Laws in Cricket that make no sense

[AAli98]

Pak v sl last ball rizwan hits it for 4 but was only given as 1 run because the run was completed before ball crossed boundary.

If Pak go out because of nrr this might come back to haunt them dont they know the rules.

 

[ArabKnight]

Pak v sl last ball rizwan hits it for 4 but was only given as 1 run because the run was completed before ball crossed boundary.

If Pak go out because of nrr this might come back to haunt them dont they know the rules.

So if batsman is on 99* and bowler bowls wide & batsman hits that ball for 4, what will happen?

 

[Cricket Warrior]

That umpire's call factor is so annoying.

If you are referring to the TV umpire so what is the purpose of the "umpire's call" in this context?

 

[Major]

Pak v sl last ball rizwan hits it for 4 but was only given as 1 run because the run was completed before ball crossed boundary.

If Pak go out because of nrr this might come back to haunt them dont they know the rules.

naa. The difference was minimal we lost like .03. So instead of 0.923 we would had been 0.94 or 0.95

 

[ArabKnight]

@Major

Batsman can be batting severely out of crease. Then bowler bowls a bouncer that gets declared high-wide immediately by the umpire. The batsman turns around immediately and smacks the ball to boundary while it’s still in the air.

 

[par]

So if batsman is on 99* and bowler bowls wide & batsman hits that ball for 4, what will happen?

If a batsman hits the ball, that delivery will not be called a wide.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Apparently Nabi warned Babar Azam

 

[Sher Khan]

I have always disagreed with the general theory of the umpires call in regards to lbw decisions in particular. My issue is that if a ball is shown to be clipping the stumps, how is it not out?

So what you are saying is that if a batsman's pad was not in the way the ball would have gone onto clip the stumps and bowl them out.

In addition to this, cricket has become such a batsmen dominated game that bowlers should be given these type of decisions.

 

[Major]

Misbah was bashing that Umpires call should not exist, but he was being plain dumb here. Wasim Akram was saying that if technology is 100% than use that. He was also being very stupid.

Point is, hawk eye works on prediction. Often you will see that once a ball delivers a ball in a straight line, as it crosses the batsman, the keeper has to dive towards his right to catch the ball due to the swing and flight in the air. So you see that is is something that happens and cannot be predicted. Hawk Eye doesn and cant predict that because Hawk Eye does not have data on the balls condition after every delivery, nor does Hawk Eye know whether the rough ball would swing in the air in that particular delivery.

Thus, Hawk eye works on prediction. Its no 100% accurate due to the above factor. Thus, because of that reason, the on field umpire plays a big factor. As at times the on field umpire can see how much the ball was moving or swinging. And NO, this does not change the whole complexion of things.

Also, if there is no onfield umpire importance, than the whole point of having an Umpire on the ground does not work.

To make what I wrote very simple:
There is no full truth that the ball clipping the stumps in hawk eye would had actually clipped it. Maybe last minute air swing would had led to miss it completely, maybe it would had just kissed the stump and not letting the bails fall?

Umpires call allows the onfield Umpire to stay relevant to the game.

Anyways, this is a rona dhona we do after decisions dont go our way. The lbw of RVD was a double on field umpire decision. Now a Saffer would say that should be out cause the whole ball was never pitching in line. Still that went in our favor and no Pakistani had issue here.

Point is, we cant have it our way in every decision. We won a decision, we lost a decision. LBW is always an assumption of what will happen, LBW decisions will never be 100% accurate when the ball is clipping leg or off stump

 

[bones]

Misbah was bashing that Umpires call should not exist, but he was being plain dumb here. Wasim Akram was saying that if technology is 100% than use that. He was also being very stupid.

Point is, hawk eye works on prediction. Often you will see that once a ball delivers a ball in a straight line, as it crosses the batsman, the keeper has to dive towards his right to catch the ball due to the swing and flight in the air. So you see that is is something that happens and cannot be predicted. Hawk Eye doesn and cant predict that because Hawk Eye does not have data on the balls condition after every delivery, nor does Hawk Eye know whether the rough ball would swing in the air in that particular delivery.

