Referral Discussion

[Bun]

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.

It was shown on the big screen... Silly Billy, if he had half a brain, would've known whatever be the "approximations", it was going to hit the stumps.

 

[ankitj]

Match fixing ****s!

And Warne is involved in this.

 

[Bun]

The funniest thing is that Bell started walking... FFS Billy you egoist ****... The only person in the whole ****ing universe who thought that was missing the stumps was him...

Anyway much water, bridge etc. But I am pretty sure ICC can shelve any hopes of implementing UDRS in test cricket

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, because it's better to have 4-5 howlers per match than to have one wrong decision in a whole ODI tournament.

 

[Howe_zat]

For ****'s sake. The UDRS does not have "Ian Bell cannot be given out lbw" written into its rules.

It was a pants decision by Bowden. Blame him if you want to moan. He's been awful for some time.

The UDRS still allows **** desicions because - perfectly fairly - it is a way of allowing the technology to be used by the umpires. Who then make decisions. Said decisions will be the same as they were before, only more informed.

**** decisions are of course still possible with UDRS. It simply makes them rarer. And this kind of distracting topic can be avoided more often.

 

[pup11]

I think Paine's decision has been a catalyst in ICC coming up with 2.5 meter stipulation and in a way its a self-admission that they don't have too much confidence in the hawk-eye.

Lets be honest here ''most'' balls that strike a batsman on the pads are shown by the hawk-eye as either hitting or clipping the stumps and therefore I have never been much of a fan of hawk-eye being used for decision making.

Having said that Bell was definitely out but can one really blame Bowden...!? He obviously was following the rulebook and the fact that Bell was hit more than 2.5 meters from the stumps kind of vindicated his decision, so basically its the ICC that needs to come clear here on this issue.

One thing should be clear that UDRS isn't going to please everyone, if used smartly it can protect you from a howler every now and then but to think UDRS is completly going to take out poor decisions from the game is just wishful thinking.

 

[shivfan]

Anyone who opposes UDRS should be tied to a chair and forced to watch Canada's innings against Pakistan in today's match....

 

[salman85]

Agreed.

That one decision where the Canadian Batsmen asked the Pavillion before reffering the decision was wrong though.Afridi had every right to complain.The fact that this was a somewhat meaningless match would mean that it won't raise a lot of eyebrows,but if the field umpires let this happen in a high profile fixture then all hell would break lose.

P.S.Harper's confidence probably took a beating last night.He got almost every refferal wrong.

 

[Borges]

One thing should be clear that UDRS isn't going to please everyone, if used smartly it can protect you from a howler every now and then but to think UDRS is completly going to take out poor decisions from the game is just wishful thinking.

Agreed. On the evidence so far, UDRS is not going to significantly reduce, let alone eliminate umpiring controversies - it will just give rise to new ones. Ironically, those fans who earlier had complained about every marginal umpiring decision, who have since become champions of the UDRS, will also continue to be the ones who complain about every marginal UDRS assisted decision.

There are technical problems with Hawk-Eye and the like; one would expect that these could be by and large solved over a period of time. Technical problems tend to have technical solutions, if there is an admission that problems exist, a desire to solve it, and resources are made available to work on a solution. But the even best technology will be not be better than the people who use it.

There is no substitute for putting in efforts to identify high quality international umpires, monitor their performance regularly and consistently , and ruthlessly put those who are past it to pasture (as the FIFA tries to do for football referees). If the idea of the ICC is to ignore that reality and blindly hope that UDRS is going to absolve them of that responsibility, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Agreed. On the evidence so far, UDRS is not going to significantly reduce, let alone eliminate umpiring controversies - it will just give rise to new ones

With UDRS
22 decisions reversed in 19 games.
1 "controversial" decision in 19 games.

If there was no UDRS
23 "controversial" decisions in 19 games

I'd say that's a significant reduction.

 

[GIMH]

So much ownage.

 

[Borges]

With UDRS
22 decisions reversed in 19 games.
1 "controversial" decision in 19 games.

If there was no UDRS
23 "controversial" decisions in 19 games

I'd say that's a significant reduction.

I'd say that that is a considerable exaggeration, it reports like these are to be believed.
Canada v Pakistan: Canada 'boggled' by DRS decisions | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Howe_zat]

What's wrong with the UDRS there? The Canadaian captain doesn't quite get it? Tough.

