Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Neel Here
'your' only explanation is just that. it has no connection to realiy.
why nimbus doesn't pay for it you should talk to their CEO and shareholders. it is patently unfair for ICC to expect broadcasters to pay for these tech. ICC gets its own hefty payment for tournaments like the world cup from broadcasters like nimbus, why should they pay for the tech as well ?
it's only you who is making laughable comments 'hawk eye is the real UDRS'. every cricketer from dhoni to mahela jawabardhane (do you know who that is ? do you at all know what cricket is and who plays it?) has said that they prefer the whole UDRS package.
|
If the "whole package" is available then it's fine, but if it is not then they should at least use Hawk Eye because it gives correct LBW decisions. And everyone knows LBW decisions are the most controversial. If Hawk Eye was used then during the Durban test Zaheer Khan would have been out LBW, and there would have been no big partnership with Laxman, and de Villiers and Boucher wouldn't have been given out in the second innings, and there would have been no Indian victory at Durban. Also in the Mohali test against Australia, with just 5 runs to win and 1 wicket remaining Pragyan Ojha was clearly LBW, but was given not out. Hawk Eye would have changed all that.
The only cricketers I know of who oppose the use of Hawk Eye are Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni, Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid. Here's a trivia: what's common between them?
And no, I don't know any cricketer called "jawabardhane".
PS: Although the Indian media and players would like the whole world to believe that they were hard done by umpiring decisions in Australia in 2007-08, the reality is different. While India received some poor decisions in the Sydney test, that was more than made up for by decisions that went against Australia in the next test in Perth which eventually led to India's victory. But the Indian media made no fuss about that.