If a system is in place to fix howlers, then why can't some howlers not be reviewed?
Problem is, there's no real perfect system to fix this.
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.
And what happens if someone reviews a decision, but it's umpire's call? That's unfair if you refer it as a fielder it's given not out, yet as a batsmen it's given out. Either the rules of benefit of the doubt needs to be changed, or they should not lose referrals.
tbf, this didn't happen with Clarke, but still...
MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?
Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC
Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog
Many bowlers, and perhaps even a few batsmen, would argue that when reviewing something that is umpires call, they were actually correct with their review. I somewhat agree, and think they probably shouldn't lose a review for it.
Exit pursuing a beer
Well you can't prove he got it wrong, so the decision stays with him because he's in charge. Might as well get rid of umpires if that's not going to be the case. Since we have this annoying and controversial grey area we want to avoid it where possible and the best way of achieving that is by discouraging players from reviewing 50/50 calls. The grey area is the umpire's domain.
Still don't get what you mean with that second line. They can refer howlers all day as long as some dick in their top order doesn't pack a sad.
Well tbf, even if you don't review the 50/50 stuff, the way it works means that you may choose not to review a decision, because you haven't got enough reviews left, and even if technology would've overturned it, you have vague doubts that it would, particularly early in the innings. And that just sucks.
An example in a different sport which uses referrals was last night in the tennis, where Wawrinka didn't want to overturn a decision as he was weary about how much of a howler it was, yet his original conviction was correct - it was in. And that has 3 referrals a set - much more than 1-2 referrals a game. It could well have cost him the match.
Having only 1 review means that some things that would've been overturned may go unreferred, even if some **** didn't waste it on themselves, and that is ineffective use of UDRS, I feel.
If it's to get as many right decisions as possible then you throw the decision to refer to the umpires, only problem is then that every appeal will end up being reviewed (as with run outs and stumpings now).
Couldn't really blame the umpires for that either, would YOU want to be the umpire who got a decision wrong because you decided not to review it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)