“The ICC must look at the referee”: Paul Reiffel in the home after “anti-Indian” bias; The facts tell a different story | Cricket news
Cricket players in India R Ashwin and Anil Kumble raised concerns concerning the decision -making of referee Paul Reiffel during the Lord’s test between England and India, suggesting a potential bias in his decisions against India.During the fourth day game, several controversial decisions led to animated discussions. A notable incident implied that Joe Root was not given by Reiffel to a delivery of Siraj Mohammed, which the reruns have shown would have cut the leg stump. Another controversial moment occurred when the Indian captain Shubman Gill was released on Brydon Carse, a decision then knocked out during the exam.Go beyond the border with our YouTube channel. Subscribe now!“My experience with Paul Reiffel … You have to talk to him. You have to put him in place. I don’t say that you ask him to give it. But he has this thing … Whenever India Bowl, he feels that it is not out, each time India beats, he feels that it is out. If it happens not only against India but against each team, then the ICC channel needs to look on the referee ICC ASH KI BAAT.
Survey
In your opinion, was the exam system applied fairly in the Lord’s test?
Referring to Gill’s decision, Ashwin commented: “See this. I have a sedan. It can go through the gap between the bat and the ball here. When I saw this the first time, I felt that it was not out.”Ashwin also developed his concerns about Reiffel’s decision -making models: “But it was not the first time (a bad decision was given). My father was watching the match with me and he said:” If Paul Reiffel is there, we will not win. “Whenever Paul Reiffel sports, decisions go against India. When we bowl, the referee’s call was generally not out. When we hit, there is no call from the referee (in our favor). There is something there. My father says that every time he sports, India loses. “”Anil Kumble shared his point of view on arbitration after one of Siraj’s deliveries trapped Joe Root in front of the strains. During the exam, the ball turned out to be hitting the strains, but the arbitrator’s rule of appeal entered into force.“It seems that Paul Reiffel decided that he would not be absent. Everything that is close, not out, “said the legendary legs of the legs.Verification of the facts: does Paul Reiffel have an anti-Indian bias?
The match saw 11 revised decisions when former Seamer Australia Seamer Reiffel was the referee.With the stick of England, India took two criticisms, one was overthrown while the other remained as the referee’s appeal. During the Tour of India in Bat, the examination of India was overthrown while England did not stay outside as they hunted a window.During the second heats of the test, India won four criticisms with three without success, including one as the referee’s call. Only one decision was released in favor of India. While India continued the victory, they managed to reverse one of the two criticisms they took. England, on the other hand, suffered the frustration of the referee’s appeal on an unrealized call.
In total, out of the 11 layoffs that were deposited in the referee on the ground and subsequently examined, Seven came out in favor of India. England could only celebrate four times after an exam.Statistical analysis of Reiffel’s refereeing record in matches involving India presents a different image. In 39 international matches between the formats where Reiffel officiated, India won 23 games, maintaining a percentage of 58.97%victory.The DRS statistics show that out of 21 verdicts “of the arbitrator’s call” in the journals against the decisions of Reiffel, 11 favored India, representing 52.38% of these calls. In test matches in particular, 14 journals out of 21 on Reiffel’s decisions were in favor of India.
