The Battlers Prince
International Vice-Captain
Why can't you argue about hawkeye?Yeah that one was weird. Can't really argue with HawkEye but looked dead live, particularly given he was given out.
Why can't you argue about hawkeye?Yeah that one was weird. Can't really argue with HawkEye but looked dead live, particularly given he was given out.
Because it's the only way of even having an idea of whether it was going to hit the stumps. Your own eyesight can deceive you, I can't really tell a lot of LBW decisions.Why can't you argue about hawkeye?
Dar didn't think it was out. I don't see that he had any doubt on it. Therefore, would the umpire having the ability to review really help in this situation? Or, more likely, would we see increased instances of "excessive appealing" in order to convince the umpire that he should go to the TV evidence. Just think how slow the game could become if we went upstairs every time a bowler thought a there was a feather/Lbw... Especially with the spinners. Warne, Panesar and Harbhajan would have been awful under such a system. So much for turning to your spinner to help increase the over rate!!The umpires expect teams to review hard calls now and give the batsmen the benefit too much. It's a complete joke of a system why aren't the umpires the ones calling for a review when they are unsure. Saves the time of players talking to work out what to do.
Broad did the right thing not walking but I don't see why we can't have an umpire watching appeals so the on field umpire can check with themnot just this game but in others too it's like the want to punish teams for using their reviews also an issue when teams don't review early calls to try and save them purely because they don't want to waste them early
I don't disagree with you - that is how the UDRS tends to be used - but that wasn't the original point of it. It was supposed to cut out the clangers, not overturn marginal calls one way or the other. So, the fact that teams are tending to use the system like that can create the situation where you've used your reviews up on a hunch and you end up without any to overturn the clangers.I disagree with you. Siddle is spot on, in terms of how reviews are used. You can't just think "no I'll save one for later" if you think there's one out in the here and now. It's not realistic to sit in your lounge room with an elevated, front on view and say something is clearly missing. If players think something is out (or not out) they will review it on that moment.
If Bell's lbw had been hitting, would you blame him for "wasting" a review? Should he have saved it in that situation? Probably not, most would say, as he was involved in a partnership with the last recognised batsman when he reviewed it.
Well, what's the difference if the fieldig team reviews one that's iffy? You really can't just save one up. It's not the way it works.
I suspect it was just Dar that thought Broad wasn't out.Does anyone think that there was doubt that Broad was out? (apart from Broad and Dar, obv)
LOL, I don't think anyone in their right mind would think it was a good call after seeing the replay, and I agree with you it is probably one of the worst howlers in a while, which is a shame because I think Dar had a good game up until then.......Erasmus not so much!!But seriously, the Dar one is a poor call. Ignore UDRS for a second, that's the sort of **** that should be given straight away, and the sort of **** that umpires are PAID to call, it's the worst call in a long time.
Does anyone think that there was doubt that Broad was out? (apart from Broad and Dar, obv)
It'd be nice if that'd work, but they pretty much review every run out appeal these days when they are given that opportunity, just because the option is there. I don't think there'd be any difference with Lbws/thin Edges. You'd start to see things being reviewed that really don't need to be.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.
I do mostly agree with him too but when a captain does take that attitude he definitely forfeits his right to complain when something like this happens. It goes with the territory but you'll inevitably gain some wickets that a more conservative captain would have missed out on too.I disagree with you. Siddle is spot on, in terms of how reviews are used. You can't just think "no I'll save one for later" if you think there's one out in the here and now. It's not realistic to sit in your lounge room with an elevated, front on view and say something is clearly missing. If players think something is out (or not out) they will review it on that moment.
If Bell's lbw had been hitting, would you blame him for "wasting" a review? Should he have saved it in that situation? Probably not, most would say, as he was involved in a partnership with the last recognised batsman when he reviewed it.
Well, what's the difference if the fieldig team reviews one that's iffy? You really can't just save one up. It's not the way it works.
Yeah that's probably true... it's definitely a tricky predicament to solve.It'd be nice if that'd work, but they pretty much review every run out appeal these days when they are given that opportunity, just because the option is there. I don't think there'd be any difference with Lbws/thin Edges. You'd start to see things being reviewed that really don't need to be.
Or, alternatively, Dar thought that Broad clearly wasn't out so he wouldn't have reviewed it anyway.
I actually quite like the current balance, though I would prefer it if you didn't lose a review if the outcome came down to "Umpire's Call".
Its an indicator but not perfect. Due to that I'm guessing people will be on one side or the other, as to whether it should be used or not for close decisions. I realise most people like using it, but for me, its the Howlers it should be used for. Like every other aspect of UDRS should be used for, only howlers. The fifty fifty decisions stay with the umpire. Even then though, things will be missed, nature of the beast I supposeBecause it's the only way of even having an idea of whether it was going to hit the stumps. Your own eyesight can deceive you, I can't really tell a lot of LBW decisions.
Yeah agree with that. Whenever it's a judgment call there'll be human error in it. It'll never be exact. If Bell had been given not out on that lbw and Australia had a review left I imagine they'd have used it for that. It was missing more than the "wasted" review from earlier according to Hawkeye anyway.I do mostly agree with him too but when a captain does take that attitude he definitely forfeits his right to complain when something like this happens. It goes with the territory but you'll inevitably gain some wickets that a more conservative captain would have missed out on too.
Whilst i have strong sympathy with the view that in an ideal world there could be a mechanism for allowing reviews to be reinstated in certain circumstances, it has to be remembered in context that test teams are told over and over again that the fundamental purpose of DRS is to avert 'howlers'. That is why a central feature of DRS is to favour the onfield decision in such a way that any marginal decision should be decided by the onfield umpire with a review standing by any decision which is made in either direction.Broad's Oscar worthy "what are they appealing for?" face today being a good example of why.
Incidentally, a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Imagine that the only reviews Australia had used in this game were the two in the opening overs for the Root LBW (which was very close, umpire's call) and the Trott LBW (which was, at the least, too close to call). Then you have the Broad catch here. By the logic used here that Trott should have been not out because there wasn't "enough evidence" to overturn the umpire's decision with technology, Australia wouldn't have had the review to catch the far more blatant error on the Broad decision. The way the DRS system works is that one side has to lose, and in this case it has to be the fielding team if you choose to ignore the evidence from the technology and not overturn the umpire's call because it's not conclusive enough. Having that review declined even though nothing suggests he actually hit it actually hurts Australia.