DRS rules update - Teams not to lose a review when an LBW review comes back as Umpire's Call

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ICC Chief Executives Committee has approved use of DRS in all T20Is & teams not losing a review when LBW review comes back as Umpire’s Call</p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/878310530858983425">June 23, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The Chief Executives’ Committee approved all recommendations from the Cricket Committee. This includes the use of DRS in all T20 International games and teams not losing a review when an LBW review comes back as Umpire’s Call. The 80 over top-up of reviews in Test cricket has been removed.

Minimum standards for the use of DRS for international cricket was also agreed. This includes the mandatory use of accredited ball tracking and edge detection technology.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Good call

 

[Khwaja]

We lost to india in Asia Cup because of this... we need to have at least 2 reviews in t20 matches

 

[Square Drive]

Good stuff.

 

[Leeon1994]

That is great.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

Good change.Was needed.

 

[On_the_up]

Excellent decision. Previous ruling was too harsh.

Won't help the over rate though.

 

[ManFan]

Umpires call is one of the worst parts of cricket. It is more to help the umpire's decision stand than make the correct on-field decision.

 

[Syed1]

Umpires call is one of the worst parts of cricket. It is more to help the umpire's decision stand than make the correct on-field decision.

Oh buddy you probably don't remember how it was before Ump's call was introduced.

Even if the ball was hitting the last millimeter of the bail the decision was overturned. I'm glad they introduced umpire's call, but they just need to refine it a little bit.

 

[ManFan]

I don't remember, you are correct Syed Bhai. The thing I do remember was Tendulkar's LBW overturned in 2011 SF. But that was not umpire's call. I have heard a lot of people say it was shaky. Can you explain if it was?

 

[Prince of Pakistan]

Won't do the game much favour in general.

I would rather have them remove that two new balls rule so bowlers can be important again. Except a few swing bowlers most bowlers get tonked away. We need reverse swing, spin back to make ODI cricket exciting again during the middle overs.

 

[AB HAQ]

Good work by ICC

 

[Yossarian]

Ball hits or misses. Same for both teams. Get rid of umpires call. Ridiculous to have the ball theoretically hitting the exact same spot but then being given out or not out depending upon whether it's the batsman or the bowler who's questioning the umpires decision.

It's loaded in the batsman's favour. Umpire gives him not-out, the fielding captain appeals, but the batsman remains not out even if Hawk-Eye says it's partially hitting. In contrast, when the batsman appeals, and Hawk-Eye says ball missing, even by a millimetre, means it's missing, batsman is reprieved.

 

[msb314]

Ball hits or misses. Same for both teams. Get rid of umpires call. Ridiculous to have the ball theoretically hitting the exact same spot but then being given out or not out depending upon whether it's the batsman or the bowler who's questioning the umpires decision.

It's loaded in the batsman's favour. Umpire gives him not-out, the fielding captain appeals, but the batsman remains not out even if Hawk-Eye says it's partially hitting. In contrast, when the batsman appeals, and Hawk-Eye says ball missing, even by a millimetre, means it's missing, batsman is reprieved.

Cannot do that unfortunately since the ball tracing technology is not perfect - it can only predict the path of the ball after it strikes the pad/bat of the batsman - and not give a perfect path. So there is a certain amount of error associated with it.

Hence when the ball is predicted to show hitting the outside of the stumps - it is referred to Umpires Call since you cannot be certain that it would have ACTUALLY hit the stumps.

 

[idrizzy]

Cannot do that unfortunately since the ball tracing technology is not perfect - it can only predict the path of the ball after it strikes the pad/bat of the batsman - and not give a perfect path. So there is a certain amount of error associated with it.

Hence when the ball is predicted to show hitting the outside of the stumps - it is referred to Umpires Call since you cannot be certain that it would have ACTUALLY hit the stumps.

Well said. Plus ut also gives umpires some existence as their on-field decision is crucial regarding out or not out. This move will benefit all parties and I'm glad they're some leeway in a system that's not perfect, but better than nothing.

 

[Yossarian]

Cannot do that unfortunately since the ball tracing technology is not perfect - it can only predict the path of the ball after it strikes the pad/bat of the batsman - and not give a perfect path. So there is a certain amount of error associated with it.

Hence when the ball is predicted to show hitting the outside of the stumps - it is referred to Umpires Call since you cannot be certain that it would have ACTUALLY hit the stumps.

This is the utterly false argument used by proponents of umpires call.

Because if the umpire has given the out decision, and it's an umpires call, then you are accepting that the predicted path contained no error, and in case it did contain an error then the error was simply playing down the amount of wicket that would have been actually hit anyway. ie It would have hit no matter what.

