Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[GIMH]

Have to say that's why I was initially against teams having the right of review; that it would be deployed unfairly based on the perceived strength of the batsman rather than the merits of the appeal/dismissal.

Still of the opinion that if the umpires could look upstairs when they weren't sure we'd end up with more correct calls than under UDRS too.

I suppose one argument against is that umpires are sometimes sure about decisions they've got wrong

 

[Pothas]

Broad would have still reviewed it if he had been given out. (someone must have said that already)

 

[GIMH]

Broad would have still reviewed it if he had been given out. (someone must have said that already)

Given that there was no mark on hotspot, is it safe to assume that the ball's deviation was just an optical illusion?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Not a fan of Borad but he wasn't at fault here. Dar is the one to blame.

 

[Adders]

Wow, didn't look in here last night but was expecting this thread to have a dozen new pages of rant after the Broad howler.......I would have been mighty pissed off with that if I was an Aussie.

This to me is another failing of the DRS as it is now. Australia did waste at least one of their reviews, that KP LB one was possibly one of the worst reviews you'll ever see...........I'm sure we all called that as going down leg live so no idea what Clarke and Haddin were thinking calling that. But even though they wasted a review it is very disappointing to later on have such a terrible howler go unchallenged. Take the reviews off the players and give control of the tech to the umpires.

Oh, and Broad did the right thing.......got no time at all for walkers, they deserves a slap from the team when they get back to the rooms.

 

[MW1304]

So Bairstow.

 

[morgieb]

Live I was surprised he didn't review it at least. Did seem out but from what I could tell it seemed more marginal than Broad's one.

 

[Burgey]

So Bairstow.

To coin the old phrase, Johnny could literally be slapped around like a red headed step child.

 

[morgieb]

On the Broad dismissal, we probably should take the blame for referring Bairstow's initial dismissal (I could understand Starc though), but that was a seriously poor call. Much worse than Trott or Agar.

To quote a sponsor of the series - he "should've gone to SpecSavers".

 

[Adders]

I was having a nanny nap when Bairstow went out and still haven't seen his wicket, but I did hear the commentators say later that he'd walked. What was the story.....was the umpire not giving him out??

If so he should have gone back to the rooms and slapped himself.....last person in the world that can afford to be so ****ing "Oh look at me aren't I better than the rest of you"........you won't get picked for being a good sport Johnny!!

 

[morgieb]

I was having a nanny nap when Bairstow went out and still haven't seen his wicket, but I did hear the commentators say later that he'd walked. What was the story.....was the umpire not giving him out??

If so he should have gone back to the rooms and slapped himself.....last person in the world that can afford to be so ****ing "Oh look at me aren't I better than the rest of you"........you won't get picked for being a good sport Johnny!!

I'm pretty sure the umpire did give him out.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Interesting comments from Siddle:

"You can't do anything about that," Siddle said of the burned referrals. "You use them because you think you're going to get a result early on and you don't. You can't just hold them and put them in the back pocket and say 'I'm going to get one in the afternoon' and save it for that. You use them when you think there's a chance of getting a wicket and that's what they're there for."

Well, technically speaking that's not what they're there for. The reviews are for the howlers - like the Broad dismissal. Australia shouldn't have used a review on that Lbw appeal which was blatantly heading down leg. If they hadn't wasted that appeal, then Broad would be firmly back in the pavilion.

 

[morgieb]

Wow, didn't look in here last night but was expecting this thread to have a dozen new pages of rant after the Broad howler.......I would have been mighty pissed off with that if I was an Aussie.

This to me is another failing of the DRS as it is now. Australia did waste at least one of their reviews, that KP LB one was possibly one of the worst reviews you'll ever see...........I'm sure we all called that as going down leg live so no idea what Clarke and Haddin were thinking calling that. But even though they wasted a review it is very disappointing to later on have such a terrible howler go unchallenged. Take the reviews off the players and give control of the tech to the umpires.

Oh, and Broad did the right thing.......got no time at all for walkers, they deserves a slap from the team when they get back to the rooms.

Can't speak for everyone, but I imagine it probably would've if Trott was given not out. As both probably would've stayed out if they were given out. As it is the Bairstow LBW was a poor referral.

 

[outbreak]

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

 

[uvelocity]

the bell overturn hawkeye just looks wrong to me surely that one was hitting the stumparoos

 

[Burgey]

It's very odd that one. Just looks stone dead. He must have got a big stride in for the ball to be sliding down.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah that one was weird. Can't really argue with HawkEye but looked dead live, particularly given he was given out.

 

[Burgey]

Interesting comments from Siddle:



Well, technically speaking that's not what they're there for. The reviews are for the howlers - like the Broad dismissal. Australia shouldn't have used a review on that Lbw appeal which was blatantly heading down leg. If they hadn't wasted that appeal, then Broad would be firmly back in the pavilion.

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.

 

[morgieb]

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)

 

[morgieb]

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.

True to a point, but there was only one review left. If it were umpire's call I'd agree with your point, but it was missing. Was not a good decision to review at all.

The point with 'saving them up' was that UDRS was to iron out howlers. But with the way referrals work, people are too dumb to iron them out.