Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[The Battlers Prince]

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?

 

[TNT]

One thing I have always loved about the Ashes is it does not degenerate down to argueing about umpiring decisions. Just play the umpires decision and get on with the match.

 

[morgieb]

Why can't you argue about hawkeye?

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.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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

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!!

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 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.

Does anyone think that there was doubt that Broad was out? (apart from Broad and Dar, obv)

I suspect it was just Dar that thought Broad wasn't out.

 

[Burgey]

The down side to umpires having the reviews in their hands is you end up like the ICC series here in 05 where most every over blokes like Rudi were sending something upstairs.

 

[Ruckus]

Hmm yeah probably agree with what Siddle said too. I don't have a problem with them using reviews when they are very confident the decision was wrong, but I do have a problem with them using them when it is basically a whim. There is no way the players could have been that confident with the KP review. It was reckless.

 

[Adders]

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)

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!!

The only thing I can offer in defence of Dar there is that Haddin had his gloves very close to the bat, I think Dar must have thought the deflection came off the gloves......but very poor call all the same.

As for the DRS, I think the ICC naively thought it would be used to eradicate howlers, but all the time reviews are in the hands of the players it will always get used tactically on marginal calls, unfortunately the Aussies paid the price for that yesterday.

 

[outbreak]

Heath we already have them checking no balls and teams stopping at appeals to discuss using the system. Why can't we have another ump just tell the on field one hang on we may want to check this appeal when it happens

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

And it slows down the game enough as it is. I'd seriously want due consideration given to how they could keep up the speed of the game and not slow it down further before I would support extending reviews even further.

 

[Ruckus]

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.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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.

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".

 

[Uppercut]

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 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.

 

[Ruckus]

Really don't like this perspective from Siddle though "“Broad was entitled to stay put, he did not try to influence the umpire in any way, he just stood there and waited for a decision.

He's got away with one. Good luck to him."

Just because a game has got to the stage where walking is non-existent, doesn't mean it should be condoned as the right action. Technically, yes, Broad has every right to remain put, but that's only because umpiring is flawed. It's a cheap loophole, and I think it's pretty sad that players mentalities on the game are so focused on winning at all costs over simple sportsmanship. And that doesn't at all just apply to Broad, I think anyone who stands their ground like that should be condemned.

 

[Ruckus]

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".

Yeah that's probably true... it's definitely a tricky predicament to solve.
y

 

[The Battlers Prince]

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.

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 suppose

 

[Burgey]

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.

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.

 

[Burgey]

And anyway, everyone knows Broad is a ****. And everyone knew it before he stood his ground last night, which he's entitled to do.

 

[greg]

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.

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.

Put simply (and especially with 2 reviews) it is very rare that any howler will stand unless the reviews have been wasted on trying to gain marginal decisions in defiance of the above stated purpose. Which is why ultimately the "blame" lies with Clarke and Australia. Yes one can try to blame Dar for making the howler but everyone knows that even the best umpires will succomb to mistakes on occasion. Of course the test teams will see it as a trade off - in this case they gained arguably gained the wicket of Trott as a price for missing the wicket of Broad. Probably a fair swap.

The suggestions that Broad should have walked, especially in the world of DRS, seem to me to be somewhat over the top. Effectively people are arguing that because Australia had wasted their reviews, Broad should oblige and be his own third umpire. And i don't understand the argument that standing for a big nick is cheating, but a thin feather is not. Either not walking when you know you have hit it is "cheating" or it isn't. There isn't a grey area.

Finally, England probably had enough runs at the time anyway...

 

[biased indian]

Just read the news and had a look at the video highlights and i am happy with what broad did....but thought it was funny in the highlight section that they tell in advance for a lbw appeal which no one actually bothered about that Australia had already used up their all reviews .....still don't get why they showed and told like that.... is the highlights from ECB ?

Ashes highlights from Trent Bridge, England v Australia, 1st Investec Ashes Test Day 3 evening - YouTube

 

[greg]

The whole "umpires should have full control" argument just doesn't work in practice. A fundamental point of DRS is that the players (especially the batsmen) don't know what the technology will show (especially on eg. edges). If everything was referred (as it would be - no umpire would want to be shown up confidently trusting in his own decision only to be proven wrong - cf. runouts - they are ALL referred now) then there would be an awful lot more wrong decisions made. Whereas at the moment there are a large number of decisions not referred, especially by batsmen given out, because they know they are out. That doesn't stop commentators making stupid comments like "surprised they didn't refer, hotspot didn't show anything" (see Joe Root dismissal). I'm sure they all would refer if they knew what Hotspot was going to show, but of course they don't.