• 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.

Umpire's Call Won't Take Away a Review Anymore

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Dammit. No. Horrible move. Now we get more reviews on 50/50 calls, more time out of the game, more over rate complaints and literally no benefits.

I'll say the same thing I've been saying for years -- don't ****ing review ****ing 50/50 calls and expect any sympathy.
Dear god Giles did you hear that? We've been at this cricket ground a whole day and they expect us to wait 3 minutes longer? Thank the Queen Mother I don't have a soy latte to spit out otherwise my trousers would be ruined! Hark at these sportsmen!
 

The Hutt Rec

International Vice-Captain
Except occasionally when Darrell Hair got bored. I remember one Test where he fired out Jimmy Adams and Curtley Ambrose after a lot of padding away. It was pre-DRS and ridiculous decisions - yet somehow admirable as well.
Ha, that wasn't that uncommon 20 or 30 years ago. If you were hit in exactly the same spot three times in a row, I would say your chances of being given out the third time were much higher than the first time. Umpires didn't have no time for that back then!
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
It's already happened with DRS though, lot less dull padding away of the spinners, brings fielders around the bat into play, been it's major plus for me, bigger than the right decisions oddly. Was a boringly negative tactic with no entertainment involved, was never given if you got a stride..
single handedly made jadeja viable too
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Except occasionally when Darrell Hair got bored. I remember one Test where he fired out Jimmy Adams and Curtley Ambrose after a lot of padding away. It was pre-DRS and ridiculous decisions - yet somehow admirable as well.
I had a memory growing up that english umpires were more likely to give a batsman out on the front dog than our umpires were here.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I had a memory growing up that english umpires were more likely to give a batsman out on the front dog than our umpires were here.
That was true more so on the sweep. Fred Titmus was done out of a number of wickets in Australia. But the decisions Hair gave on that day were padding the ball away outside the off stump. Ambrose had a huge stride and was padding the turning ball away a long way outside off stump.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
because the idea is to minimise wrong decisions. This takes away the opportunity to do so during a long innings
It's to minimise decisions that are clearly wrong, and if the team reviewing isn't sure that the decision will be overturned then obviously the decision isn't clearly wrong and they shouldn't be reviewing it anyway.

Why do you need more than 1 review when reviews shouldn't be used unless you're sure it will be overturned.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I had a memory growing up that english umpires were more likely to give a batsman out on the front dog than our umpires were here.
Makes sense.

It's like you see a few umpires get found out on DRS in the first Test of a series in Australia where the ball is bouncing over, especially more inexperienced umpires.
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
On second thought, this is pure ez more cricket and there's a better answer

1. Teach captains that the clipping percentage rule exists
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
It's to minimise decisions that are clearly wrong, and if the team reviewing isn't sure that the decision will be overturned then obviously the decision isn't clearly wrong and they shouldn't be reviewing it anyway.

Why do you need more than 1 review when reviews shouldn't be used unless you're sure it will be overturned.
Although that's currently the case, ultimately they'll get away from the idea that one incorrect decision can be more wrong than another and just concentrate on getting decisions right.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
The 9th South African wicket today makes a farce of the "howler" theory. The umpire on the field made the only decision he could and was wrong.
 

Top