Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: The LBW Umpire Referral Flaw

  1. #1
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    22,775

    The LBW Umpire Referral Flaw

    A law has to be uniform. For instance, always, LBW has meant a decision of out given when the umpire deems the ball will hit the stumps.

    However, when the referal is made, the uniformity of the law ends. If it clips, and the umpire had initially ruled it out, it remains out. However, if it clips, when the umpire had initially ruled not out, it remains not out. The decision made should be based on evidence and regardless of what the on field umpire had ruled earlier.

    The current procedure isn't correct imo.

  2. #2
    Cricketer Of The Year weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    7,621
    I think the 'benefit of doubt to the batsman' thing should be ingrained into the referral system.

    Right now, it's just 'benefit of doubt to the umpire'.
    Last edited by weldone; 07-05-2015 at 03:45 AM.
    "I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100."
    - Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone)

  3. #3
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    6,142
    The whole referral system irritates me. I'd love to see some stats on referrals and how many times umpires have got things wrong and have been shown to be wrong. Read somewhere the other day that international umpires are declining in their decision making skills a year or so after they reach international level because of technology use at that level.

    But agree with your points. Once it's reviewed, if it's gonna hit the stumps according to the technology, it should be out. I'm assuming that the current rule is because they don't trust the technology as 100% accurate.
    Shri likes this.

  4. #4
    International Coach
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not really needed on CW
    Posts
    14,584
    How do they assess their decision making skills before and after they reach international standard?


  5. #5
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    6,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
    How do they assess their decision making skills before and after they reach international standard?
    I can't remember where I read it, but i think the point was that once umpires reach international level they have 12-18 mths where their decisions are great (as they've honed them coming up thru the levels) but they decline after that initial time due to reliance on technology and less reliance on decision skills.

    Wish I could remember where I read it. Thought it was in CW somewhere.

  6. #6
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    58,319
    It is not a flaw - it is a part of the system.

    The predictive element isn't 100% so they have to build some leeway in there. That leeway means that if it falls within those margins, the umpire has not been proven to be incorrect (which is the whole idea of the review) and as such the review is wrong and the lost.

    It's not rocket science.
    BeeGee, morgieb, zorax and 3 others like this.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  7. #7
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    8,872
    Yeah I had some sympathy for teams initially, but they should have learned by now that marginal decisions aren't being overturned -- the review is only for absolutely atrocious decisions. Umpire's Call is the most overstated thing in cricket IMO; just don't gamble away your review, ****s. If you don't get hit with a howler of a decision, don't feel like you have to spend the review.
    BeeGee and zorax like this.
    My sworn enemy:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I hate s smith.
    Quotes of the Year:
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    All hail KW, GOAT.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Honestly if Dan isn't the greatest living creature on Earth, he is only second behind Luggage.
    *These quotes may read differently out of context

  8. #8
    Cricketer Of The Year weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    7,621
    When you have moved to the review, forget the umpire's decision. The game of cricket is not being played for the umpires; their initial decision shouldn't matter at all when a decision has been taken to use technology. Given the review system isn't 100% accurate, when there is a doubt give the benefit to the batsman because batsman doesn't get a 2nd chance but a bowler/fielder does (that's the main reason behind the entire benefit of the doubt to the batsman thing at the first place).

    Another way to look at it is when umpire has given out he is very sure about it (if he's not not sure he'd give benfit of the doubt to the batsman). Now, if technology shows that there's reasonable ground for doubt, that means umpire shouldn't have been so sure at the first place. So, umpire was wrong thinking there was no doubt. There IS in fact reasonable amount of doubt. Now, give the benefit to the batsman.

    That's how it should work IMO.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    17,528
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    I think the 'benefit of doubt to the batsman' thing should be ingrained into the referral system.

    Right now, it's just 'benefit of doubt to the umpire'.
    It does have benefit of the doubt to the batsman. The 'umpire's call' verdict is only given when the ball is hitting the stumps, which would be out according to the laws.

    Currently, if the middle of the ball is hitting the middle of off stump, it can be given not out. But if the ball is a millimetre away from the stumps, it can't be given out.
    I only watch Shakespeare for the knob jokes

  10. #10
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    21,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    Yeah I had some sympathy for teams initially, but they should have learned by now that marginal decisions aren't being overturned -- the review is only for absolutely atrocious decisions. Umpire's Call is the most overstated thing in cricket IMO; just don't gamble away your review, ****s. If you don't get hit with a howler of a decision, don't feel like you have to spend the review.
    How are you gambling with your reviews if you review a decision where you think the ball is hitting the stumps and HawkEye agrees?
    ​63*

  11. #11
    U19 12th Man Shady Slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    277
    -change it to getting the review back on an Ump's Call
    -maybe change the percent for an Ump's Call to 25%/75% or 40%/60% (so if it is hitting more than 25-40 percent it is out, this is an easy to judge thing as hawkeye can just draw an imaginary line on the ball)
    -get rid of plodders like kettleborough
    -make erasmus the umpire for all tests

  12. #12
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    8,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    How are you gambling with your reviews if you review a decision where you think the ball is hitting the stumps and HawkEye agrees?
    It's not like it's some massive secret that Umpire's Call exists.

    I mean, how many times have we been in match threads and successfully predicted "oooh that looks close, I reckon it's Umpire's Call".

    If ****s like Stuart Broad didn't act as if every umpire was out to screw them and reviewed every single marginal shout ever, and instead accepted that umpires get the decisions right the extreme majority of the time and hence used the review as it was intended -- a safeguard for an epic **** up -- then we wouldn't have this issue in the first place.

    The speculative use of reviews on marginal decisions is something I have zero sympathy for these days. If you're trying to use it to gain an advantage, rather than to correct an actual error, then you deserve to be burned by Umpire's Call semi-regularly.
    zorax likes this.

  13. #13
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    22,775
    Should the umpire's call be that relevant once it is referred though? Isn't hawk eye pretty reliable.. Once it is referred, it has to be uniform. Make it not out for 25% clipping if that's has to be it.

  14. #14
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    22,775
    I am reminded of not outs here right now. Before the third umpire came into play for not outs, it was always umpire's call. So they gave it not out most of the time. However, it was clear afterwards it's out for close decisions which were given not out before. The umpire's call became a non factor eventually for run outs. I understand hawk eye can't predict 100% accurately but one has to go by some thing.. I would be pretty aggrieved if I was the bowler, it was clearly clipping the wickets in my mind, shows it's the case by hawk eye, but gets given not out as the umpire had initially given not out, say.

  15. #15
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    58,319
    The whole point of the current umpires call scenario is that that is how accurate hawkeye is. Can't change it to 25% or something just because you feel like it.

    As I said earlier, the review system is there to stop howlers, which can be clearly proven to be wrong. If hawkeye shows umpires call then clearly the umpires decision is not proven to be wrong so the review has failed, end of story.
    zorax likes this.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Referral Discussion
    By Shri in forum World Cup 2011
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 12:19 PM
  2. Referral System
    By JimmyGS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 14-12-2008, 07:09 PM
  3. The flaw in batting averages
    By pasag in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 16-06-2008, 03:37 PM
  4. Need help correcting a technical flaw
    By Barney Rubble in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 25-05-2005, 09:21 AM

Posting Permissions

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