• 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.

This review system could be death to bowlers.

Xuhaib

International Coach
The review will only consider wkt to wkt video for LBW. The ball must be in line with the wicket. If it's not, no need to look at the projected path.In both review cases yesterday ball would have hit the stumps (Asif's inswinging balls) but the decision was turned over because last frame when ball hit the pad was not infront of the wkt.Batsman all over the world will have a look at this and make a concentrated effort that as long as they are outside the line of the wicket they will be safe.

Mccullum LBW yesterday which was reversed would be given 7/10 times by the onfield umpite imo..Also 25 frames per second means tha the 3rd umpire had to freeze the frame before the ball hit Mccullum pad this is another drawback I feel.

Still sitting on the fence with it, the game is so much batting dominated if this keeps happening continously it could be another nail in the coffin for the bowlers.:(
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Can see Vettori getting a lot more wickets with it actually.

And that first LBW reviewed yesterday was only JUST clipping the top of the stumps so was a pretty good decision IMO. The McCullum one was marginal.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
I think the law says while attemtpting a shot if the pad is outside line of stumps then it invalidates the lbw appeal. So I think it was a fair decision in the end. I like this system It is better to avoid repeats of Sydeny 2008.
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
Can see Vettori getting a lot more wickets with it actually.

And that first LBW reviewed yesterday was only JUST clipping the top of the stumps so was a pretty good decision IMO. The McCullum one was marginal.
First one was a good one but if the second one would have given not many eyebrows would have been raised since rules only allow third umpire to overturn decision if a clear mistake was made .I think this review could be really damaging for a seamer who brings it in as batsmans are now aware that as long as they are outside the line no damage can happen.

In todays world of batting roads anything that is against the interests of seam bowlers I am hugely against it.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You're forgetting that it helps bowlers as well though. It's just as likely for an umpire to think that a batsman edged it for an lbw appeal when he didn't, or that a batsman didn't nick it behind when he did, both of which the referral system could help. I imagine it'll probably even out in the long run between batsmen and bowlers.
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
You're forgetting that it helps bowlers as well though. It's just as likely for an umpire to think that a batsman edged it for an lbw appeal when he didn't, or that a batsman didn't nick it behind when he did, both of which the referral system could help. I imagine it'll probably even out in the long run between batsmen and bowlers.
Hopefully it happens infact as Athlai pointed it could really help a spinner especially on a turning track, however my gripe is that an in inswinger/offcutter bowler could really loose his effectivness due to this as batsman are now aware as long as they keep their pad outside the line they are safe.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Hopefully it happens infact as Athlai pointed it could really help a spinner especially on a turning track, however my gripe is that an in inswinger/offcutter bowler could really loose his effectivness due to this as batsman are now aware as long as they keep their pad outside the line they are safe.
That's always been the case with the lbw law though.
 
The review will only consider wkt to wkt video for LBW. The ball must be in line with the wicket. If it's not, no need to look at the projected path.In both review cases yesterday ball would have hit the stumps (Asif's inswinging balls) but the decision was turned over because last frame when ball hit the pad was not infront of the wkt.Batsman all over the world will have a look at this and make a concentrated effort that as long as they are outside the line of the wicket they will be safe.

Mccullum LBW yesterday which was reversed would be given 7/10 times by the onfield umpite imo..Also 25 frames per second means tha the 3rd umpire had to freeze the frame before the ball hit Mccullum pad this is another drawback I feel.

Still sitting on the fence with it, the game is so much batting dominated if this keeps happening continously it could be another nail in the coffin for the bowlers.:(
But bowlers can also use the review system to their advantage. There are so many occasions when the batsman doesn't walk after knicking one to the keeper.
 

jboss

Banned
The review system should not be used because it is not implemented correctly. The run out referral leaves no doubt as to what is out and what is not but the review system relies on a team may only have 2 incorrect reviews per innings. What is the ICC problem with just saying to the thirs umpire that a highly inaccurate decision MUST be over ruled.

Some things I have notices creep in to the game over the years that I do not like:
1)Batsmen do not walk. Fair enough they have careers at stake, but so do the bowlers.
2)More recently (Sachin went out this way in his 175 vs Aus) I see teams break the stumps before the ball is actually in th ehands of the fielder/wickie i regard this as cheating to gain advantage in time. The rules are clear that the stumps must be broken with ball IN HAND and breaking the stumps in the movement that leads to catching the ball is highly suspicious.
The ICC are getting it all wrong and yet again will bring something into the game thet destroys it. Either use technology 100% or leave it.
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
But bowlers can also use the review system to their advantage. There are so many occasions when the batsman doesn't walk after knicking one to the keeper.
Yeah that is an advantage.

One aspect that I enjoy of LBW's for some reason is that the marginal ones can go either way now all marginal decisions will go in batsman favour so that makes me a touch dissapointed.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
In both review cases yesterday ball would have hit the stumps (Asif's inswinging balls) but the decision was turned over because last frame when ball hit the pad was not infront of the wkt.Batsman all over the world will have a look at this and make a concentrated effort that as long as they are outside the line of the wicket they will be safe.(
I have not seen the incidents. Were the batsmen playing a shot at the ball?
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I have not seen the incidents. Were the batsmen playing a shot at the ball?
The McCullum one, he was hit just outside the line and was playing a shot. Was given out by Taufel but overturned on appeal. Was an example of the referral system working perfectly, as far as I can see. Unless I'm thinking of a different incident from Xuhaib.

I haven't seen the second one.
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
The McCullum one, he was hit just outside the line and was playing a shot. Was given out by Taufel but overturned on appeal. Was an example of the referral system working perfectly, as far as I can see. Unless I'm thinking of a different incident from Xuhaib.

I haven't seen the second one.
Yeah, if that is the case then the rules are clear. It cannot be out. As you say, seems the decision was correct in the end.

If I recall correctly, that is the 3rd thing an umpire establishes before even considering if the ball would have hit the stumps. In order i) Was it a legit ball? (ie not a no-ball), ii) Did the ball pitch outside leg stump? iii) did the ball make contact with the batsman outside the line of offstump and the batsman was playing a shot? Only after these 3 conditions are met then the umpire should think about if it was hitting the stumps.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I'm pretty indifferent to the review system, with only two incorrect referrals allowed per innings I don't think it'll be evenly applied, but I also think any change that means more use of technology is good for the game in the longer term.

I just hope that it means more correct decisions are reached. I suppose this will depend on the wording of the rule/law, but on our Windies tour we saw some erroneous decisions upheld because the replay couldn't prove definitively the standing umpire had made a mistake. I don't think technology current is ever going to be able to say right or wrong with 100% accuracy, but if it looks very much like an umpire is wrong I think the decision should be overturned.

I hope as well the 3rd umpire will look at the whole passage of play too. If a decision is referred to see if (say) the ball has pitched outside leg, hasn't on review but was a no-ball the standing official missed it stands to reason this information should be given to the ump even if it's outside the grounds of the original referral.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think there's a grey area where, for example, someone is repeatedly kicking an off-spinner away outside off when trying to save a game. The umpire might say, well, I can't say beyond all reasonable doubt that that ball was hitting the stumps, but one of the 30 you've kicked away most certainly was and I'm not going to extend the BOD that far, so you're out. On referral, that decision would be overturned.

Some might call that a flaw in the system, others might say no umpire should ever have had that power in the first place.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
I think there's a grey area where, for example, someone is repeatedly kicking an off-spinner away outside off when trying to save a game. The umpire might say, well, I can't say beyond all reasonable doubt that that ball was hitting the stumps, but one of the 30 you've kicked away most certainly was and I'm not going to extend the BOD that far, so you're out. On referral, that decision would be overturned.

Some might call that a flaw in the system, others might say no umpire should ever have had that power in the first place.
Precisely what Darrell Hair did when he fired out Jimmy Adams and Curtley Ambrose when the West Indies had spent all day kicking away the England spinners. They were both four foot wide of off stump and he no right to give them as he was guessing.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Indeed- quite typical of Darrell Hair that.

On one hand I think it's a bit prickish of him but on the other hand it's probably good for the game in the long-run if batsmen know they can't get away with playing exclusively with their pads. I'm quite content to sit on the fence here. But even if I were steadfastly defensive of the umpire's authority to make that call, I'd still be very much in favour of referrals.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I think there's a grey area where, for example, someone is repeatedly kicking an off-spinner away outside off when trying to save a game. The umpire might say, well, I can't say beyond all reasonable doubt that that ball was hitting the stumps, but one of the 30 you've kicked away most certainly was and I'm not going to extend the BOD that far, so you're out.
Should never ever happen. The rules are quite clear. 30 maybes does not equal one out.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
One thing that I reckon it will do is allow commentators to deflect the blame away from umpires for making an initial bad decision, onto players for not referring the decision.
 

Top