Page 1 of 27 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 394
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

  1. #1
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS.
    Posts
    15,276

    Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

    Surprised there isn't already one of these, but considering the match thread has been taken up by this all day, or much of it, thought I'd start one.

    Personally no problem with the on-field ump getting a lot of the decision-making, it's the way it's been done for centuries, so I've not a problem with "umpires call" as it is.

    I wouldn't have given Ashton, BOTD, but I think Trott's should have remained with the umpire, he clearly thought he'd hit it.
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.
    Walt Whitman

  2. #2
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    11,628
    Agar was just out and has nothing to do with DRS anyway.

    Trott one was a bit more tricky.

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS.
    Posts
    15,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas View Post
    Agar was just out and has nothing to do with DRS anyway.

    Trott one was a bit more tricky.
    My thread starts with Contentious decisions, then moves on to such modern wonders as DRS.

  4. #4
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    11,628
    Yeah noticed that soon as I made that post, probably should have bothered reading it properly.


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,983
    Agar was out.

    Starc's twice been robbed of lbws because the 'umpires call' parameters for leg stump are a joke.

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS.
    Posts
    15,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas View Post
    Yeah noticed that soon as I made that post, probably should have bothered reading it properly.
    Don't worry, I can't be bothered to take much notice of my own posts, I certainly don't expect others to.....
    marc71178 likes this.

  7. #7
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    11,628
    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    Don't worry, I can't be bothered to take much notice of my own posts, I certainly don't expect others to.....
    Yeah but thread titles, bare minimum and all.

  8. #8
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,561
    I'd have given Agar out and Trott not-out. But I agree with Furball about the leg-stump parameters, and England have got the better of the on-field calls. And if they hadn't bowled so badly to Agar for an hour and a half afterwards they'd have no need to complain.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  9. #9
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,509
    After reading this forum I expected the Trott decision to be marginal. You're ****ting me people. He's ****ing smashed it.

    I know I'm the most biased **** going but you cannot overturn that!!

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    I'm not a fan of DRS, but if you can't overturn a decision when there's no evidence on any of the tech that he edged it and it's hitting middle, why bother having referrals at all? If the tech isn't reliable, don't have DRS. If it is, trust it and make decisions based on it, which is what the third umpire did in this case. Whether you think Trott hit it or not you can't blame the third umpire for overturning it when everything he is able to use clearly suggested there was no edge.

    Personally I think he might have gotten a really faint edge but I think a lot of people are being fooled by a super close up angle of the ball that makes it look like a thick edge. If there was a thick edge it obviously wouldn't have come up completely clean on both hotspot and snicko, unless both those pieces of technology are totally worthless.

    Anyway, just highlights the major flaws in the DRS system really. It's meant to overturn poor decisions but clearly doesn't resolve the controversy. Should just rely on the on field umpire and get on with it.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  11. #11
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,509
    I basically agree with you on principle but when the onfield umpire has given it n/o then I don't think they have any business overturning that.

    And Trott knows he hit it, too. Shouldn't affect the decision, but.

  12. #12
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS.
    Posts
    15,276
    Still think it does change shockers, so it's worthwhile, anyone that thought it would take all controversy out of the game were clearly silly.

    Think they should have Third umpires that are specialist though, that know the system inside out, and keep on making those decisions. Get used to it, make for more consistency.

    It's just silly having the normal umps, it's a totally different working environment, and some are going to be better with technology than others.

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    I guess what I'm saying is, if Dar gave it not out because he thought there was an edge and everyone agreed that it was hitting the stumps, and Erasmus checked everything and saw no evidence of an edge, by what logic should the decision remain not out? Basically it's either: the umpire gave it not out because he thought there was an edge and it should remain that way, in which case there is no point in having a referral system, or it's: the technology is too unreliable for us to trust it so we should stay with the umpire's decision unless it's absolutely 100% conclusive, which again seems to defeat the purpose of DRS existing.

    The erring on the side of the on-field umpire thing is about LBW decisions since it's acknowledged that you can't trust hawkeye 100% since it's predictive, and LBWs are inherently subjective anyway since it's about guessing. I don't think something like an inside edge works like that with DRS. If you can't see an edge on any of the tech, then there is no edge. If you can't see one but you still assume there's an edge because the umpire thought there was, why use the tech? It doesn't give the referring side the authority to overrule the umpire based on technology, so they've effectively wasted a review for no reason even though the tech says it was out. I just don't think it makes sense.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS.
    Posts
    15,276
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    I guess what I'm saying is, if Dar gave it not out because he thought there was an edge and everyone agreed that it was hitting the stumps, and Erasmus checked everything and saw no evidence of an edge, by what logic should the decision remain not out? Basically it's either: the umpire gave it not out because he thought there was an edge and it should remain that way, in which case there is no point in having a referral system, or it's: the technology is too unreliable for us to trust it so we should stay with the umpire's decision unless it's absolutely 100% conclusive, which again seems to defeat the purpose of DRS existing.

    The erring on the side of the on-field umpire thing is about LBW decisions since it's acknowledged that you can't trust hawkeye 100% since it's predictive, and LBWs are inherently subjective anyway since it's about guessing. I don't think something like an inside edge works like that with DRS. If you can't see an edge on any of the tech, then there is no edge. If you can't see one but you still assume there's an edge because the umpire thought there was, why use the tech? It doesn't give the referring side the authority to overrule the umpire based on technology, so they've effectively wasted a review for no reason even though the tech says it was out. I just don't think it makes sense.
    Well in this case they didn't have the full tech.

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    Well in this case they didn't have the full tech.
    Well okay, but side-on hotspot wouldn't have showed anything anyway. Trott turned his bat after the ball hit him and the edge the ball hit/would have hit was clearly visible on the front hotspot. I dunno, I suppose you could make the argument that he didn't have full tech but I think the number of angles used is up to the discretion of the umpire anyway. Whose to say that the front on hotspot clearly showing no edge wouldn't have been enough for him to determine no edge?

    The irony in all this is that apparently the Root dismissal also didn't show up as an edge on hotspot and he didn't refer it and effectively walked with referrals remaining. Most likely if he had referred it he would have been given not out, but he obviously did hit it because he walked off without referring it. The whole system is just a mess.

Page 1 of 27 12311 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. No runners ever and yes to UDRS
    By silentstriker in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 30-11-2011, 11:37 AM
  2. UDRS : The 2.5 Meter rule
    By gvenkat in forum World Cup 2011
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-03-2011, 12:36 AM
  3. UDRS in ODIs
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28-01-2010, 04:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •