Teams should not lose a review on Umpires call

[BDfanforever]

Chris Gayle against Zim was clearly out when he was like on 1 or something.

Today Gary Wilson of IRE was also clearly out.

Commies were shell shocked to see the response from DRS. What's the point of using DRS if benefit of doubt is given to umpires?

 

[Aman]

Thought both were out, I was surprised both were umpires call.

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

I hate Umpire's Call as well. Ball touching any part of stumps should be given OUT.

 

[Sandeep]

Umpire's call is the worst part of DRS. If you know that the ball is hitting the stumps, why bother with umpire's decision? What is the DRS for?

 

[Red Devil]

Should've been out, there was definitely a miscalculation or something because there's no way that was going over.

 

[JibranAnsari]

Yah umpires call is a retarded idea.

If its hitting any part of the stumps , should be out.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The graphic of ball touching only a part of the stump is misleading. It just shows the probability that the ball was hitting the stumps. So it is only fair to go for the umpire's call when only a part of the ball is "hitting" the stumps.

 

[uberkoen]

If they want to implement DRS they need to do it properly. Otherwise, its pointless. Two things need to be done:

1. Removing the Umpire's Call factor from the decision making process

2. Using proper technology such as snicko's and Hotspot to support the 3rd umpire in making the decision.

 

[Indiafan]

I hate Umpire's Call as well. Ball touching any part of stumps should be given OUT.

Umpire's call is the worst part of DRS. If you know that the ball is hitting the stumps, why bother with umpire's decision? What is the DRS for?

Because we DO NOT know ball is hitting the stumps. What you are seeing is just projections on the screen and not reality. And H/E themselves have admitted that they have +-5cm error.

So the ball can exist anywhere between +5cm to -5cm of where you are seeing the ball on TV. How to accommodate for the error rate? Well if umpire gives not out, then it is considered ball will be +5cm away so completely missing the stumps. If umpire gives out, it is assumed ball will be -5cm from it's original position and therefore hitting stumps completely

If you have a better way to accommodate for the H/E error rate, please suggest

 

[Watsupdoc]

I think anything touching the stumps should be given out. Umpires should only be given the benefit of the doubt when there is umpires call on the impact and on where the ball pitched.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

Because we DO NOT know ball is hitting the stumps. What you are seeing is just projections on the screen and not reality. And H/E themselves have admitted that they have +-5cm error.

So the ball can exist anywhere between +5cm to -5cm of where you are seeing the ball on TV. How to accommodate for the error rate? Well if umpire gives not out, then it is considered ball will be +5cm away so completely missing the stumps. If umpire gives out, it is assumed ball will be -5cm from it's original position and therefore hitting stumps completely

If you have a better way to accommodate for the H/E error rate, please suggest

Good post, I did not know about the +/- 5 cm error;

 

[Sandeep]

Because we DO NOT know ball is hitting the stumps. What you are seeing is just projections on the screen and not reality. And H/E themselves have admitted that they have +-5cm error.

So the ball can exist anywhere between +5cm to -5cm of where you are seeing the ball on TV. How to accommodate for the error rate? Well if umpire gives not out, then it is considered ball will be +5cm away so completely missing the stumps. If umpire gives out, it is assumed ball will be -5cm from it's original position and therefore hitting stumps completely

If you have a better way to accommodate for the H/E error rate, please suggest

Brings us back to "Why DRS" debate, doesn't it? I have a better idea. Umpires should refer to DRS in case of doubt.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I think anything touching the stumps should be given out. Umpires should only be given the benefit of the doubt when there is umpires call on the impact and on where the ball pitched.

So even if the probability of the ball hitting the stump is 5% it should be given out?

 

[Indiafan]

I think anything touching the stumps should be given out. Umpires should only be given the benefit of the doubt when there is umpires call on the impact and on where the ball pitched.

How do you KNOW it is touching the stumps? With H/E's error rate?

 

[Indiafan]

Brings us back to "Why DRS" debate, doesn't it? I have a better idea. Umpires should refer to DRS in case of doubt.

DRS is for decisions outside the +-5 error rate. Within that error rate umpire's decision is upheld

 

[Watsupdoc]

So even if the probability of the ball hitting the stump is 5% it should be given out?

How do you KNOW it is touching the stumps? With H/E's error rate?

Yes, because as it is, the game is heavily tilted in the batsmen favor, with big bats and field restrictions. So, at least this much leeway should be allowed for the bowlers.