Thus, Hawk eye works on prediction. Its no 100% accurate due to the above factor. Thus, because of that reason, the on field umpire plays a big factor. As at times the on field umpire can see how much the ball was moving or swinging. And NO, this does not change the whole complexion of things.

Also, if there is no onfield umpire importance, than the whole point of having an Umpire on the ground does not work.

To make what I wrote very simple:
There is no full truth that the ball clipping the stumps in hawk eye would had actually clipped it. Maybe last minute air swing would had led to miss it completely, maybe it would had just kissed the stump and not letting the bails fall?

Umpires call allows the onfield Umpire to stay relevant to the game.

Anyways, this is a rona dhona we do after decisions dont go our way. The lbw of RVD was a double on field umpire decision. Now a Saffer would say that should be out cause the whole ball was never pitching in line. Still that went in our favor and no Pakistani had issue here.

Point is, we cant have it our way in every decision. We won a decision, we lost a decision. LBW is always an assumption of what will happen, LBW decisions will never be 100% accurate when the ball is clipping leg or off stump

post doesn't address the root cause of everyone's main grievances with the DRS and Umpire's Calls.

Let me give you an example of why people are annoyed by it.

Side A Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Not Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Not Outs.
Side B Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Outs.

This is the problem with Umpires call - it's not there to make the game fairer because it doesn't. It's there to protect the umpires.

If the the system was changed to what most of us would like, where there is no Umpire's call and it was simply if it's hitting the stumps you're out. Or if it's pitching marginally inside the line you're out, everyone would be happy. In that scenario, in my example above both Side A and Side B get 3 Outs and everyone is happy.

 

[Kroll]

I have always disagreed with the general theory of the umpires call in regards to lbw decisions in particular. My issue is that if a ball is shown to be clipping the stumps, how is it not out?

So what you are saying is that if a batsman's pad was not in the way the ball would have gone onto clip the stumps and bowl them out.

In addition to this, cricket has become such a batsmen dominated game that bowlers should be given these type of decisions.

It's also to protect the umpires in a tight call, you might as well drop umpires and just use tech if we're not going to give umpires any leeway.

Besides, its swings and roundabouts who the umpire call is going to benefit and it is not 100% foolproof.

 

[Rajdeep]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1717958537379459133

https://x.com/i/web/status/1717980921989927273

 

[Major]

A very long and pointless post. It doesn't address the root cause of everyone's main grievances with the DRS and Umpire's Calls.

Let me give you an example of why people are annoyed by it.

Side A Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Not Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Not Outs.
Side B Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Outs.

This is the problem with Umpires call - it's not there to make the game fairer because it doesn't. It's there to protect the umpires.

If the the system was changed to what most of us would like, where there is no Umpire's call and it was simply if it's hitting the stumps you're out. Or if it's pitching marginally inside the line you're out, everyone would be happy. In that scenario, in my example above both Side A and Side B get 3 Outs and everyone is happy.

By the way you express your views without calling others dumb or stupid.

before calling my post useless, its better to understand the concept LBWs are based on assumptions. Hawk eye works on prediction.

If you have studied statistics, when going for prediction and the prediction has 95% confidence, there is going to be margin of error.

In umpire's call, with the ball hitting less than 50% (and pitching less than 50% for impact in line), the margin of error exists.

Thus, to minimize that margin of error umpires call exists.

What Misbah and Wasim said was very stupid and dumb. I expect such childish analysis from someone like Younis or Afridi, but not from these two.

 

[bones]

It's also to protect the umpires in a tight call, you might as well drop umpires and just use tech if we're not going to give umpires any leeway.

Besides, its swings and roundabouts who the umpire call is going to benefit and it is not 100% foolproof.

Exactly, it's there to protect umpires, it's not there to make the contest and decisions fairer.

The primary objective of DRS as they told us was not to protect the umpires - but to remove howlers and make decisions fairer.