Whereas, if the umpire has given not-out, and it's an umpires call, you are saying that the error was showing the ball as (partially) hitting when in fact it wasn't. ie It would have missed no matter what.

 

[msb314]

This is the utterly false argument used by proponents of umpires call.

Because if the umpire has given the out decision, and it's an umpires call, then you are accepting that the predicted path contained no error, and in case it did contain an error then the error was simply playing down the amount of wicket that would have been actually hit anyway. ie It would have hit no matter what.

Whereas, if the umpire has given not-out, and it's an umpires call, you are saying that the error was showing the ball as (partially) hitting when in fact it wasn't. ie It would have missed no matter what.

If DRS says umpires call - there is ~50% chance of the ball hitting the wicket (of course this varies by how much it is hitting the wicket but assume it for arguments sake)

Hence it could or could not be out so you need a tie breaker to determine the decision and that's why it stays with the on-field decision to reduce the uncertainty.

Of course the on-field decision is also down to luck to some degree but it is still a better process than before.

 

[Yossarian]

If DRS says umpires call - there is ~50% chance of the ball hitting the wicket (of course this varies by how much it is hitting the wicket but assume it for arguments sake)

Hence it could or could not be out so you need a tie breaker to determine the decision and that's why it stays with the on-field decision to reduce the uncertainty.

Of course the on-field decision is also down to luck to some degree but it is still a better process than before.

You're missing the point. An ~50% error means that the actual path of the ball was up to "+" or "-" ~50% width of the ball from the trajectory calculated.

And yet ... (for example in the case of the ball clipping the bails) the 'umpires call' on an 'out' original decision assumes that the projected trajectory was accurate and/or the ball was actually hitting the bails by an even greater amount,
Whereas the 'umpires call' on an 'not out' original decision means that the projected trajectory was completely inaccurate, and the ball would have actually missed the bails.

In other words, the 'margin of error' factor is being treated differently, for exactly the same theoretical situation, depending upon whether the umpires original decision was 'out' or 'not out'.

 

[HitWicket]

You're missing the point. An ~50% error means that the actual path of the ball was up to "+" or "-" ~50% width of the ball from the trajectory calculated.

And yet ... (for example in the case of the ball clipping the bails) the 'umpires call' on an 'out' original decision assumes that the projected trajectory was accurate and/or the ball was actually hitting the bails by an even greater amount,
Whereas the 'umpires call' on an 'not out' original decision means that the projected trajectory was completely inaccurate, and the ball would have actually missed the bails.

In other words, the 'margin of error' factor is being treated differently, for exactly the same theoretical situation, depending upon whether the umpires original decision was 'out' or 'not out'.

Not if you look at it as if when there's enough doubt in whether the technology is correct the benefit of the doubt lies with the umpire which is basically what's being said happens.

In reality though the error margin in Hawkeye is nowhere near half the width of the ball, especially horizontally.

 

[Itachi]

I don't understand the logic behind it.

You are taking a call. Whether it goes in your favor or not, it is irrelevant. You used it so it must be deducted.

 

[Kashmiri_Pak_fan]

So, does this mean teams can take more than two reviews in all circumstances?

 

[Yossarian]

Not if you look at it as if when there's enough doubt in whether the technology is correct the benefit of the doubt lies with the umpire which is basically what's being said happens.

In reality though the error margin in Hawkeye is nowhere near half the width of the ball, especially horizontally.

OK, let me try and explain it in very theoretical terms.

Assume the bowler bowls two consecutive balls against the same batsman.
For the purposes of this theoretical example, assume that both balls are bowled exactly the same, ie same speed, same release point, same height etc., the atmospheric conditions are exactly the same (wind, cloud cover etc.), both pitch in the same exact place, the batsman plays exactly the same shot, the balls bounce is exactly the same, the resulting trajectory is exactly the same, and the point of impact on the pads is exactly the same.

Hawk-Eye, being based upon a mathematical formulae that takes into account the above factors mentioned, would/should reach exactly the same conclusion as to point of impact on the stump eg grazing the off-stump 3mm from the edge (since all the input factors/parameters are identical).

On the 1st ball bowled, the umpire gives it 'not out' and the fielding captain appeals, but the batsman remains 'not out' on 'umpires call'.

On the 2nd ball bowled, the umpire gives it 'out' and the batsman appeals, but he remains 'out' on 'umpires call'.

So even with the use of technology, two opposite outcomes from exactly the same scenario with exactly the same factors involved, other than what the umpire did with his finger.

And that's why the concept of 'umpires call' is completely ludicrous, and brought in to appease the umpires by the selective interpretation of margin of error.

 

[HitWicket]

OK, let me try and explain it in very theoretical terms.

