Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74

Thread: Referral Discussion

  1. #1
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178

    Referral Discussion

    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.

  2. #2
    Bun
    Bun is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Under the tree
    Posts
    3,116
    Was a collosal ****up the 3rd ump ust be fired.

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    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

  4. #4
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    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.


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,766
    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.

  6. #6
    Bun
    Bun is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Under the tree
    Posts
    3,116
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Bun
    Bun is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Under the tree
    Posts
    3,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Bun View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,072
    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 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC's reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers."
    - Even the ICC's own official press release thinks things must change

  10. #10
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,783
    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 10:26 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.

  11. #11
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    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.

  12. #12
    International Regular NasserFan207's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    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.
    Batsman I tolerate: V. Richards, S. Tendulkar, E. Morgan, N. Hussain. KEVIN O F******* BRIEN

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    International Coach KiWiNiNjA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In the kitchen
    Posts
    10,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish_Opener View Post
    This. Third umpire should have shown balls and used common sense..
    But they aren't allowed to.

  15. #15
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,439
    Quote Originally Posted by KiWiNiNjA View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •