Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[Burgey]

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.

That's part of the adjustment to the technology for spectators who've grown up watching the game without it. You look at Rogers' or Hughes' lbws and on the old accepted wisdom you're thinking doubt and the benefit of it. You see at the Bell one and it looked stone dead.

 

[Furball]

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.

The margin of error comes from projected paths, not the ball tracking.

 

[vic_orthdox]

australian domestic cricket review system says hi

Agree with this, was bloody awful.

 

[Uppercut]

The current system is definitely better than leaving it to the umpires. Clarke making a mistake doesn't change that.

 

[91Jmay]

Umpire's having reviews would kill the game because every single wicket would essentially be decided by the 3rd Umpire. Every wicket other than bowled would be reviewed, and every decision that the Umpire was slightly unsure about. In the subcontinent there would be 40 reviews a game for all the LBW's. Like an early post said, if you are not SURE that the Umpire is wrong then you do not review. Australia have paid the price for using it terribly.

 

[Riggins]

anyone posted this yet? funny ****.

Graeme Swann in blast at Sri Lankan 'cheat' | Mail Online

 

[MW1304]

Haha oh my days. I like how he says Strauss was "someone with a bit of intelligence and nous" suggesting he had absolutely none.

 

[Furball]

Watching the highlights again, Haddin's reaction as soon as the decision is made to refer is that of a man who knows he's out IMO.

 

[Expressway76]

Watching the highlights again, Haddin's reaction as soon as the decision is made to refer is that of a man who knows he's out IMO.

Cheating **** should've walked

 

[Bahnz]

While there were a few iffy DRS moments in this match, the one that really got up my nose was the Bell reversal. That wasn't a howler, and imo a narrow miss shouldn't be overturned. If it's assumed that Hawkeye isn't perfect for referrals when the batsman is given not out, then how come it's suddenly fool proof when the umpire is prompted to raise his finger? It's a major flaw in the system that biases it in favour of the batsmen imo, and batsmen don't need any more help in today's age.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That's what the "umpire's call" principle is supposed to remedy. The system is fine ****s just need to bloody follow it rather than going rambo on us and deciding they know better.

 

[Bahnz]

That's what the "umpire's call" principle is supposed to remedy. The system is fine ****s just need to bloody follow it rather than going rambo on us and deciding they know better.

I'm fine with the umpire's call principle, but it isn't applied to out lbw decisions. If a ball is shown to be missing by a gnat's pubic hair then that's enough to overturn the umpire's original decision. I just don't get why an umpire's decision to give a batsman out should be easier to overturn than a decision to give a batsman not out.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That's a fair point which I really hadn't considered. I guess it becomes increasingly arbitrary to define once you move outside "hitting = out, missing = not out" so they want to keep it simple.

 

[social]

Umpire's having reviews would kill the game because every single wicket would essentially be decided by the 3rd Umpire. Every wicket other than bowled would be reviewed, and every decision that the Umpire was slightly unsure about. In the subcontinent there would be 40 reviews a game for all the LBW's. Like an early post said, if you are not SURE that the Umpire is wrong then you do not review. Australia have paid the price for using it terribly.

Virtually every single wicket is reviewed already as they check for no-balls

 

[Daemon]

anyone posted this yet? funny ****.

Graeme Swann in blast at Sri Lankan 'cheat' | Mail Online

came in just to post that.

If you play in a team and you know someone has cheated it just doesn't sit right

so good

 

[Jono]

anyone posted this yet? funny ****.

Graeme Swann in blast at Sri Lankan 'cheat' | Mail Online

That's ****ing embarrassing. Completely forgot about that incident.

 

[Bahnz]

The other thing about the status quo that ****s me is that it could incentivise the umpires to be stingier on lbw decisions in general. Whichever way you slice it, having a decision overturned by the DRS isn't a great look for the umpire that made the initial decision. If an umpire knows that, for close lbw shouts, he's more likely to have his decision overturned if he gives a batsman out, then he may subconsciously be more predisposed to giving the batsman not out.

Of course there's no evidence to suggest that this is actually happening, though I would be interested to see some research on whether the DRS has affected umpire decision making in the last few years.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

That's ****ing embarrassing. Completely forgot about that incident.

It's only embarrassing if Swann himself has come out in support of Broad since the incident (has he, as a matter of interest - I've no idea?). The article itself says that Swann's view is at odds with the rest of the team and unless Swann has come out post-incident and supported Broad, how do we know he hasn't had words with him along the lines of Broad being a ******* cheat?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The other thing about the status quo that ****s me is that it could incentivise the umpires to be stingier on lbw decisions in general. Whichever way you slice it, having a decision overturned by the DRS isn't a great look for the umpire that made the initial decision. If an umpire knows that, for close lbw shouts, he's more likely to have his decision overturned if he gives a batsman out, then he may subconsciously be more predisposed to giving the batsman not out.

Of course there's no evidence to suggest that this is actually happening, though I would be interested to see some research on whether the DRS has affected umpire decision making in the last few years.

I get the impression it's made umpire's more willing to give them if anything, because they've seen that all sorts of calls that would've been benefit of the doubt years ago are actually smashing leg stump out and so on.

 

[Jono]

It's only embarrassing if Swann himself has come out in support of Broad since the incident (has he, as a matter of interest - I've no idea?). The article itself says that Swann's view is at odds with the rest of the team and unless Swann has come out post-incident and supported Broad, how do we know he hasn't had words with him along the lines of Broad being a ******* cheat?

Except Swann came out PUBLICLY against his opponents and called them a cheater. In a ****ing tour match.

This happened in an Ashes test match. By being such a dickwad about it and acting like not walking is one of the biggest crimes in cricket, once again, publicly, he is obligated to come out and say he finds what Broad did bad for the game.

In fact he said:

''I never used to be like this because I was brought up to not walk but it's something that has built up in me over the years. Something just doesn't seem right about it. It's like watching your team play football. If Demba Ba dived to earn a penalty for Newcastle I'd feel very uneasy about it – unless it was against Sunderland!

'If you play in a team and you know someone has cheated it just doesn't sit right. You'd like to think our game was a bit different but clearly it isn't.'

Cue Swann celebrating the victory...

The minute he came out so publicly like this and call it cheating he was obliged to call his players out publicly. He hasn't.