aand it begins again. If you're out to get every little marginal little-here-little-there decision perfectly right we might as well get rid of umpires all together, because human beings aren't capable of that.. Half the match will be spent in goddamn limbo. People don't repeat the howler thing just as a cliche, it's because it's the most realistic target for people who actually want to eliminate awful mistakes while getting on with the damn game. You can't have it both ways, there compromises to be made, and I think they've got it right with two reviews absolute max in an innings.
Exit pursuing a beerOriginally Posted by Jimmy Neesham
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
Reckon the bowling side should have one more than the batting side. Most agree that a batsman knows if he's hit it or not, bowlers aren't really in a position to make an informed choice.
The Cricket Web Podcast - episode 16 out now
We're on iTunes - why not give us a review?
If a batsman middles it into his pads and is given lbw, then surely it's the batsman who's best placed to challenge that particular decision?
If we're proposing that we get the third umpire involved, what's the catalyst for getting the third umpire involved? An appeal? Then fielding sides will appeal for everything. At the behest of the on field umpire? Then they'll just refer all lbws in the same way they refervirtually every run out or stumping appeal.
The tennis one that was mentioned earlier, why that isn't completely automatic I have no idea, it was instantaneous and clear that the ball was in. Rugby League is suffering immensely from video ref blundering and agonising. I don't know about AFL but pretty sure the goal review system was unpopular. Soccer doesn't have any review system and I'd reckon that refereeing blunders are less visible and no more common despite no review system.
I was all in favour of DRS, I think it was a good idea, but it has failed. Could still have a place but needs huge changes.
The DRS was supposed to be in favour of the umpire's decision.
The question to be asked should be "is there genuine evidence to overturn this decision", not "can we get this decision 100% correct down to a millimetre of hotspot evidence". This really shouldn't take more than a couple of views of the available replays/hot shot/etc. If there is doubt - bad luck - the decision goes in favour of the on-field umpire whose original decision stands.
In my opinion, there are way too many LBW's being referred when the rules favour the umpire's decision so heavily (as opposed to favouring either 'bowlers' or 'batsmen').
A decision like Clarke's LBW should not have been referred, especially with only one referral at their disposal. Although that still doesn't excuse the shockers from the two umpires either, who I am sure will each have a black mark against them for those.
I think the current DRS system is spot on, although I think there is a case for two challenges in ODI's.
Andrew Symonds 143*
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)