Referral Discussion

[Shri]

Game: Ind Vs Eng

Yuvraj Singh to Ian Bell

That was ****ed up.

Started the thread so that the match threads don't become derailed. Hope no one minds.

[Bun]

Was a collosal ****up the 3rd ump ust be fired.

[FaaipDeOiad]

It wasn't really a ****up, it's just a limitation of the system. The on-field decision stands unless there is conclusive evidence that the decision was wrong, meaning that Hawkeye essentially says the ball couldn't possibly have missed the stumps. Anything which indicates some potential doubt means the on-field decision stands.

[Shri]

It wasn't really a ****up, it's just a limitation of the system. The on-field decision stands unless there is conclusive evidence that the decision was wrong, meaning that Hawkeye essentially says the ball couldn't possibly have missed the stumps. Anything which indicates some potential doubt means the on-field decision stands.

This wasn't a marginal one. Bowden could have seen the replays on the screen and could have overturned the decision himself anyway, it was well within his power do so. He ****ed up.

[Cevno]

Apparently the instruction says that if it strikes 2.5 m ahead of the stumps then the original decision stands, unless it is a exceptional circumstance.

[Bun]

It wasn't really a ****up, it's just a limitation of the system. The on-field decision stands unless there is conclusive evidence that the decision was wrong, meaning that Hawkeye essentially says the ball couldn't possibly have missed the stumps. Anything which indicates some potential doubt means the on-field decision stands.

Anyone with half a brain and eye could see, once that was hitting him in line, would've taken out the stunps halfway up. A clear case of procedural stuffiness affectig actual output.

[Bun]

Apparently the instruction says that if it strikes 2.5 m ahead of the stumps then the original decision stands, unless it is a exceptional circumstance.

Does the rule define "exceptional" circumstance? It's open to abuse.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Anyone with half a brain and eye could see, once that was hitting him in line, would've taken out the stunps halfway up. A clear case of procedural stuffiness affectig actual output.

Yeah, but the counter-argument to that is that the UDRS is designed to protect the on-field decision of the umpire where there's any doubt, and being further from the stumps is a pretty accepted reason for "doubt" in LBW decisions. Anyone who watches cricket would have seen hundreds of close LBW shouts turned down because the batsman put in a big stride, in the days before UDRS.

It was obviously a bad decision but the review system isn't really designed to have the third umpire watch the replay and second guess the on-field decision, it's just to check for obviously wrong decisions, and easily found data like where the ball pitched etc. This particular decision highlights that limitation of the system, but the problem isn't really with the third umpire's conduct. He just followed the rule.

[BoyBrumby]

It was a shocker, in all honesty. There has to be some sort of common sense applied.

As I said in the match thread, the only doubt was whether it struck Bell's pad in line; once Hawkeye showed it had it should've been overturned.

250 up. Well batted, chaps.

[Jono]

Faaip, there was no doubt. The ball was hitting.

There is doubt when you don't know whether the ball will hit because a player is far down. But there is no doubt when technology tells you the ball will hit half-way up middle, whether the player is just out of his crease or in front of the bowler's face.

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not saying I was in doubt, I'm just saying that they have a rough estimation of "doubt" built into the UDRS system. If the ball is within a certain distance of missing, even if it isn't missing, it goes with the on-field decision. Similarly, if the batsman is a certain distance out of the crease it is assumed that the ball might have done something unexpected before reaching the stumps and therefore there is "doubt".

It's what you get when you replace a human judgement with a rigid system of rules based on predictive technology.

[NasserFan207]

It was a shocker, in all honesty. There has to be some sort of common sense applied.

As I said in the match thread, the only doubt was whether it struck Bell's pad in line; once Hawkeye showed it had it should've been overturned.

250 up. Well batted, chaps.

This. Third umpire should have shown balls and used common sense.

Hopefully they sort the rule out so this issue can be closed.

[Blaze 18]

Faaip, there was no doubt. The ball was hitting.

There is doubt when you don't know whether the ball will hit because a player is far down. But there is no doubt when technology tells you the ball will hit half-way up middle, whether the player is just out of his crease or in front of the bowler's face.

This.

[KiWiNiNjA]

This. Third umpire should have shown balls and used common sense..

But they aren't allowed to.

[GIMH]

But they aren't allowed to.

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.