 

[hamzie]

it should be like it is in tennis

when they review it, even if a mm of the ball is in line, theres no linesman call

its in.


hitting the stumps on review should be out

and the rule will be standardized for both teams so whats the big deal

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes, because as it is, the game is heavily tilted in the batsmen favor, with big bats and field restrictions. So, at least this much leeway should be allowed for the bowlers.

So your point is that because the rules are in favour of the batsmen, the benefit of doubt should go to the bowler. I get this line of thinking, but why only restrict that to the DRS.

 

[samplepiece]

it should be like it is in tennis

when they review it, even if a mm of the ball is in line, theres no linesman call

its in.


hitting the stumps on review should be out

and the rule will be standardized for both teams so whats the big deal

In tennis, the path of the ball is not projected but the actual path is tracked. In case of hawk-eye its a projection.

 

[hamzie]

I read though in tennis there is still a bit of error with the projection?

thats what i thought

 

[Watsupdoc]

So your point is that because the rules are in favour of the batsmen, the benefit of doubt should go to the bowler. I get this line of thinking, but why only restrict that to the DRS.

I would personally, also get rid of the two new-ball rule, it takes the reverse swing out of the game and actually favors batsmen.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

The 'hitting stumps' part of DRS is a predictive system and there is obviously a margin of error - Umpires must be given some say when it comes to the decision making hence the 'umpires call'.

 

[waleed88]

Man the game is getting really tough for the umpires.
Cut them some slack. It was a 50-50 decision.

 

[Indiafan]

it should be like it is in tennis

when they review it, even if a mm of the ball is in line, theres no linesman call

its in.


hitting the stumps on review should be out

and the rule will be standardized for both teams so whats the big deal

That is because in tennis the actual ball is dropping on line. There is no prediction. In cricket actual ball stops after hitting a batsman's leg. The rest is just prediction based on calculations and has an error rate

 

[IM NOT YOU]

Because we DO NOT know ball is hitting the stumps. What you are seeing is just projections on the screen and not reality. And H/E themselves have admitted that they have +-5cm error.

So the ball can exist anywhere between +5cm to -5cm of where you are seeing the ball on TV. How to accommodate for the error rate? Well if umpire gives not out, then it is considered ball will be +5cm away so completely missing the stumps. If umpire gives out, it is assumed ball will be -5cm from it's original position and therefore hitting stumps completely

If you have a better way to accommodate for the H/E error rate, please suggest

fine... then if half the ball or more is touching it should be out. that accounts for the +-5cm

the current rule is atrocious. we are seeing clear wickets being given not out.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

People would then blame Hawkeye Trajectory for being manipulated.

There's always a way that 50 percent of the population is never satisfied.

Today it's Umpire's Call, tomorrow it will be Hawkeye Trajectory.

 

[mnt1]

I don't think you should lose the review if it is Umpire's Call

 

[JaDed]

I don't think you should lose the review if it is Umpire's Call

9 overturned this WC just saying !

 

[dhump]

It should be this way or that way no point in cutting the ball in half for umpire call either the ball is hitting the stump or it is missing if its hitting you are gone simple.

 

[Major]

Chris Gayle against Zim was clearly out when he was like on 1 or something.

Today Gary Wilson of IRE was also clearly out.

Commies were shell shocked to see the response from DRS. What's the point of using DRS if benefit of doubt is given to umpires?

and yet here are some people who still dont understand the use of technology.

Hawk eye is device that predicts where the ball would had gone. It doesn't take the wind or other factors into account. It only uses speed to predict where the ball would had gone.

Thus, for a out to be given on leg or offstump or on bail, more then 50% of the ball should dislodge it, orelse it would be umpires call.

 

[Major]

It should be this way or that way no point in cutting the ball in half for umpire call either the ball is hitting the stump or it is missing if its hitting you are gone simple.

problem is, hawk eye isn't accurate, its just a prediction. Who knows, the ball might have flown above the stump. I think its good from ICC that they take 50% of the ball into account

 

[gazza619]

umpires call is the most stupid rule ever..

 

[Major]

Umpire's call is a 50-50 call, you cant say that the decision was wrong, although right, but teams shouldn't lose there single review because of this.

 

[Watsupdoc]

Agree with you, it's a 50-50 thing. So, teams should lose the review on it.

 

[Amjid Javed]

This has been raised before and is a valid point, the way DRS is being used at moment isnt with very much common sense.

