• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
I must say, the Bell LBW review was one of two times I've been genuinely shocked to see the ball missing leg stump. The other was when Tendulkar reviewed the Saeed Ajmal lbw in the 2011 WC. looked absolutely plumb, I guess the camera must have been positioned slightly towards long on rather than being directly behind the stumps.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
He was actually down the pitch a bit, and the ball had swung in a long way. Understandable in hindsight that it's missing leg but it looked awful live.
 
Last edited:

biased indian

International Coach
on UDRS... now a team is given 8 reviews in total restricted to 2 per inngs ..why don't they change it to 5 per match irrespective of the inngs ..i dont think any team has used up all 8 in a match could be wrong but even if it did would have been in a handful of matches
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I think for the most part the discussion about it has been pretty measured tbf, and for the most part kept in this thread rather than the match one, which is a good thing.
To be honest there isn't a great deal to actually discuss, the whole thing is cut and dry and (at least on here) pretty undisputed - he smashed it, Dar had a shocker, he stood his ground as is his right, the players got on with the game.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Think they should just give umpires control over the review system. If they have significant doubt (or the appeal is absolutely ridiculous like in the Broad case) then they should just refer it, just like in nrl. It isn't perfect, but it's probably the best blend of eliminating howlers and not slowing the game down too much. Obviously in terms of fairness, having a 3rd umpire look at literally every appeal would be the most accurate but it would totally ruin the flow of the game.
Leaving the review system in the hands of the umpires would be dreadful. You'd get about 50 overs a day in.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
For anyone who watches AFL, look at their review system for what happens when you leave it in the hands of the umpires.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Here's one for the umpires courtesy of Burgeinho....

"Dad, would it be out if someone hit it in the air and a fielder swallowed it?"
 

MW1304

Cricketer Of The Year
Here's one for the umpires courtesy of Burgeinho....

"Dad, would it be out if someone hit it in the air and a fielder swallowed it?"
I suspect they created a rule for this to prevent Warnie from just eating the ball out of the air at first slip.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Here's one for the umpires courtesy of Burgeinho....

"Dad, would it be out if someone hit it in the air and a fielder swallowed it?"
Time to get him a CW account imo. Can't have you taking credit for all his awesome inputs every time.
 

Top