BoyBrumby
Englishman
As was the Samaraweera (non-)glove to Cook in the first innings. Originally NO, replays inconclusive, so the original call stood.
Can't see for the life of me how the 3rd ump saw enough to overturn here.
-
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.
UDRS STUFF relating to the Australia in the West Indies 2012
- Thread starter WindieWeathers
- Start date
Can't see for the life of me how the 3rd ump saw enough to overturn here.
hazsa19
International Regular
Yup. Some of the 3rd umpires seem determined to complicated issues. It's not that difficult a concept to understand.
Is it a howler? Can you see a massive gap between bat and ball?
No? Then ORIGINAL DECISION YOU ****
And that is a terrible review, fueled by the earlier disappointment no doubt.
It's not complicated!
No sound, no snicko, no way of telling that it was out after looking at 50 replays in slo-mo from every conceivable angle - NOT ****ING OUT
People seem to think that the umpires are infallible - they are not and the stats are there for everyone to see
hazsa19
International Regular
You're talking about a different Decision Review System to the rest of us
You mean the one where the batsmen is given out, disagrees so asks for a review?
The whole premise behind "umpire's call" is nonsense
Last edited:
hazsa19
International Regular
This bit. This is (according to the system) of no concern to the 3rd umpire.
Unless i'm mistaken, it is his job is to find clear evidence that the original decision was wrong. If the original decision had been not-out, and reviewed by WI, then and only then would it be the 3rd umpires job to look for evidence that it was out.
hazsa19
International Regular
Sounds to me like you're disagreeing with the system rather than the decision.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Doesn't the 3rd umpire have enhanced audio, something the TV audience don't have? Quite clear that if that is the case the layman cannot tell if the call is right or not.
Jacknife
International Captain
Add to that the whole premise behind benefit of doubt going to the batsman is nonsense. It's all about backing the on field umpires call in these cases and only changing them if there is definitive proof showing otherwise.
hazsa19
International Regular
Fair one.
Jacknife
International Captain
There was a sound today on replays when it went past the bat, that's why the call is hard to understand.
Clarke was given out and asked for the decision to be reviewed
3rd umpire looked at it for a few minutes with everything at his disposal and decided a wrong decision had been made
IMO, people are getting so caught up in 50/50 decisions that they are ignoring the obvious - a Kiwi who lives in Miami and has a holiday house in Jamaica didnt think it was out
End of story
Both actually
On one hand, the system is patently wrong as it defies logic for the desicion making capacity of the on field guys to take precedence over someone with infinitely more resources at their disposal
On the other, IF the off field guys do not have said resources at their disposal, then what is the point of asking them anyway i.e. original decision should stand
Howe_zat
Audio File
Would appear to be your problem, that.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
Not enough IN YOUR BOOK, but unless we're actually in court i don't think that matters!!Not enough.
I can't recall the Roach decision of 2009. But the Dilshan decision was spot on, according to the rules of UDRS. No conclusive evidence whatsoever, so the on-field decision (OUT) stayed. That's the way the rule currently works, so I don't really see why you put the example up in the first place. Obviously, we are not discussing if the principle is right. Just the execution.
And yes, today the execution was simply wrong. Tough luck for the Windies. But I feel comfortable that Sammy will guide his men to victory nonetheless!
, i bring up the Dilshan incident to highlight the fact that lower ranked clubs don't get the benefit of the doubt, there was NOTHING to suggest he was out but still he was given out, today with Clark there was actually a sound and still he was allowed to stay, where is the consistency? 
.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
It's not "dumb"...it's merely pointing out the FACTS, until these decisions are even then favouritism is the only word that comes to mind.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The 3rd umpire was correct in the Dilshan case. Wrong today. to decide from that that there is a conspiracy then that is ridiculous.
What about the Graeme smith incident v England that he got away with, worse than both these. Was that bias?
WindieWeathers
International Regular
Well why don't you enlighten me and give me some examples of decisions overturned like that against the top teams when they play lower ranked sides?
No point making statements if you can't disprove mine.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
I also mentioned the ROACH one aswell, which was disgusting, the bottom line is if the shoe was on the other foot we all know Australia would have got that decision.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Umpires make mistakes. 3rd umpires do too, the 3rd umpire shouldn't but it happens. Stop making yourself look a bitter fool and move on.