chanderpaul hit a ball to the boundary for four in the last over Doctrove signalled it was a six, only to change the call after the New Zealanders asked for the third umpire to be consulted.

Doctrove was also the umpire involved in giving Astle out in the third one-dayer, leg before wicket when he was leaping in the air.

Earlier, New Zealand had given themselves every chance of tying the series, by scoring 291/8. Fleming scored 65 runs, Craig McMillan 83, Lou Vincent 55 and Chris Harris 29 not out.

Fleming and Nevin added 91 for the second wicket, McMillan and Vincent 139 for the fourth wicket.

Chris Gayle did best of the home side's bowlers taking four for 54 off 10 overs.

The West Indies put on 127 for the first wicket although they lost Chanderpaul with an arm injury that required a precautionary x-ray before he returned for the last over.

Gayle backed his bowling effort by scoring 67, Brian Lara 47, Carl Hooper 45, Ramnaresh Sarwan 52, Wavell Hinds 18, while Chanderpaul hit the third, fourth and fifth balls of the last over to the boundary. With the scores level Chanderpaul struck the final ball towards the boundary, before the crowd intervened, and the single run was enough for the win.

Of the New Zealand attack, there was encouragement in seeing Shane Bond causing the batsmen so many problems and finishing with the best figures of two for 41 off 10 overs.

Bond bowled a superb penultimate over, conceding only four runs off the bat while taking a wicket.

© CricInfo


AK

The umpires now days are getting really ridiculous, they need to start getting young umpires, especially 3rd umpires, so they can actually see the ball on tv.
Thank god none of the umpires were from Windies.


[quote]
Originally posted by UMAIR316:
**The umpires now days are getting really ridiculous, they need to start getting young umpires, especially 3rd umpires, so they can actually see the ball on tv.
Thank god none of the umpires were from Windies.

**
[/quote]

Funny thing is that now a days 3rd empires makes lot of mistakes where as others can easily see that decision was wrong.This has happened umpteen times in India vs Windies series also.

[This message has been edited by andha_qanoon (edited June 17, 2002).]

[quote]
Originally posted by UMAIR316:
Thank god none of the umpires were from Windies.
[/quote]

Who says that none of the umpires were from West Indies ? Both Mr. Billy Doctrove and the Third umpire are from West Indies and they were the ones involved in all the Controvercial decisions.

But, that's what happens when you tell a FIFA referry to stand in an Internation Cricket match (Instead of a Soccer game).


AK

Exactly, Harsha Bhogle wrote an article on these two Umpires immidiately after the India-WestIndies series. I didn’t post that here because I would have been called names for giving excuses..Anyways here is the extract :-

When a Test match is remembered not as much for the cricket played as for the inability of an official, things are serious.* Eddie Nichols and Billy Doctrove, two-bit players in a big series (the recently-concluded one against West Indies), stamped their presence and that should never be allowed to happen.** The best umpires are those that are easily missed, who are so unobtrusive that you wonder if they were ever present at all. The bad ones are the ones who draw attention towards themselves and invariably that means they have made too many mistakes.

The reason the television umpire was introduced was very simple. The men in the middle had too many things to look at and the growth of technology meant that, often, everybody but the two of them knew what the correct decision was. The third umpire was added on only to get things right. The on-field umpires are bound to make the odd mistake, the replay umpire is not allowed to because he has all the tools needed to get it right.

When the third umpire starts making ‘mistakes’, a polite word but one that we shall allow ourselves, you have only two areas you can query; the quality of the technology he has access to and his own definition of fairness. It is very rare these days that technology cannot give a definite answer in the areas it is called upon to present evidence. The only aspect it hasn-t conquered yet, among those it is meant to, is the clean catch at slip or in the outfield. You can never really tell with certainty if a catch was scooped up on the bounce or was taken clean and we saw that in the recent Barbados Test too.

The on-field umpires are bound to make the odd mistake, the replay umpire is not
allowed to because he has all the tools needed to get it right

Experienced commentators will tell you that 90 per cent of the time, the verdict will go in favour of the batsman on grounds of insufficient evidence and that cannot be right. But that is, currently, the only area where the third umpire can point a finger at technology. About line decisions, the third umpire has only his conscience, or his competence, to wrestle with.** Nichols and Doctrove, between them, got it wrong three times in two matches and that is scary.

Nichols- verdict on Chanderpaul in the closing stages of the game in Port of Spain could have swung that Test match. Thankfully, that didn-t happen. Sadly, it did at Barbados where Doctrove, temporarily blinded in every sense, ruled Hooper not out when the batsman was on 15 and the West Indies were on 220-4. **That category of mistake would cost several people in several professions their jobs. I certainly could not expect to continue in my profession if I made the equivalent of that mistake on live television. *
http://www.the-week.com/22jun23/sports1.htm


AK