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.
Was a collosal ****up the 3rd ump ust be fired.
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.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
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.
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.
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.
Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"I don't think that they'll come close to us to be honest."
- Steve Smith before the Ashes
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.
Last edited by Jono; 27-02-2011 at 11:26 AM.
"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.
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.
Originally Posted by Axl Rose
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)