It's not 100% foolproof - I agree with you on that, but it's more foolproof than the umpires. I trust the technology more than the umpires.

 

[bones]

before calling my post useless, its better to understand the concept LBWs are based on assumptions. Hawk eye works on prediction.

If you have studied statistics, when going for prediction and the prediction has 95% confidence, there is going to be margin of error.

In umpire's call, with the ball hitting less than 50% (and pitching less than 50% for impact in line), the margin of error exists.

Thus, to minimize that margin of error umpires call exists.

What Misbah and Wasim said was very stupid and dumb. I expect such childish analysis from someone like Younis or Afridi, but not from these two.

But you still haven't addressed why people are unhappy with the use of the DRS system. Refer to my example of Side A and B above. I think even you will agree both sides would be happy with there was no umpire's call right? In fact if all the sides around the world were asked, if players were asked, don't you think they'd be happy with no umpire's call and just having out/not out?

I perfectly understand and most people understand Hawkeye is not 100% accurate, Nasser Hussain during a Sky stint said it was originally 97% accurate but today it's more than 98% accurate. I like many, would be very happy to use it and accept that 2%.

Yep - that's my view, I know it's not 100% accurate, but it's accurate enough for me that it should be the final decision, not umpire's call.

If people think that makes the role of an umpire almost redundant - so what? We want a fairer contest with fairer results - I couldn't care less about the umpires.

 

[Major]

But you still haven't addressed why people are unhappy with the use of the DRS system. Refer to my example of Side A and B above. I think even you will agree both sides would be happy with there was no umpire's call right? In fact if all the sides around the world were asked, if players were asked, don't you think they'd be happy with no umpire's call and just having out/not out?

I perfectly understand and most people understand Hawkeye is not 100% accurate, Nasser Hussain during a Sky stint said it was originally 97% accurate but today it's more than 98% accurate. I like many, would be very happy to use it and accept that 2%.

Yep - that's my view, I know it's not 100% accurate, but it's accurate enough for me that it should be the final decision, not umpire's call.

If people think that makes the role of an umpire almost redundant - so what? We want a fairer contest with fairer results - I couldn't care less about the umpires.

i understand what you are saying, and you are right, one team can enjoy the full advantage of umpires call. Just cause of us fans, ICC can implement hawk eye full, which would abit faulty especially when the ball is just kissing.

 

[saqib.rai]

post doesn't address the root cause of everyone's main grievances with the DRS and Umpire's Calls.

Let me give you an example of why people are annoyed by it.

Side A Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Not Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Not Outs.
Side B Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Outs.

This is the problem with Umpires call - it's not there to make the game fairer because it doesn't. It's there to protect the umpires.

If the the system was changed to what most of us would like, where there is no Umpire's call and it was simply if it's hitting the stumps you're out. Or if it's pitching marginally inside the line you're out, everyone would be happy. In that scenario, in my example above both Side A and Side B get 3 Outs and everyone is happy.

Many ex-cricketers especially from Pakistan have a very low IQ

The DRS is STILL not 100% accurate. However, if more than 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps, then its 100% certain that atleast some part of the ball would have hit the stumps

But if the ball is not 50% hitting the stumps, then it cannot be conclusively said that the ball would have hit the stumps

How difficult is this to understand?

Plus, I have watched cricket pre DRS. It was a sham. I clearly remember the 2009 CT semi final when Umar Akmal was given out lbw even though he had clearly edged the ball.
He was our best batsman in the innings, unfairly got out. We lost the match

The CURRENT UMPIRES CALL RULE is the most logical way to go. Until technology develops which is 100% accurate

 

[Dr_Bassim]

But you still haven't addressed why people are unhappy with the use of the DRS system. Refer to my example of Side A and B above. I think even you will agree both sides would be happy with there was no umpire's call right? In fact if all the sides around the world were asked, if players were asked, don't you think they'd be happy with no umpire's call and just having out/not out?

