• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Surprised there isn't already one of these, but considering the match thread has been taken up by this all day, or much of it, thought I'd start one.

Personally no problem with the on-field ump getting a lot of the decision-making, it's the way it's been done for centuries, so I've not a problem with "umpires call" as it is.

I wouldn't have given Ashton, BOTD, but I think Trott's should have remained with the umpire, he clearly thought he'd hit it.
 

Pothas

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah noticed that soon as I made that post, probably should have bothered reading it properly.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Agar was out.

Starc's twice been robbed of lbws because the 'umpires call' parameters for leg stump are a joke.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah noticed that soon as I made that post, probably should have bothered reading it properly.
Don't worry, I can't be bothered to take much notice of my own posts, I certainly don't expect others to.....
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd have given Agar out and Trott not-out. But I agree with Furball about the leg-stump parameters, and England have got the better of the on-field calls. And if they hadn't bowled so badly to Agar for an hour and a half afterwards they'd have no need to complain.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
After reading this forum I expected the Trott decision to be marginal. You're ****ting me people. He's ****ing smashed it.

I know I'm the most biased **** going but you cannot overturn that!!
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I'm not a fan of DRS, but if you can't overturn a decision when there's no evidence on any of the tech that he edged it and it's hitting middle, why bother having referrals at all? If the tech isn't reliable, don't have DRS. If it is, trust it and make decisions based on it, which is what the third umpire did in this case. Whether you think Trott hit it or not you can't blame the third umpire for overturning it when everything he is able to use clearly suggested there was no edge.

Personally I think he might have gotten a really faint edge but I think a lot of people are being fooled by a super close up angle of the ball that makes it look like a thick edge. If there was a thick edge it obviously wouldn't have come up completely clean on both hotspot and snicko, unless both those pieces of technology are totally worthless.

Anyway, just highlights the major flaws in the DRS system really. It's meant to overturn poor decisions but clearly doesn't resolve the controversy. Should just rely on the on field umpire and get on with it.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I basically agree with you on principle but when the onfield umpire has given it n/o then I don't think they have any business overturning that.

And Trott knows he hit it, too. Shouldn't affect the decision, but.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Still think it does change shockers, so it's worthwhile, anyone that thought it would take all controversy out of the game were clearly silly.

Think they should have Third umpires that are specialist though, that know the system inside out, and keep on making those decisions. Get used to it, make for more consistency.

It's just silly having the normal umps, it's a totally different working environment, and some are going to be better with technology than others.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I guess what I'm saying is, if Dar gave it not out because he thought there was an edge and everyone agreed that it was hitting the stumps, and Erasmus checked everything and saw no evidence of an edge, by what logic should the decision remain not out? Basically it's either: the umpire gave it not out because he thought there was an edge and it should remain that way, in which case there is no point in having a referral system, or it's: the technology is too unreliable for us to trust it so we should stay with the umpire's decision unless it's absolutely 100% conclusive, which again seems to defeat the purpose of DRS existing.

The erring on the side of the on-field umpire thing is about LBW decisions since it's acknowledged that you can't trust hawkeye 100% since it's predictive, and LBWs are inherently subjective anyway since it's about guessing. I don't think something like an inside edge works like that with DRS. If you can't see an edge on any of the tech, then there is no edge. If you can't see one but you still assume there's an edge because the umpire thought there was, why use the tech? It doesn't give the referring side the authority to overrule the umpire based on technology, so they've effectively wasted a review for no reason even though the tech says it was out. I just don't think it makes sense.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I guess what I'm saying is, if Dar gave it not out because he thought there was an edge and everyone agreed that it was hitting the stumps, and Erasmus checked everything and saw no evidence of an edge, by what logic should the decision remain not out? Basically it's either: the umpire gave it not out because he thought there was an edge and it should remain that way, in which case there is no point in having a referral system, or it's: the technology is too unreliable for us to trust it so we should stay with the umpire's decision unless it's absolutely 100% conclusive, which again seems to defeat the purpose of DRS existing.

The erring on the side of the on-field umpire thing is about LBW decisions since it's acknowledged that you can't trust hawkeye 100% since it's predictive, and LBWs are inherently subjective anyway since it's about guessing. I don't think something like an inside edge works like that with DRS. If you can't see an edge on any of the tech, then there is no edge. If you can't see one but you still assume there's an edge because the umpire thought there was, why use the tech? It doesn't give the referring side the authority to overrule the umpire based on technology, so they've effectively wasted a review for no reason even though the tech says it was out. I just don't think it makes sense.
Well in this case they didn't have the full tech.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Well in this case they didn't have the full tech.
Well okay, but side-on hotspot wouldn't have showed anything anyway. Trott turned his bat after the ball hit him and the edge the ball hit/would have hit was clearly visible on the front hotspot. I dunno, I suppose you could make the argument that he didn't have full tech but I think the number of angles used is up to the discretion of the umpire anyway. Whose to say that the front on hotspot clearly showing no edge wouldn't have been enough for him to determine no edge?

The irony in all this is that apparently the Root dismissal also didn't show up as an edge on hotspot and he didn't refer it and effectively walked with referrals remaining. Most likely if he had referred it he would have been given not out, but he obviously did hit it because he walked off without referring it. The whole system is just a mess.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Agar and Trott both out for me.

Damien Martyn on Ch 5 just now seemed to say the super slo mo shows Trott edged it, but couldn't see it on the footage they've shown.

Agar's was staggering tho; saw it live in the boozer at lunch and it became increasingly clear the more it was shown that the 3rd ump was gonna jib it.

149 runs later...
 

Pothas

Hall of Fame Member
I think it works fairly well with hawk-eye, even if they are consertive with the what counts as an umpires call. There is definetly an issue with hotspot though.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The stumping was a shocker too, just seen it again and it gets worse with each view. It's like the opposite of when Bell was given out in the CT final
 

greg

State Captain
The problem isn't the mechanics of DRS* or the technology - it is that some umpires obviously aren't properly trained in understanding the technology limitations and/or don't understand that their role is to complement, not to replace the on-field umpire.

How long did Erasmus actually spend looking for the inside edge? Did he actually understand why it was that Dar didn't give him out?

*I do however think there should be scope to tweak the regulations such that referrals aren't always lost in the case of unclear (if the technology is insufficient) or close (eg. umpires call) decisions.
 
Last edited:

flibbertyjibber

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Agar and Trott both out for me.

Damien Martyn on Ch 5 just now seemed to say the super slo mo shows Trott edged it, but couldn't see it on the footage they've shown.

Agar's was staggering tho; saw it live in the boozer at lunch and it became increasingly clear the more it was shown that the 3rd ump was gonna jib it.

149 runs later...
Totally agree with you.

The fact that after 2 days we are 15-2 after getting the wrong end of a shocker that cost 149 runs gives us hope going forward. When the rub of the green levels up we should win this match. I think 250 will be tough for Australia to chase down on day 4 which most of it would be.
 

Top