*Official* Third Test at Old Trafford

[andyc]

Im a big fan of DRS and the limited review system and there is no doubt my opinion is influenced by events today but Im not convinced you should lose a review on 'umpires call.'

Yes, there is that possibility.

I guy on cricinfo has suggested that where you lose a decision to 'umpires call' that you shouldn't lose a review, even if you don't get that particular decision. Not the worst idea.

Meh. I think that sometimes too but when you consider that the system was brought in to get rid of the shockers, rather than to be used to review every marginal decision, I can see their point in not doing that. But that doesn't exactly stand up when you've not hit it, review and are still given out.

 

[Expressway76]

Maybe have it so as if the ball is hitting the wickets it's out. Like, say, what the lbw law actually is

Going to need infinite reviews for that and extended games as we'll be forever looking at hawkeye replays to see if the ball is hitting the stumps by a bee's dick.

 

[Maximas]

They ultimately have to make a decision as to whether they trust Hawekeye or not, if they do, when the ball is hitting - it's out. If they don;t trust it, stop teams losing reviews over bull****.

 

[91Jmay]

If it's imilar to the Hughes in the last Test (given out, reviewed, Ump's Call) then I imagine I will.

Way more of the ball hitting the stumps than that one. Credit to the Aussies they have batted very well, shocker from Hill though.

 

[Prince EWS]

If it's imilar to the Hughes in the last Test (given out, reviewed, Ump's Call) then I imagine I will.

Was given not out, reviewed, ump's call - absolutely smashing leg stump out of the ground. It pitched about a foot outside off; no way was it even going to miss leg.

 

[Uppercut]

If it's imilar to the Hughes in the last Test (given out, reviewed, Ump's Call) then I imagine I will.

I'm not sure how this one was umpire's call. I thought it was more than half the ball hitting the stumps but it really looked to me like a good 2/3 of the ball was hitting.

 

[Spark]

They need to tell us the margins of error on it so we can actually work out if the umps call zone is reasonable

 

[Cabinet96]

I'm not sure how this one was umpire's call. I thought it was more than half the ball hitting the stumps but it really looked to me like a good 2/3 of the ball was hitting.

More than half the ball has to be hitting the inside of leg stump. They changed the rule last year. That black line through the middle of it is the key.

 

[91Jmay]

Steve Smith has looked terrible so far, but he is bound to go on and score now. He can't be given many more reprieves.

 

[Prince EWS]

They need to tell us the margins of error on it so we can actually work out if the umps call zone is reasonable

The ump's call zone on leg stump has very little to do with the HawkEye margin of error and everything to do with preserving the status quo of technically-wrong-but-enshrined-in-precedent decisions.

 

[Goughy]

Meh. I think that sometimes too but when you consider that the system was brought in to get rid of the shockers, rather than to be used to review every marginal decision, I can see their point in not doing that. But that doesn't exactly stand up when you've not hit it, review and are still given out.

You are right, it doesnt. But they are two separate issues as the issue of umpires call is for LBWs. The umpires call is effectively an inconclusive verdict and the original decision by the on field umpire stands with the technology not making a decision either way. In those cases, as the technology wasnt decisive then it doesnt make sense to deduct a review.

 

[Ruckus]

I don't really get the criticism of the umpires call decisions going off the visuals...I mean there is obv some 'in-built' room for error that the technology has, and if it says it's the umpires call then so be it. Just because it looks close, doesn't mean it actually is.

 

[Furball]

They need to tell us the margins of error on it so we can actually work out if the umps call zone is reasonable

IMO there's still an unreasonable amount of margin on leg stump because they don't want to fundamentally change the game - ie correct decisions where umpires have erroneously believed the ball to be sliding down leg side.

That certainly used to be the case, I don't know if it's still the case although I suspect so. I've certainly never seen an off stump HawkEye where it's been ump's call and I've thought 'that's ridiculous.'

 

[Spark]

The ump's call zone on leg stump has very little to do with the HawkEye margin of error and everything to do with preserving the status quo of technically-wrong-but-enshrined-in-precedent decisions.

Which is my point. The only reason we need it now is because of uncertainty on Hawkeye so base it on that.

 

[Furball]

The ump's call zone on leg stump has very little to do with the HawkEye margin of error and everything to do with preserving the status quo of technically-wrong-but-enshrined-in-precedent decisions.

As I suspected.

 

[Goughy]

I don't really get the criticism of the umpires call decisions going off the visuals...I mean there is obv some 'in-built' room for error that the technology has, and if it says it's the umpires call then so be it. Just because it looks close, doesn't mean it actually is.

Agreed, I have no issue with umpires call. They are marginal decisions and I can handle them going either way. Just losing a review when the ball is hitting the stumps seems a bit rich.

 

[Maximas]

meanwhile, it's a very interesting contest right now, both batsmen and bowlers looking good, a wicket here could really open the door

 

[Uppercut]

You are right, it doesnt. But they are two separate issues as the issue of umpires call is for LBWs. The umpires call is effectively an inconclusive verdict and the original decision by the on field umpire stands with the technology not making a decision either way. In those cases, as the technology wasnt decisive then it doesnt make sense to deduct a review.

I think losing a review is sort of a punishment for holding up the game for the sake of a decision that was perfectly reasonable. That's the thinking anyway. I do mostly agree with you.

 

[Spark]

Haha now there's a shot

 

[Cabinet96]

That certainly used to be the case, I don't know if it's still the case although I suspect so. I've certainly never seen an off stump HawkEye where it's been ump's call and I've thought 'that's ridiculous.'

The off stump is slightly different because it's usually a case of whether it hits in line rather than whether it will clip off stump.

They don't actually have different rules for the different stumps do they?