 

[Bewal Express]

If they didnt lose the review they would take a punt virtually every time on borderline decisions and the game becomes too stop start. This way the have to be certain that a mistake has been made.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Nope.

Instead of that give 2 reviews per match instead of 1.

I feel 1 review is just a bit harsh and someone will misuse it and the whole team gets screwed.

 

[Watsupdoc]

^*Shouldn't

 

[cricketfanfirst]

Nope.

Instead of that give 2 reviews per match instead of 1.

I feel 1 review is just a bit harsh and someone will misuse it and the whole team gets screwed.

Agree with Dr.Saab, 2 reviews is reasonable.

 

[uberkoen]

Isn't there a discussion already going on about this here:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?219040-Umpire-s-Call!

What was the point of opening another thread?

 

[Electron]

One review is fine. Stops teams from using them as a lottery.

Agree with the OP. Teams shouldn't lose a review on umpire's call.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

One review is fine. Stops teams from using them as a lottery.

Agree with the OP. Teams shouldn't lose a review on umpire's call.

Every batsmen when he gets out wants to review, and most selfish batsmen cause a loss of review for batting side.

Then when it's actually not out the other batsmen is screwed.

At least with bowling, the wicketkeeper, captain and some surrounding fielders can stop the bowler from reviewing.

But in batsmen's case his only hope is his partner, who will never offer much input...

Hence the problem.

 

[Major]

Every batsmen when he gets out wants to review, and most selfish batsmen cause a loss of review for batting side.

Then when it's actually not out the other batsmen is screwed.

At least with bowling, the wicketkeeper, captain and some surrounding fielders can stop the bowler from reviewing.

But in batsmen's case his only hope is his partner, who will never offer much input...

Hence the problem.

you are right, but the problem is that when the result is made on the bases of umpires call, then no one is at fault there.

Now today if you saw Wilson's LBW, UAE made a good review, but they ended up losing that review. Had the umpire given that out, and Ireland had reviewed there decision would had been changed.

The cal is 50-50, there is no wrong part, so thats why a team shouldnt lose a review

 

[Electron]

Every batsmen when he gets out wants to review, and most selfish batsmen cause a loss of review for batting side.

Then when it's actually not out the other batsmen is screwed.

At least with bowling, the wicketkeeper, captain and some surrounding fielders can stop the bowler from reviewing.

But in batsmen's case his only hope is his partner, who will never offer much input...

Hence the problem.

In a way, it is good, puts these selfish kinds under spotlight.

But you maybe right, if one is less, let's keep two reviews. But it is fair not to lose reviews based on umpire's call. Coming up with something that eliminates umpire's call is something I look forward to, but until then, it will always sound unfair to me when a team loses it's review based on a 50-50 decision.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So even if the probability of the ball hitting the stump is 5% it should be given out?

Why not since we are using that technology to make decisions for all other decisions? I would prefer to back technology than umpires tbh.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why not since we are using that technology to make decisions for all other decisions? I would prefer to back technology than umpires tbh.

You are not backing the technology if it says the probability is 5% and you want that to be out. You are doing the opposite.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You are not backing the technology if it says the probability is 5% and you want that to be out. You are doing the opposite.

When the umpire gives the decision out and the verdict is upheld, there might also be a 5% error, so what's the difference?

 

[CricketCartoons]

When the umpire gives the decision out and the verdict is upheld, there might also be a 5% error, so what's the difference?

When the technology says that there is a small probability of the ball hitting the stump, it basically means I am not sure, this is best I can predict, so you decide. Why give preference to something which says I am not sure over the Umpire who says he is sure.

The DRS is good only in preventing howlers, not in marginal decisions.

 

[OmaIR1]

In my opinion the rule should be that if the ball is hitting the stumps as per DRS it's out, period. The way it is right now it can easily influence the game to a large extent. Suppose you keep appealing for LBWs and the umpire keeps giving it not out although DRS shows they were all clipping the stump? Now, is the umpire gave those out it's a whole differenct story.

The fact that the umpire initially gave it out/not out should be irrelevant.

This way no one can complain that some umpires tend to raise their finger against the batsmen of X team more than others.

Then people will say what's the point of the umpires? The umpires are still needed to call out no-balls, wides, etc. And moreover if a team loses a review then the LBW/CB is totally the umpire's call.

I think this is the best solution because then it becomes objective when you are using DRS technology.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

When the technology says that there is a small probability of the ball hitting the stump, it basically means I am not sure, this is best I can predict, so you decide. Why give preference to something which says I am not sure over the Umpire who says he is sure.

The DRS is good only in preventing howlers, not in marginal decisions.

I stil prefer to keep all human decision making to a minimum to eliminate as much human bias as possible. Some umpires are nice, some are less so.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In my opinion the rule should be that if the ball is hitting the stumps as per DRS it's out, period. The way it is right now it can easily influence the game to a large extent. Suppose you keep appealing for LBWs and the umpire keeps giving it not out although DRS shows they were all clipping the stump? Now, is the umpire gave those out it's a whole differenct story.

The fact that the umpire initially gave it out/not out should be irrelevant.

This way no one can complain that some umpires tend to raise their finger against the batsmen of X team more than others.

Then people will say what's the point of the umpires? The umpires are still needed to call out no-balls, wides, etc. And moreover if a team loses a review then the LBW/CB is totally the umpire's call.

I think this is the best solution because then it becomes objective when you are using DRS technology.

Precisely. Like many other paranoid Pakistanis I tend to believe in too many conspiracy theories so from my point of view it would be better to do away with umpire's call.

 

[Idreamofcricket]

Should've been out, there was definitely a miscalculation or something because there's no way that was going over.

This!... it hit him so low.. I was shocked to see it was high and clipping the bails. Something was definitely wrong. Even Shane Warne couldn't believe it. The Indians were right all along. DRS is screwed up.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Ultimate decision making should always remain with humans, especially those trained for that. Any technology should only be used to assist, not to make the ultimate decision. Otherwise we might as well replace the umpires with coat hangers stands.

 

[Idreamofcricket]

Ultimate decision making should always remain with humans, especially those trained for that. Any technology should only be used to assist, not to make the ultimate decision. Otherwise we might as well replace the umpires with coat hangers stands.

That is the direction it is headed. The problem with DRS is it is trying to keep it's feet in two different boats at the same time. Either rely on technology 100% when it is been referred.. or leave it completely up to the umpire. It is nonsensical to have it referred to DRS and have DRS throw it back on the umpire.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Ultimate decision making should always remain with humans, especially those trained for that. Any technology should only be used to assist, not to make the ultimate decision. Otherwise we might as well replace the umpires with coat hangers stands.

If we are going to stick with having humans making the final decision I would like to propose we have umpires from only Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka standing in international games. I'm sure they would do their jobs diligently and as they are among the poorest ICC nations, they would be grateful of the employment.

 

[Idreamofcricket]

Nope.



I feel 1 review is just a bit harsh and someone will misuse it and the whole team gets screwed.

DRS can only be invoked by the Captain. No one else can ask the umpire for DRS.

 

[Indiafan]

In my opinion the rule should be that if the ball is hitting the stumps as per DRS it's out, period. The way it is right now it can easily influence the game to a large extent. Suppose you keep appealing for LBWs and the umpire keeps giving it not out although DRS shows they were all clipping the stump? Now, is the umpire gave those out it's a whole differenct story.

The fact that the umpire initially gave it out/not out should be irrelevant.

This way no one can complain that some umpires tend to raise their finger against the batsmen of X team more than others.

Then people will say what's the point of the umpires? The umpires are still needed to call out no-balls, wides, etc. And moreover if a team loses a review then the LBW/CB is totally the umpire's call.

I think this is the best solution because then it becomes objective when you are using DRS technology.

As it has been repeated MULTIPLE times, no just because you see on the computer scene that ball is hitting the stumps, DOESN'T mean it is. It is just a cartoon projection

And yes, if H/E shows ball clipping stumps each time and umpire says not out, there is very much chance that umpire was 100 right

And I am not saying this, H/E themselves think +-45mm should be the range in H/E where it is most effective.

 

[OmaIR1]

As it has been repeated MULTIPLE times, no just because you see on the computer scene that ball is hitting the stumps, DOESN'T mean it is. It is just a cartoon projection

And yes, if H/E shows ball clipping stumps each time and umpire says not out, there is very much chance that umpire was 100 right

And I am not saying this, H/E themselves think +-45mm should be the range in H/E where it is most effective.

Not really, there is an equal chance that the ball hitting the stumps hence why the umpires give it out sometimes and after a referral it remains out since it's clipping.

This is one of those cases where the consistency is not there because when the ball is clipping the stumps BOTH a not out or out decision is acceptable depending on the umpire's initial call.

So, actually there are two options to correct this:

1. Make the decision not out if it's clipping EVERY TIME irregardless of whether the umpire gave it out or not out
2. Make the decision out of it's hitting any part of the stumps

 

[Kiri]

One thing should go and that is umpire's call. Rules say if the ball goes on to hit the stumps, it's out. If it's umpire's call and the ball is clipping, the fielding team will feel hard done by. If it is hitting the stumps, why not just give it out there?

 

[Major]

One thing should go and that is umpire's call. Rules say if the ball goes on to hit the stumps, it's out. If it's umpire's call and the ball is clipping, the fielding team will feel hard done by. If it is hitting the stumps, why not just give it out there?

hawk eye isn't accurate, thats why.

 

[Kiri]

hawk eye isn't accurate, thats why.

Oh right but even due to that slight inaccuracy, teams have been hard done by.

 

[OmaIR1]

Never thought about this option but I agree. Well, in that case I think there are 3 options to correct DRS:

1. Make the decision not out EVERY TIME if it's clipping the stumps irregardless of whether the umpire gave it out or not out
2. Make the decision out EVERY TIME if it's hitting any part of the stumps - even if it's clipping
3. Continue to use the same system but the team asking for a review doesn't lose a review if it doesn't go in their favour

 

[Kiri]

Reviews should be increased to two per innings. If Tests get to have 2 reviews per 80 overs then get refilled, why just stick with 1 in 50 overs for ODIs?

 

[BDfanforever]

hawk eye isn't accurate, thats why.

then why is it being used? If it is slightly inaccurate then ball just clipping stumps should be out.

For example, DRS can say with 95% confidence that ball would just clip stumps.

Basically DRS is now referring to Umpire. How dumb.

 

[zubair007]

I would say give 2 reviews per innings.

Then, no having this concept of umpires call. For these bowled and LBWs, if it snicks the stump let alone hitting flush less than half, it is OUT. Slightest touch of the stump is OUT.

You either trust the system or you don't. This umpire's call is basically saying we somewhat believe in this system but we are not really sure to be honest about its accuracy. This is not the impression you want to convey to the viewing public.

 

[Major]

then why is it being used? If it is slightly inaccurate then ball just clipping stumps should be out.

For example, DRS can say with 95% confidence that ball would just clip stumps.

Basically DRS is now referring to Umpire. How dumb.

its not dumb, its a good rule

 

[BDfanforever]

its not dumb, its a good rule

First umpires refers to DRS. Then DRS comes back and says "OK I'm referring this back to you." Wth.

 

[Captain]

I think it should continue the way it is... Harsh may it seems on marginal calls going either way but what can be done to minimise the damage is that the team should not lose a review if at a certain lbw decision only one of the three lights go amber i.e, umpires call. Only than i think it can be fair on the team asking for a review

 

[Major]

First umpires refers to DRS. Then DRS comes back and says "OK I'm referring this back to you." Wth.

THe world is not that simple.



Hawk eye is just a prediction, and the actual ball could had seamed or maybe air might had played a part, when the decision comes to the 50% part.

Now if ICC starts to give those ones out, Cricket boards, players and officials would go crazy and want technology to be removed from International cricket. Vice versa if such decisions are not given out.

Thus, for such decisions, benefit of the doubt should go to umpires.

One thing that people get wrong in cricket is that everyone thinks that Technology has the final say in the decision. NO! Technology does not have final say, technology is just there to aid the umpires, so that better decisions could be made.

 

[world cup captain]

hawk eye isn't accurate, thats why.

Why use it then?

 

[Abdullah719]

Nope.

Instead of that give 2 reviews per match instead of 1.

I feel 1 review is just a bit harsh and someone will misuse it and the whole team gets screwed.

Agreed. One review for Team Man and one for the rest.

 

[FanofCricket]

i don't agree.if decision is made on umpire call then review should be lost.umpires should be given upper hand and umpire's call should go in favor of umpire rather than the teams.

 

[FanofCricket]

Agreed. One review for Team Man and one for the rest.

he will still score under 15 even if he takes 99 reviews.

 

[BDfanforever]

THe world is not that simple.



Hawk eye is just a prediction, and the actual ball could had seamed or maybe air might had played a part, when the decision comes to the 50% part.

Now if ICC starts to give those ones out, Cricket boards, players and officials would go crazy and want technology to be removed from International cricket. Vice versa if such decisions are not given out.

Thus, for such decisions, benefit of the doubt should go to umpires.