There is room for debate over whether or not they should be allowed signals from the dressing room. Personally, I don't think players should be involved in its use at all, but that's another debate.

Also, Afridi chimes in. Are cricinfo misquoting him, or can he not count?

"I think it is good because one decision can change the match, a not out or an out,"

"it should be there and I think the number of referrals allowed should be raised to four from two, because two are not proving enough."

 

[Jono]

He didn't say why he was boggled. Just said he was.

The first decision I think the batsman believed he hit it, but with no hot spot you can't prove it. The Surkari decision was the tight one where the ball hit the pad just before it hit the bat. I don't see how he could complain. It wasn't a shocker by the umpire since it would have been so difficult to tell whether it hit bat or pad first, but technology showed it hit the pad first. So you're out.

 

[vcs]

He didn't say why he was boggled. Just said he was.

The first decision I think the batsman believed he hit it, but with no hot spot you can't prove it. The Surkari decision was the tight one where the ball hit the pad just before it hit the bat. I don't see how he could complain. It wasn't a shocker by the umpire since it would have been so difficult to tell whether it hit bat or pad first, but technology showed it hit the pad first. So you're out.

Did it? I couldn't see anything conclusive on TV. I did think it was pad first, because he was clearly surprised by the quicker delivery and brought the bat down in a hurry, but the ball only trickled down the pitch. But I couldn't see any clear evidence of it on TV. And obviously no Snicko or Hotspot was shown.

 

[Jono]

I thought it did. You'd think it would have had to for Harper to overrule his decision.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Lets be honest here ''most'' balls that strike a batsman on the pads are shown by the hawk-eye as either hitting or clipping the stumps and therefore I have never been much of a fan of hawk-eye being used for decision making.

Maybe it's something to do with how batsmen tend to stand in front of the stumps?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Agreed. On the evidence so far, UDRS is not going to significantly reduce, let alone eliminate umpiring controversies - it will just give rise to new ones. Ironically, those fans who earlier had complained about every marginal umpiring decision, who have since become champions of the UDRS, will also continue to be the ones who complain about every marginal UDRS assisted decision.

There are technical problems with Hawk-Eye and the like; one would expect that these could be by and large solved over a period of time. Technical problems tend to have technical solutions, if there is an admission that problems exist, a desire to solve it, and resources are made available to work on a solution. But the even best technology will be not be better than the people who use it.

There is no substitute for putting in efforts to identify high quality international umpires, monitor their performance regularly and consistently , and ruthlessly put those who are past it to pasture (as the FIFA tries to do for football referees). If the idea of the ICC is to ignore that reality and blindly hope that UDRS is going to absolve them of that responsibility, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

Tough **** for them, they're just spoiled by how successful the UDRS is at narrowing decisions down. The tighter these controversies get, the less basis there is to complain. Those kind of fans will just find anything to moan about anyway.

Your point about FIFA-Yes, they make every effort to eliminate every referee who makes even one mistake. Guess what? Those who survive still **** up. There's a kind of plateau when it comes to refereeing in real-time with the naked eye, IMO, where the improvement of decision making ends. Humans have their limits.

 

[Jono]

Ummm... Yuvraj just got an LBW reversed which was originally given not out that was over 2.5 metres when it struck the pad.

So umm why was this given out? The ICC replied saying the 2.5 metre rule exists as a rule, and that Dhoni was wrong to complain about the Bell decision.

I'm confused.

 

[Howe_zat]

Ummm... Yuvraj just got an LBW reversed which was originally given not out that was over 2.5 metres when it struck the pad.

So umm why was this given out? The ICC replied saying the 2.5 metre rule exists as a rule, and that Dhoni was wrong to complain about the Bell decision.

I'm confused.

When there's an official doubt element (such as the 2.5m rule, it was only clipping etc) the decision isn't "whatever the guy said before". What happens is that the authority to make the decision stays with the on-field umpire.

So, Bowden decided, after having seen the Hawkeye saying it's hitting the middle of middle, to use the 2.5m rule to stick with what he originally thought. The umpire in the India-Ireland game, who presumably is not as much of an idiot as Bowden, recognised that he'd made a mistake.