I perfectly understand and most people understand Hawkeye is not 100% accurate, Nasser Hussain during a Sky stint said it was originally 97% accurate but today it's more than 98% accurate. I like many, would be very happy to use it and accept that 2%.

Yep - that's my view, I know it's not 100% accurate, but it's accurate enough for me that it should be the final decision, not umpire's call.

If people think that makes the role of an umpire almost redundant - so what? We want a fairer contest with fairer results - I couldn't care less about the umpires.

DRS is used to remove howlers like clear out but umpire missed it.

You are assuming DRS is used to control margin of error which it is not.

 

[Kroll]

With

But you still haven't addressed why people are unhappy with the use of the DRS system. Refer to my example of Side A and B above. I think even you will agree both sides would be happy with there was no umpire's call right? In fact if all the sides around the world were asked, if players were asked, don't you think they'd be happy with no umpire's call and just having out/not out?

I perfectly understand and most people understand Hawkeye is not 100% accurate, Nasser Hussain during a Sky stint said it was originally 97% accurate but today it's more than 98% accurate. I like many, would be very happy to use it and accept that 2%.

Yep - that's my view, I know it's not 100% accurate, but it's accurate enough for me that it should be the final decision, not umpire's call.

If people think that makes the role of an umpire almost redundant - so what? We want a fairer contest with fairer results - I couldn't care less about the umpires.

With the umpires call, the accuracy percentage goes down hence why they are happy to stick with original decision.

 

[bones]

DRS is used to remove howlers like clear out but umpire missed it.

You are assuming DRS is used to control margin of error which it is not.

But DRS isn't used to remove howlers - it's used for many other decisions as well. Feint edges, touch and go LBWs and other decisions are also made using DRS.

I said several times above - I understand the margin of error, I understand over it's around 98% accurate - I am perfectly happy to use the DRS system over Umpire's Call and accept that margin of error. I'm pretty confident when I say, most of the international sides would be happy to as well.

 

[bones]

With

With the umpires call, the accuracy percentage goes down hence why they are happy to stick with original decision.

The percentage does go down - but we're told it's 98% accurate. That's plenty accurate enough for me.

 

[shaaik]

The issue is with the umpires call not the DRS. Umpires can always favor a team if they wish to in case of an umpires call. I once heard Ahsan Raza on a TV Show talking about an LBW decision that he had given out coz he knew that the DRS would at worst have it as umpires call. That leaves a room for an umpire to favor a team if he wishes to and that in my opinion is what’s wrong with DRS. Technology 100% or not is not the issue coz the same decision can have 2 opposite outcomes based on the field call from the umpire..

 

[Dr_Bassim]

But DRS isn't used to remove howlers - it's used for many other decisions as well. Feint edges, touch and go LBWs and other decisions are also made using DRS.

I said several times above - I understand the margin of error, I understand over it's around 98% accurate - I am perfectly happy to use the DRS system over Umpire's Call and accept that margin of error. I'm pretty confident when I say, most of the international sides would be happy to as well.

You are.

Most international sides accept umpires call including LBW.

A Missed faint edge is a howler still. The batsmen hit it and it should be out.

Checking catches is also fine.

Predicting trajectory of the ball and saying if ball is hitting 0.3 percent of the stump it should be out is very inaccurate.

0.3 percent is probably same as the chances of Pakistan qualifying for next round. And you are saying because the prediction exists, Pakistan should qualify?

 

[Major]

But DRS isn't used to remove howlers - it's used for many other decisions as well. Feint edges, touch and go LBWs and other decisions are also made using DRS.

I said several times above - I understand the margin of error, I understand over it's around 98% accurate - I am perfectly happy to use the DRS system over Umpire's Call and accept that margin of error. I'm pretty confident when I say, most of the international sides would be happy to as well.

Ok, heres another question

Hawk eye makes multiple simulations and the simulation that happened the most is taken in to account.

Now one simulation shows that the ball is clipping the stumps and another shows that the ball is missing the stumps. If both these simulations get played on TV there would be chaos.


Infact, this happened last night, and iCC had to give out a statement immediately.

 

[Major]

The issue is with the umpires call not the DRS. Umpires can always favor a team if they wish to in case of an umpires call. I once heard Ahsan Raza on a TV Show talking about an LBW decision that he had given out coz he knew that the DRS would at worst have it as umpires call. That leaves a room for an umpire to favor a team if he wishes to and that in my opinion is what’s wrong with DRS. Technology 100% or not is not the issue coz the same decision can have 2 opposite outcomes based on the field call from the umpire..

ok thats a fair argument.

 

[HitWicket]

Misbah was bashing that Umpires call should not exist, but he was being plain dumb here. Wasim Akram was saying that if technology is 100% than use that. He was also being very stupid.

Point is, hawk eye works on prediction. Often you will see that once a ball delivers a ball in a straight line, as it crosses the batsman, the keeper has to dive towards his right to catch the ball due to the swing and flight in the air. So you see that is is something that happens and cannot be predicted. Hawk Eye doesn and cant predict that because Hawk Eye does not have data on the balls condition after every delivery, nor does Hawk Eye know whether the rough ball would swing in the air in that particular delivery.

Thus, Hawk eye works on prediction. Its no 100% accurate due to the above factor. Thus, because of that reason, the on field umpire plays a big factor. As at times the on field umpire can see how much the ball was moving or swinging. And NO, this does not change the whole complexion of things.

Also, if there is no onfield umpire importance, than the whole point of having an Umpire on the ground does not work.

To make what I wrote very simple:
There is no full truth that the ball clipping the stumps in hawk eye would had actually clipped it. Maybe last minute air swing would had led to miss it completely, maybe it would had just kissed the stump and not letting the bails fall?

Umpires call allows the onfield Umpire to stay relevant to the game.

Anyways, this is a rona dhona we do after decisions dont go our way. The lbw of RVD was a double on field umpire decision. Now a Saffer would say that should be out cause the whole ball was never pitching in line. Still that went in our favor and no Pakistani had issue here.

Point is, we cant have it our way in every decision. We won a decision, we lost a decision. LBW is always an assumption of what will happen, LBW decisions will never be 100% accurate when the ball is clipping leg or off stump

Hawkeye doesn't account for swing, flight or spin after impact because it's not meant to. The laws state the ball should be assumed to carry on travelling on a straight path after impact which is exactly what Hawkeye does.

The technology is far more accurate than the half a ball given for umpires call.

 

[pillionrider]

For me personally, it's the law that states that the bails have to fall to the ground for a batsman to be bowled.

Both ends of a bail need to be dislodged and remain so. That's all.

Where did you get this fall to the ground info lol.

 

[saqib.rai]

Both ends of a bail need to be dislodged and remain so. That's all.

Where did you get this fall to the ground info lol.

They have to fall to the ground

If they are displaced but land back to their initial position, its NOT OUT

go check some videos on YouTube

 

[mominsaigol]

before calling my post useless, its better to understand the concept LBWs are based on assumptions. Hawk eye works on prediction.

If you have studied statistics, when going for prediction and the prediction has 95% confidence, there is going to be margin of error.

In umpire's call, with the ball hitting less than 50% (and pitching less than 50% for impact in line), the margin of error exists.

Thus, to minimize that margin of error umpires call exists.

What Misbah and Wasim said was very stupid and dumb. I expect such childish analysis from someone like Younis or Afridi, but not from these two.

Yh most people don't understand that ai technology just hasn't reached the level that they think it has otherwise chatgpt would be replacing virtually every programmer amd script writer on the planet.

The technology can only 100% predict where the ball pitches whether its pitched in line or not.

After wards as signaled by the blue line, it's purely guessing where the ball would have gone. When it's umpire call, it means the machine can't predict and guess properly, because it's too difficult to logically determine.

Even a 100 years from now I don't think we'll reach that 100% accuracy. One thing the machine is really good at guessing is height, but turn its kinda hard to guess hence umpire call exists.

 

[pillionrider]

They have to fall to the ground

If they are displaced but land back to their initial position, its NOT OUT

go check some videos on YouTube

So if an express bowler dislodges a bail and it flies into someone's pocket, never reaching the ground, it is NOT OUT?

HUH??

 

[saqib.rai]

So if an express bowler dislodges a bail and it flies into someone's pocket, never reaching the ground, it is NOT OUT?

HUH??

It's out
But if they fall back into original position, it's not out

Anyways, I disagree with the rule anyways. If it hits the stumps, it should be out regardless of bails dislodging or not

 

[pillionrider]

It's out
But if they fall back into original position, it's not out

Anyways, I disagree with the rule anyways. If it hits the stumps, it should be out regardless of bails dislodging or not

I was just making an absurd point that adding the "fall to the ground" can conjure ridiculous scenarios. It's not there in the law.

If the bails being dislodged are not a criterion, how will you know if the ball brushed the stump. Will you go DRS on it and use snicko. It just seems visually a simpler rule to have, since you anyway have bails as part of the whole set up.

 

[searacer932]

One rule that I don't agree with is batsman who play in the first half and then taking time off completely in the second half (E.g. Klaasen and Dec Kock did that). I believe this is unfair.

If they take time off in the second half then for that time they should not be allowed to participate in their subsequent ODI match as well.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

That Umpire's call thing is so annoying.

If it's hitting the wicket even clipping so it must given as out no matter hat upire decision was.

Make full use of this damn technology.

 

[saqib.rai]

That Umpire's call thing is so annoying.

If it's hitting the wicket even clipping so it must given as out no matter hat upire decision was.

Make full use of this damn technology.

The technology is still not 100%

Imagine a scenario in which a batsman is given NOT OUT and the bowling team reviews

DRS shows it's just kissing the stumps and the decision is overturned and batsman given OUT

If I was in that Batsman's position, I would literally refuse to leave.
The technology is not 100% and I am OUT because the ball is just kissing the stumps AND the human (umpire) standing there also thinks it's not out

 

[bones]

The technology is still not 100%

Imagine a scenario in which a batsman is given NOT OUT and the bowling team reviews

DRS shows it's just kissing the stumps and the decision is overturned and batsman given OUT

If I was in that Batsman's position, I would literally refuse to leave.
The technology is not 100% and I am OUT because the ball is just kissing the stumps AND the human (umpire) standing there also thinks it's not out

You keep missing the point and others are as well. We all know, everyone knows the technology is not 100% but it is 98%+.

That isn't the point we are making is that it can and does unfairly impact decisions during a match. It will continue to be unfair if umpire's call continues. Here is an example of why it's unfair:

Side A Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Not Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Not Outs.

Side B Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Outs.

 

[bones]

One rule that I don't agree with is batsman who play in the first half and then taking time off completely in the second half (E.g. Klaasen and Dec Kock did that). I believe this is unfair.

If they take time off in the second half then for that time they should not be allowed to participate in their subsequent ODI match as well.

Very true and I agree. Unless there is a genuine injury - cramp doesn't count. Then keep them out.

 

[saqib.rai]

You keep missing the point and others are as well. We all know, everyone knows the technology is not 100% but it is 98%+.

That isn't the point we are making is that it can and does unfairly impact decisions during a match. It will continue to be unfair if umpire's call continues. Here is an example of why it's unfair:

Side A Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Not Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Not Outs.

Side B Bowling: Appeals for 3 LBWs during an innings. 3 times the umpire gives Out. 3 times the referral system proves the ball hitting the stumps marginally and so Umpire's call stays. Net result = 3 Outs.

DRS is there to prevent howlers, nothing else
Which it is doing currently

 

[bones]

DRS is there to prevent howlers, nothing else
Which it is doing currently

So you accept my scenario above is unfair right? Imagine that happening several times in a series.

I have seen others also here say its to remove howlers, yet sides are using their referrals for everything. Small edges and tight LBWs, it's used for everything so no, it isn't just to prevent howlers.

 

[saqib.rai]

So you accept my scenario above is unfair right? Imagine that happening several times in a series.

I have seen others also here say its to remove howlers, yet sides are using their referrals for everything. Small edges and tight LBWs, it's used for everything so no, it isn't just to prevent howlers.

I don't actually.

See my point is, its NOT 100% accurate.

If a batsman is given NOT OUT, the bowling side reviews and it's just kissing the stumps, it will be OUT if you take away umpire's call.

In this scenario, it's unfair for the batsman to be OUT. when even the umpire has said it's not out

 

[bones]

I don't actually.

See my point is, its NOT 100% accurate.

If a batsman is given NOT OUT, the bowling side reviews and it's just kissing the stumps, it will be OUT if you take away umpire's call.

In this scenario, it's unfair for the batsman to be OUT. when even the umpire has said it's not out

Once again you completely miss the point I'm making. The umpire could keep giving one side out and the other side not-out and umpires call would protect him and the one side being favoured by the decisions.

And anyways, it's the same anytime this discussion is brought up - "it's not 100% blah blah". Well neither is the umpire - humans make mistakes, machines don't.

The technology is 98% accurate, I think that's plenty accurate enough for technology to be used full stop.

Do you think the scenario I painted in my example is fair? Would you be happy and consider it fair if the umpires kept giving out to one side and not out to the other side - knowing umpire's call be there.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Pitching outside off

Robbed Shamsi of a plumb lbw in the semi final at a crucial juncture of the game .

This rule is against big turners

 

[FearlessRoar]

Certainly Mankad and time-out

 

[saqib.rai]

Pitching outside off

Robbed Shamsi of a plumb lbw in the semi final at a crucial juncture of the game .

This rule is against big turners

Exactly

What's the logic behind umpire's call on impact(second red)??

Hitting(third red) is predicting the trajectory so I understand the logic
but either it's in line OR not in line just like pitching(first red)

 

[msb314]

Here is one:

The nonsense of fielders flicking the ball on the boundary back into play had to stop..

If the ball has gone past the invisible vertical plane from the boundary rope to the sky - then it is a six..

No questions asked..

 

[Bhaijaan]

Southern Afrikaan got robbed off two plumb lbws in the semi final due to the pitching outside off stump crap rule.

I feel for them

 

[OMB]

Time out should be not be declared as innings out for the player rather the batting team should be penalized in terms of reduction of remaining bowls/overs.

 

[Mp812]

leg byes, dont see why batsmen can get runs when they fail to hit the ball.

Agree. If the batters dont hit ball they can get lbw out. So why not runs.
Also if pitched on leg no lbw...that should change. If it is hitting stumps it must be lbw

 

[Thephenom]

Net run rate should be abandoned, if a two teams end up on the same points it should be on head to head.

Go back to one ball per innings to make it a fairer game between bat and ball.

Get rid of umpires call, if it’s hitting the stumps then it’s out whether the umpire gives it out on not.

Bouncers to be reintroduced.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

This player time out rule is the most stupid one..

 

[gazza619]

Free hit after a no-ball is literally the murder of bowlers, and should be abolished.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Net run rate should be abandoned, if a two teams end up on the same points it should be on head to head.

Go back to one ball per innings to make it a fairer game between bat and ball.

Get rid of umpires call, if it’s hitting the stumps then it’s out whether the umpire gives it out on not.

Bouncers to be reintroduced.

1. Are you mad at every other sport that uses goal difference or points difference to break tie breaks in group stages?
2. There is something called an error in predictions of hawk eye, When the projection is within margin or error I think umpire's call is a good way to resolve the issue till we get improve accuracy drastically.
3. Bouncers exists bhai , they are not banned.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Just saw a run out in women cricket, It seems you can be run out with any part of the "entire arm" if the ball is in the hand of the fielder.
When did this rule come into being? I used to remember hitting the wicket with elbows won't count.