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.
Let's not forget this system was introduced to eliminate the truly awful decision, ie batsmen that are given out LBW when they've clearly middled it, or given out caught when the ball clearly came off a part of their anatomy other than the glove. The original decision of not out was not a howler, it was difficult to be certain that ball was going to go on and hit the stumps due to how far down the pitch Bell was. However, I understand the technology debate about if we use, we trust it implicitly etc. Not sure you can do that without it being 100% accurate.
It is an issue that two different decisions can be given for the same delivery, I've said this numerous times before, depending who reviews the LBW (for example) and what the onfield umpire has judged, it may result in two different decisions, with a lot of LBW appeals. But I do like referrals that are close calls remaining with the original decision of the standing umpire. I'm not saying the incident yesterday ended correctly, but that may be down to the communication that took place between the third umpire and Billy Bowden.
http://batallday.blogspot.com/ - Cricket blog dedicated to domestic cricket.
Of course on many occasions if it's just hitting one stump then it's deemed not conclusive anyway.
Either way, the key thing to remember in this case is that if UDRS weren't in place, it wouldn't have changed the outcome so this cannot be used as a reason to not employ the UDRS.
Well, in the NZ vs Zim match last night we saw what a captain does when he knows the rules.
There was a shout for LBW after the batsman had charged down the pitch and it was given not out. He was more than 2.5m down the pitch and even though it looked like it was hitting it was probably not hitting enough of middle. Vettori chose not to review it.
No outrage or moaning at all.
Instead of having an arbitrary distance, it could be expressed as a percentage for confidence that ball will hit the stumps. There is more doubt about one 1.5 m away which is flicking the outside of off than one 2.5 m away hitting halfway up middle. Then the umpire can decide what percentage he is happy with to give something out.
Who said it was arbitrary?
And with the percentage thing, that's basically what they have already.
Maybe if it's outside 2.5m it can still count if it's in a certain zone of 'certainity' ala middle of middle.
I don't see any improvement to the system by using probabilities and confidence intervals instead of being 2.5 metres down the track. The main complaint is that 2.5 m is arbitrary. Well if you set confidence intervals of 95% then the 95% becomes arbitrary what if we are 94.9% sure that the ball will hit the stumps why draw the line at 95% why not 93%. etc etc etc...there is nothing wrong with being too far forward to be given out lbw. From my days wicket keeping I can remember the ball going through a batsmans gate and then swinging away at the last second to miss the stumps. You should not be projecting a straight line to the stumps with any certainty from a long way down the pitch because the ball does swing. Good on Billy Bowden.
Last edited by Debris; 05-03-2011 at 12:24 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)