Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[Burgey]

Time to get him a CW account imo. Can't have you taking credit for all his awesome inputs every time.

I attribute all his comments tbf.

 

[GIMH]

Tbf I always presumed half your posts were written by a child

 

[GIMH]

Clarke out first ball

Oops. Is that what the verb 'sparked' is?

 

[grecian]

Good piece this, particularly like this bit

One of the problems with the Ashes is that non cricket-lovers try to impose their theories of morality on a game which for most of the time gets on perfectly well without them.

Might dig it around the next Football World Cup

 

[uvelocity]

with the hughes lbw was the pitch map in line with the centre of the legstump or the outside?

 

[uvelocity]

its impossible to be sure from what i just saw on the news, but it looks like the pitch map is to the outside of the stumps, which would be wrong. you think they'd get it right, but.......

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not sure if this has already been discussed somewhere, but I thought the on-air discussion during yesterday's play about how the review system works when there's two possible modes of dismissal was really interesting.

Rogers was given out caught behind when he missed it and it flicked his pad, and it would have been missing off. The question of what would have happened if it had been flicking the off stump and thus been umpire's call on the LBW was raised, since he was clearly given out caught and the review clearly showed that he missed it, and it would have been not out because the "out" given was for caught and thus the umpire's call on the LBW was not out. But apparently in October this year the rules are being changed so that this situations would result in an out decision. So in other words if a batsman is given out in any way and the review shows that the ball was going to be flicking the stumps the benefit of the doubt stays with the on-field umpire even if the mode of dismissal in the on-field decision was caught and not LBW.

Does this make any sense to anyone? Surely if the umpire gives a batsman out caught behind he thinks they've hit it, and the benefit of the doubt should go with the batsman if it shows they missed it but the ball was going to flick the stumps? Granted if it's hitting the stumps flush I think it should be out LBW, but not if it's a 50/50 call. The logic only makes sense in reverse, that is the umpire makes a decision (either way, doesn't matter) on an LBW and the review shows the batsman hit it and then was caught. That should be out. But not the Rogers situation. Can't fathom why they'd change this.

 

[social]

Not sure if this has already been discussed somewhere, but I thought the on-air discussion during yesterday's play about how the review system works when there's two possible modes of dismissal was really interesting.

Rogers was given out caught behind when he missed it and it flicked his pad, and it would have been missing off. The question of what would have happened if it had been flicking the off stump and thus been umpire's call on the LBW was raised, since he was clearly given out caught and the review clearly showed that he missed it, and it would have been not out because the "out" given was for caught and thus the umpire's call on the LBW was not out. But apparently in October this year the rules are being changed so that this situations would result in an out decision. So in other words if a batsman is given out in any way and the review shows that the ball was going to be flicking the stumps the benefit of the doubt stays with the on-field umpire even if the mode of dismissal in the on-field decision was caught and not LBW.

Does this make any sense to anyone? Surely if the umpire gives a batsman out caught behind he thinks they've hit it, and the benefit of the doubt should go with the batsman if it shows they missed it but the ball was going to flick the stumps? Granted if it's hitting the stumps flush I think it should be out LBW, but not if it's a 50/50 call. The logic only makes sense in reverse, that is the umpire makes a decision (either way, doesn't matter) on an LBW and the review shows the batsman hit it and then was caught. That should be out. But not the Rogers situation. Can't fathom why they'd change this.

Pretty sure Rogers asked the umpire how he was out so that it could be taken into consideration with the review

Not sure whether that is legal or not

 

[social]

My biggest problem with DRS is with the concept of umpire's call

If all the technology in the world cannot determine whether someone is out then why should the decision be left in the hand's of someone that has made a split second guesstimate without the aid of any technology at all

Makes no sense to me whatsoever

If there's doubt then it shouldn't be out IMO

 

[3703]

It's absolute **** that there is a referral system in the hands of the players. That is the ICC throwing something at cricket sides so they stop whinging, not addressing a problem.

There simply needs to be common sense ongoing communication between the third umpire and those on the field. If Broad smashes a ball through to the slip and is given not out, the third umpire should be able to tell him immediately "nope, that is a clear edge, give him out", and we're on our way. Whatever -eliminates- howlers is what should be done. It is not relevant whether anyone thinks the players are using it "correctly". The only thing that matters is whether howlers have been eliminated. They have not. So change the system.

 

[Adders]

It's absolute **** that there is a referral system in the hands of the players. That is the ICC throwing something at cricket sides so they stop whinging, not addressing a problem.

There simply needs to be common sense ongoing communication between the third umpire and those on the field. If Broad smashes a ball through to the slip and is given not out, the third umpire should be able to tell him immediately "nope, that is a clear edge, give him out", and we're on our way. Whatever -eliminates- howlers is what should be done. It is not relevant whether anyone thinks the players are using it "correctly". The only thing that matters is whether howlers have been eliminated. They have not. So change the system.

Interesting that you are debating the rights and wrongs of the UDRS (some points you make I agree with btw) but you use the Broad example which had nothing at all to do with the referral system.

 

[Adders]

My biggest problem with DRS is with the concept of umpire's call

If all the technology in the world cannot determine whether someone is out then why should the decision be left in the hand's of someone that has made a split second guesstimate without the aid of any technology at all

Makes no sense to me whatsoever

If there's doubt then it shouldn't be out IMO

The concept of umpires call is because the DRS was designed to eliminate the howlers, the ICC never intended it to be used to overturn an LBW shout given not out and then hawkeye shows it clipping leg stump. If the challenging side thinks it's close, they (in theory) shouldn't be challenging the decision.

That's why it is the way it is, but the reality is that teams will use it tactically and for marginal decisions and that will never change while referrals are in the players hands.

 

[Burgey]

Interesting that you are debating the rights and wrongs of the UDRS (some points you make I agree with btw) but you use the Broad example which had nothing at all to do with the referral system.

I think the point is the umpire could have referred it (and lets be honest would most likely have done so given where it ended up) if the DRS was in his hands and not the players'.

I don't blame Broad for not walking, and I don't think his opposition does either. But as I said when it happened, I just find it amazing that an umpire of Dar's quality would miss something so obvious.

 

[grecian]

I think the point is the umpire could have referred it (and lets be honest would most likely have done so given where it ended up) if the DRS was in his hands and not the players'.

I don't blame Broad for not walking, and I don't think his opposition does either. But as I said when it happened, I just find it amazing that an umpire of Dar's quality would miss something so obvious.

Yeah, put it in the umps hands and you'll stop much of this controversy, and obviously all the tactical ones. The system is the right way to go, but it's not been implemented right, IMHO.

 

[Spikey]

australian domestic cricket review system says hi

 

[uvelocity]

they will still get it wrong though. i mean they do when they send it upstairs as it is sometimes

 

[Spikey]

Third umpire controversies mar Queensland's five-wicket victory over Tasmania in Ryobi Cup | Domestic Cricket | Fox Sports

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Being totally honest if any decision should have got benefit of the doubt in this match then that Hughes lbw was the one. Looked so tight and is the technology that trustworthy?

Didn't see it live as was out all day but saw it on highlights last night and it was so so close.

 

[social]

Being totally honest if any decision should have got benefit of the doubt in this match then that Hughes lbw was the one. Looked so tight and is the technology that trustworthy?

Didn't see it live as was out all day but saw it on highlights last night and it was so so close.

Rogers in the first innings and Watto in this one were also extremely marginal

For Anderson to get Rogers lbw from around the wicket, he would have to have swung the ball back a lot and didn't do it plus when you consider that the ball was shown to be hitting the very top, outside edge of leg stump and the margin of error is half a ball width, it just seemed very dodgy right from the outset

 

[grecian]

Meh, until someone can come up with more conclusive evidence other than "it looked wrong to me", I'm happy to go with the tech. Particularly as we're at a slight angle when watching.