One thing that people get wrong in cricket is that everyone thinks that Technology has the final say in the decision. NO! Technology does not have final say, technology is just there to aid the umpires, so that better decisions could be made.

Ok, that sort of makes sense. But look at Chris Gayle lbw against Zim and Gary Wilson against UAE, both Umpire and DRS are completely wrong. There is no way ball would bounce that high in real time.

 

[Indiafan]

First umpires refers to DRS. Then DRS comes back and says "OK I'm referring this back to you." Wth.

No. Umpires refers. DRS says, hey, I cannot take a call on this one because it is too close to my error range. Hence I won't take a decision whether it is in line or out, hitting or missing.

But we still need a decision right? So who takes it? The umpires. And that is what is meant by umpire's call

 

[Indiafan]

Reviews should be increased to two per innings. If Tests get to have 2 reviews per 80 overs then get refilled, why just stick with 1 in 50 overs for ODIs?

Because it is NOT hitting the stumps. The graphic projection says it is clipping the stumps. But the error rate says that is unlikely. The error rate is agree by the H/E manufacturers themselves

 

[Indiafan]

Why use it then?

Because of the error rate, H/E cannot take a decision on marginal calls. Hence marginal calls are given back to the umpire

However, it can take calls on obvious blunders (ex out given for ball completely missing the stumps or not out given for ball hitting the middle of leg stumps)

It should be used for obvious blunders. And that is also the reason why teams are penalized by losing their reviews even when it is a close call. ICC's stand is. Use the umpires for 90% of things. Use DRS ONLY for obvious blunders or lose the review. The review is not supposed to be used to get a wicket from nowhere. It is supposed to be used when a big blunder had happened and you want to overturn it.

 

[Indiafan]

Not really, there is an equal chance that the ball hitting the stumps hence why the umpires give it out sometimes and after a referral it remains out since it's clipping.

This is one of those cases where the consistency is not there because when the ball is clipping the stumps BOTH a not out or out decision is acceptable depending on the umpire's initial call.

So, actually there are two options to correct this:

1. Make the decision not out if it's clipping EVERY TIME irregardless of whether the umpire gave it out or not out
2. Make the decision out of it's hitting any part of the stumps

1) Those are NOT the same decisions though (when umpire gives out and umpire gives not-out). You cannot compare different balls and claim they are same.

But even for the same ball remember H/E has a +- error so it can be error both ways. Here's how the umpire calls go

If umpire says not out and ball is shown clipping an error of +4.5 cm is assumed which means ball is missing

If umpire says out and ball is shown clipping an error of -4.5 cm is assumed which means ball is hitting middle of leg stump

Both out or not out is acceptable because H/E's error can be both + or -. It is not lack of consistency at all. A math student can easily see how this works in his mind

2) Making decision out or not out each time will be messing with the bowler or the batsmen. Letting the umpire decide is always much better IMO. Once again, remember, H/E error can be both + or -. By sticking to one decision, you are assuming only one kind of error happens

3) Please stop using irregardless. You have used it twice and the third time I don't know what I am going to do

 

[BDfanforever]

No. Umpires refers. DRS says, hey, I cannot take a call on this one because it is too close to my error range. Hence I won't take a decision whether it is in line or out, hitting or missing.

But we still need a decision right? So who takes it? The umpires. And that is what is meant by umpire's call

All of that is fine. But in case of Chris Gayle and Gary Wilson lbw DRS should not be uncertain and refer it back to umpire.

All commentators agreed that those were out.

This makes me suspect if rest of DRS calls are correct or not. In that case, why they are using a system that is quite faulty.

If it was 1 or 2 case I would understand, but so many times you see DRS referring back to umpire. Wth, why are they even using it then?

 

[BDfanforever]

Because of the error rate, H/E cannot take a decision on marginal calls. Hence marginal calls are given back to the umpire

However, it can take calls on obvious blunders (ex out given for ball completely missing the stumps or not out given for ball hitting the middle of leg stumps)

It should be used for obvious blunders. And that is also the reason why teams are penalized by losing their reviews even when it is a close call. ICC's stand is. Use the umpires for 90% of things. Use DRS ONLY for obvious blunders or lose the review. The review is not supposed to be used to get a wicket from nowhere. It is supposed to be used when a big blunder had happened and you want to overturn it.

LOL, on obvious blunders you don't even need hawkeye, simple TV review should suffice.

Hawkeye's error threshold is probably too high which is why it referred back to umpires on so many occasions in this tourney.