Assume the bowler bowls two consecutive balls against the same batsman.
For the purposes of this theoretical example, assume that both balls are bowled exactly the same, ie same speed, same release point, same height etc., the atmospheric conditions are exactly the same (wind, cloud cover etc.), both pitch in the same exact place, the batsman plays exactly the same shot, the balls bounce is exactly the same, the resulting trajectory is exactly the same, and the point of impact on the pads is exactly the same.

Hawk-Eye, being based upon a mathematical formulae that takes into account the above factors mentioned, would/should reach exactly the same conclusion as to point of impact on the stump eg grazing the off-stump 3mm from the edge (since all the input factors/parameters are identical).

On the 1st ball bowled, the umpire gives it 'not out' and the fielding captain appeals, but the batsman remains 'not out' on 'umpires call'.

On the 2nd ball bowled, the umpire gives it 'out' and the batsman appeals, but he remains 'out' on 'umpires call'.

So even with the use of technology, two opposite outcomes from exactly the same scenario with exactly the same factors involved, other than what the umpire did with his finger.

And that's why the concept of 'umpires call' is completely ludicrous, and brought in to appease the umpires by the selective interpretation of margin of error.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but my point was within the margin of error you can't be certain whether it was hitting or missing on the basis of the technology therefore the umpires original decision is given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[riz45]

awful decision by icc. captains will review every marginal decision and ODI innings will be over 4 hours long

 

[Buffet]

All reviews should be made by umpires and players shouldn't be able to review anything. Umpires should have access to use tech any time even with slightest of doubt. Third umpire can interfere if and when filed umpire is taking a wrong decision.

Cricketers should be practicing the skills related to cricket and not about how well they can use DRS.

 

[mak36]

All reviews should be made by umpires and players shouldn't be able to review anything. Umpires should have access to use tech any time even with slightest of doubt. Third umpire can interfere if and when field umpire is taking a wrong decision.

Cricketers should be practising the skills related to cricket and not about how well they can use DRS.

After that terrible lbw decision by Ravi against Jennings, this debate will no doubt rear its head again: given the technology is available and the point of DRS is to remove howlers, should the third umpire have the ability to interfere when the field umpire makes an absolute howler?

 

[Major]

This is bad for captains.

More time being wasted on reviews, more bans on captains coming in

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Given the current challenges of international travel, the Cricket Committee has recommended that local match officials be appointed in the short-term & has proposed an additional DRS review per team per innings is introduced in each format as an interim measure <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1262419593160732675?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Bewal Express]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Given the current challenges of international travel, the Cricket Committee has recommended that local match officials be appointed in the short-term & has proposed an additional DRS review per team per innings is introduced in each format as an interim measure <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1262419593160732675?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Good move.

 

[shamaan]

Good move.

Excellent move

 

[Firebat]

Additional DRS reviews:

The CEC has also confirmed an additional unsuccessful DRS review for each team in each innings of a match, keeping in mind that there may be less experienced umpires on duty at times. This will increase the number of unsuccessful appeals per innings for each team to three for Tests and two for the white-ball formats

 

[Bewal Express]

Additional DRS reviews:

The CEC has also confirmed an additional unsuccessful DRS review for each team in each innings of a match, keeping in mind that there may be less experienced umpires on duty at times. This will increase the number of unsuccessful appeals per innings for each team to three for Tests and two for the white-ball formats

When normality returns I would like to see 2 reviews allowed before the 80 overs, and another one after the 80 overs if they have been used up.

 

[MenInG]

From ICC:

Anil Kumble said: “The Cricket Committee had an excellent discussion around Umpire’s Call and analysed its use extensively. The principle underpinning DRS was to correct clear errors in the game whilst ensuring the role of the umpire as the decision maker on the field of play was preserved, bearing in mind the element of prediction involved with the technology. Umpire’s Call allows that to happen, which is why it is important it remains.”

In addition, three other changes to the DRS and 3rd Umpire protocols were approved. These are as follows:

For LBW reviews, the height margin of the Wicket Zone will be lifted to the top of the stumps to ensure the same Umpire’s Call margin around the stumps for both height and width.
A player will be able to ask the umpire whether a genuine attempt has been made to play the ball before deciding to review an LBW decision.

The 3rd Umpire will check a replay of any short run that has been called and correct any error prior to the next ball being bowled.

The interim COVID-19 regulations that were introduced in 2020 to allow international cricket to resume as quickly and safely as possible will continue to be applied. These were as follows:

The flexibility to be able to appoint home umpires where neutral umpires were previously required.
The additional DRS review per team per innings in all formats.
The ban on using saliva to polish the ball, and
The availability of a COVID-19 replacement in Test matches.