Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 74

Thread: Referral Discussion

  1. #16
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Bun View Post
    Anyone with half a brain and eye could see
    Apparently the on-field umpire couldn't see it.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  2. #17
    State Regular Maximus0723's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Yeah, exactly. If the rules say don't overturn it if it's more than 2.5m, then you can't apply common sense.

    Argue with the rules, fine but let's not give the umpires grief for doing their job.
    This. Rule is rule.
    Greatest Test XI::: S Gavaskar, M Hayden, D Bradman*, S Tendulkar, A Border, G Sobers, A Gilchrist, I Khan, S Warne, M Marshall, G McGrath
    Reserves: B Richards, V Richards, A Knott, M Muralitharan

    Greatest ODI XI::: A Gilchrist, S Tendulkar, R Ponting*, V Richards, M Dhoni, M Bevan, S Pollock, W Akram, S Warne, J Garner, M Muralitharan, A Donald
    Reserves: A deVilliars, B Lara, R Hadlee, S Warne

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,456
    The ICC playing conditions relating to this part of the system come under Process of Consultation No. 3.3 (i). It states that if a 'not out' decision is being reviewed and the distance from impact to the stumps is greater than 2.5m then the third umpire passes this information to the on-field official along with: the distance from the wickets of the point of impact with the batsman, the approximate distance from the point of pitching to the point of impact, and whether the ball is predicted to the hit the stumps.

    The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision."


    India v England: MS Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

  4. #19
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,204
    As I've posted on this before, I don't like this rule at all. If it's hitting, it's hitting.

    Worth noting that sans the UDRS this still would've been not out though.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm


  5. #20
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Yeah, but the UDRS is apparently here to correct such decisions. Make of that what you will.

  6. #21
    International Coach KiWiNiNjA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In the kitchen
    Posts
    10,592
    If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

    Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.

  7. #22
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Shri View Post
    Yeah, but the UDRS is apparently here to correct such decisions. Make of that what you will.
    Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.

  8. #23
    International Debutant M0rphin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    New Zealand doom and gloom thread
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by KiWiNiNjA View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

    Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.


    This obviously.
    Last edited by M0rphin3; 27-02-2011 at 09:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by mudrunner View Post
    give 21yo smith a break. bradmans figures for his first few tests were comparable.....

    Proud Supporter of: Shakib Al Hasan, Kane Williamson, Adam Milne

  9. #24
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.
    No one can be sure it would have been given not out by other umpires. Others might have given it tbh. It was not a 50-50 decision, it was hitting middle halfway up. And I am not arguing against UDRS here, the 3rd umpire said the decision was up to the on field umpire and then he should have used common sense after seeing the replay on the screen and corrected his decision.

  10. #25
    International Debutant Cruxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,431
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Yeah, exactly. If the rules say don't overturn it if it's more than 2.5m, then you can't apply common sense.

    Argue with the rules, fine but let's not give the umpires grief for doing their job.
    The rule doesn't say you can't overrule. It just says the on-field umpire decides and Billy screwed it up. Also seemingly this is not the first time. It happened with Tim Paine against England. There the batsman was given out in spite of how far down the track he was.

    Middle of middle and you say doubt. Go get some brains on loan Mr Bowden.

  11. #26
    International Coach biased indian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    office
    Posts
    11,008
    Quote Originally Posted by KiWiNiNjA View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

    Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.
    seems it has happened before and common sense was applied

    7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
    3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

    TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
    Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.
    Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    RIP Craigos

  12. #27
    International Captain ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hyderabad India
    Posts
    5,923
    So there are some inconsistencies on how the discretion is being used. These need to be ironed out to make decision making more uniform. Will happen with time I guess. Throwing UDRS out of the window is not a solution obviously. It seems a little contrived though that this had to happen against the team most reluctant to adopt UDRS!

  13. #28
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,204
    Quote Originally Posted by biased indian View Post
    seems it has happened before and common sense was applied

    7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
    3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

    TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
    Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.
    Yep, and Watson vs. Zimbabwe as well was one where he was some way down the pitch. Both times it was given out, and correctly IMO - if it hits you in line, and it is clearly going to hit the stumps (as it was on both occasions) then it's out. The only reason distance down the pitch should matter is whether the word "clearly" applies.

    In short, Billy Bowden was being an idiot. But how many times have we said that before?

  14. #29
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,585
    Quote Originally Posted by biased indian View Post
    seems it has happened before and common sense was applied

    7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
    3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

    TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
    Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.
    That's lame. A stupid rule and an inconsistent one. The worst combination.

    I'm still for the UDRS, but that rule is ****ing ********. No other way of putting it.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  15. #30
    International Debutant Cruxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    That's lame. A stupid rule and an inconsistent one. The worst combination.

    I'm still for the UDRS, but that rule is ****ing ********. No other way of putting it.
    Actually speaking the rule just asked the on field umpire to use common sense for these cases. Sadly Billy lacked it.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ***Unofficial*** Fawad Alam discussion thread
    By slowfinger in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 25-11-2012, 05:53 AM
  2. Duckworth Lewis discussion thread
    By Furball in forum 2010 ICC World Twenty20 - West Indies
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 03:54 PM
  3. A good aspect amongst the bad of the referral system
    By Midwinter in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 27-12-2009, 08:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •