Teams should not lose a review on Umpires call

[Indiafan]

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?

In this scenario, as you saw, the prediction wa either wrong or couldn't take a call. Do we agree?

Now, the decision still had to be taken. Do you think the two dimensional replay of the ball hitting the pad (before the projection) was enough to overturn the decision? The commentators and us might say it looked out but we are just looking at 2 dimensional images.

So what could be done in such a scenario? Someone had to make a decision and it was left to the umpire. What alternative would you suggest?

As for whether DRS is completely wrong and how many times it makes blunders (and by blunders I mean well beyond acceptable 4.5cm error) that is for another debate

 

[BDfanforever]

In this scenario, as you saw, the prediction wa either wrong or couldn't take a call. Do we agree?

Now, the decision still had to be taken. Do you think the two dimensional replay of the ball hitting the pad (before the projection) was enough to overturn the decision? The commentators and us might say it looked out but we are just looking at 2 dimensional images.

So what could be done in such a scenario? Someone had to make a decision and it was left to the umpire. What alternative would you suggest?

As for whether DRS is completely wrong and how many times it makes blunders (and by blunders I mean well beyond acceptable 4.5cm error) that is for another debate

Ok, I agree to your point that decision has to be made. Frankly, I and many other thinks both DRS and Umpire made blunders on those two cases. They looked out in real time and looked out on replays.

Yeah, I think they would need stats to prove DRS capabilities. You can't just refer back to umpire on say 20% of the decisions. That's way too high.

 

[Major]

Why use it then?

Technology is not the final say, its the umpire who has the final say, technology is there to help the umpires.

 

[NA]

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.

Gayle is very tall, and the ball hit him just below the knee, while he wasn't fully on back foot. It could go over the stumps.

I like the OP's suggestion, for teams not getting docked a review when losing against marginal umpire calls.

 

[BDfanforever]

Gayle is very tall, and the ball hit him just below the knee, while he wasn't fully on back foot. It could go over the stumps.

I like the OP's suggestion, for teams not getting docked a review when losing against marginal umpire calls.

Its not like he was standing, he had to bend a little. If that's not out then no lbw would be out.

Also, ball just barely clipping the bails is not realistic. It usually hits the stumps cleanly or goes over.

 

[OmaIR1]

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

Exactly my point.

Which is why there is NO consistency. A ball can be bowled to a batsman, be clipping the stumps but one umpire gives it not out, the bowling team reviews and it remains not out.

Now suppose the same ball is bowled a few overs later and now the square leg umpire has been swapped and adjudged it out because he felt it would do more than clip the stumps. The batsman reviews and this ball is identical to the one bowled above however, it remains out since the ball is clipping.

Please read what I have written above slowly and a few times because clearly you are not comprehending what I'm saying.

So, I will repeat the best solutions to avoid this issue are:

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

 

[BDfanforever]

I think they limit the reviews to 1 to decrease the cost associated with using DRS.

Logically, it make sense to revoke the review from the teams on umpire call. Afterall, hawkeye is agreeing that umpire is correct.

 

[Azlan Khan]

And another decision goes to Umpire's call with the ball HITTING the bails. Absolutely rubbish rules.

 

[OmaIR1]

In this scenario, as you saw, the prediction wa either wrong or couldn't take a call. Do we agree?

Now, the decision still had to be taken. Do you think the two dimensional replay of the ball hitting the pad (before the projection) was enough to overturn the decision? The commentators and us might say it looked out but we are just looking at 2 dimensional images.

So what could be done in such a scenario? Someone had to make a decision and it was left to the umpire. What alternative would you suggest?

As for whether DRS is completely wrong and how many times it makes blunders (and by blunders I mean well beyond acceptable 4.5cm error) that is for another debate

Exactly.

See what you are showing me in your post is that there is error in DRS and since the decision made by the umpire satisfies the criteria (ball could +/- XYZ mm) both decisions are acceptable. I don't really care for that and I'm not arguing whether that is right or right. I'm talking about consistency.

My point is if the same delivery can have two different outcomes then that it is a clear there is a lack of consistency. And based on the scenario I presented above it's possible for that to happen because an umpire is subjective whereas DRS is objective (carries a margin of error though) since it's based on calculations and predicted trajectory rather than someone's opinion.

 

[Indiafan]

Exactly my point.

Which is why there is NO consistency. A ball can be bowled to a batsman, be clipping the stumps but one umpire gives it not out, the bowling team reviews and it remains not out.

Now suppose the same ball is bowled a few overs later and now the square leg umpire has been swapped and adjudged it out because he felt it would do more than clip the stumps. The batsman reviews and this ball is identical to the one bowled above however, it remains out since the ball is clipping.

Please read what I have written above slowly and a few times because clearly you are not comprehending what I'm saying.

So, I will repeat the best solutions to avoid this issue are:

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

Sorry, you are the one COMPLETELY missing the point

1) We CANNOT make the same decision when it is clipping BECAUSE we do NOT know which way the error lies.

Because the error can be both ways, your way is addressing only 1 kind of error. So there is a good chance at least 50% or more times your decision is completely wrong and will penalize players if you go for always out or always not out. We cannot go for wrong decisions half the time for the sake of consistency

Your example of same ball is WRONG because you are using same ball by H/E prediction. So it is very much possible that the ball might be missing the stumps and the other one might be hitting the stumps even if they looked 100% same on H/E. Because of the error rate

2) You are talking of millimeters of error here. However, umpires make 1000s of decisions on the field which affects the match. And two umpires might make different decisions on a lot of things. So I don't know why people are making a big hue and cry about decisions which are marginal. H/E was never designed to address them

3) As for not losing a review, that can be argued too. The reason why ICC wants DRS is to avoid blunders. They do not want teams to keep on questioning umpires even for marginal decisions. So they do want to punish teams for going for marginal reviews by making them lose the review.

DRS is not a tool to make strategic decisions to affect the game. It is to over turn obvious blunders.

 

[adamidris]

Well if it's a -5cm to +5cm error, then wouldn't it mean that if the ball is clipping the stumps there was a chance of it crashing into the stumps due to the +5cm error? Plus, the rubbish thing is that even if it is clipping and the umpire has given it out, his decision still stands. At least make it a consistent rule that if less than half the ball is hitting the stumps, the decision will be deemed NOT OUT no matter what. If not that, then don't count it as a review because there IS a possibility that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. DRS needs some sorting out.

 

[adamidris]

Exactly my point.

Which is why there is NO consistency. A ball can be bowled to a batsman, be clipping the stumps but one umpire gives it not out, the bowling team reviews and it remains not out.

Now suppose the same ball is bowled a few overs later and now the square leg umpire has been swapped and adjudged it out because he felt it would do more than clip the stumps. The batsman reviews and this ball is identical to the one bowled above however, it remains out since the ball is clipping.

Please read what I have written above slowly and a few times because clearly you are not comprehending what I'm saying.

So, I will repeat the best solutions to avoid this issue are:

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

Didn't read your post before I posted mine. Totally agree that DRS lacks consistency and one of those three rules should be implemented.

 

[Indiafan]

Well if it's a -5cm to +5cm error, then wouldn't it mean that if the ball is clipping the stumps there was a chance of it crashing into the stumps due to the +5cm error? Plus, the rubbish thing is that even if it is clipping and the umpire has given it out, his decision still stands. At least make it a consistent rule that if less than half the ball is hitting the stumps, the decision will be deemed NOT OUT no matter what. If not that, then don't count it as a review because there IS a possibility that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. DRS needs some sorting out.

There is a chance. However that is why, DRS + umpire's call is used. So umpire's original decision is used to decide whether the error is +5 or -5. I don't know why this is difficult to understand

And no, not understanding how technology works and advocating always out or always not out for balls clipping is not consistency, it is folly

 

[OmaIR1]

Sorry, you are the one COMPLETELY missing the point

1) We CANNOT make the same decision when it is clipping BECAUSE we do NOT know which way the error lies.

Because the error can be both ways, your way is addressing only 1 kind of error. So there is a good chance at least 50% or more times your decision is completely wrong and will penalize players if you go for always out or always not out. We cannot go for wrong decisions half the time for the sake of consistency

Your example of same ball is WRONG because you are using same ball by H/E prediction. So it is very much possible that the ball might be missing the stumps and the other one might be hitting the stumps even if they looked 100% same on H/E. Because of the error rate

2) You are talking of millimeters of error here. However, umpires make 1000s of decisions on the field which affects the match. And two umpires might make different decisions on a lot of things. So I don't know why people are making a big hue and cry about decisions which are marginal. H/E was never designed to address them

3) As for not losing a review, that can be argued too. The reason why ICC wants DRS is to avoid blunders. They do not want teams to keep on questioning umpires even for marginal decisions. So they do want to punish teams for going for marginal reviews by making them lose the review.

DRS is not a tool to make strategic decisions to affect the game. It is to over turn obvious blunders.

There is a chance. However that is why, DRS + umpire's call is used. So umpire's original decision is used to decide whether the error is +5 or -5. I don't know why this is difficult to understand

And no, not understanding how technology works and advocating always out or always not out for balls clipping is not consistency, it is folly

I'm completely following what your argument is but I have to say there is one major flaw I must point out.

You say above if you are only addressing one kind of error there is a good chance at least 50% or more times your decision is wrong. Well, who is to say that the umpire's decision is 100% right? So how can you even say 50% wrong? We don't know that since you don't know which side of the +/- spectrum the ball would go.

And my example is RIGHT because I can also argue the first ball can be hitting the stumps and the other ball be missing the stumps even if they looked 100% the same on DRS because of the error rate. So because of this it's not consistent because what you are saying above is that the opposite might be true and I agree with you, it might be - we don't know.

Your whole argument revolves around the fact that the umpires are making the right calls because it's within the +/- deviation and so either decision is acceptable. I agree with you but my argument is that it lacks consistency because no one can guarantee which side of the +/- spectrum the ball would go so who is to say the umpires are correct and objective? I'm not disputing the legality of the call at all, I'm strictly talking about consistency here.

The 3 options I presented are a better solution because this way no one can complain that some umpires tend to raise their finger against the batsmen of X team more than others. So if you leave the decision to DRS it's completely objective and based on calculations rather than an Umpire's call (who may be bias or may see two identical deliveries doing two different things - human error).

 

[OmaIR1]

Well if it's a -5cm to +5cm error, then wouldn't it mean that if the ball is clipping the stumps there was a chance of it crashing into the stumps due to the +5cm error? Plus, the rubbish thing is that even if it is clipping and the umpire has given it out, his decision still stands. At least make it a consistent rule that if less than half the ball is hitting the stumps, the decision will be deemed NOT OUT no matter what. If not that, then don't count it as a review because there IS a possibility that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. DRS needs some sorting out.

This.

+1.

 

[Scorpion]

David Warner - tad unlucky there but NZ will take it gladly.

 

[dinakar]

Umpire's call is there for the pitching and impact on the leg as well. It shouldn't be there because these are not predictions but actually happened.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Off topic - Pujara edges it to the keeper, umpire gives it OUT but Pujara stands his ground as he’s not sure if the ball carried to the keeper.

The 3rd umpire then checks if the ball has carried, and the replay shows us that it did.

After that, the umpire checks whether he nicked it or not using the snicko.

So my question is, on field umpire gave it out, but wanted to make sure if the ball had carried. So why did the 3rd umpire check to see if there was an edge? If Pujara thought he hadn’t nicked it then he could’ve reviewed it?

Player x has been given out caught, he knows he hasn’t nicked it but his team have used up all their reviews, he stands his ground and asks the umpire to check if it carried. 3rd umpire checks if he’s edged it or not and then makes the on field umpire to reverse his decision. So the batsman has been reprieved without having to use a review

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Umpire's call is there for the pitching and impact on the leg as well. It shouldn't be there because these are not predictions but actually happened.

I don’t understand the logic of it.
Why it’s not out if the ball pitches outside the leg, fully hits inline and crashing into the middle stump, but it’s out when the ball pitches even way outside the off stump, barely hits inline and barely kissing the stumps?

This inconsistency needs to be removed since now we are using the tech.

Rule needs to be changed.
Either the ball MUST fully pitches within the lines of the stump and fully hitting in line and fully hitting the stumps should be out, OR it shouldn’t matter where the ball pitches (outside the off or outside the leg or within the line of stumps), as long as it’s fully hitting in line and fully crashes into the stumps, its out.

And the biggest reason we need to remove the umpire’s call is, what if the ball ever so slightly kissed the stump and the batsman is given out due to umpires call but practically if we let the ball actually kissed the stumps (as shown in the DRS replay) but bails won’t fall?

It has happen many, many times when the ball barely brushes the stumps but the bails won’t fall, which is not out.

In essence, three red dots is out, or else it’s not out. Umpire’s call should not have any say.

 

[street cricketer]

I don’t understand the logic of it.
Why it’s not out if the ball pitches outside the leg, fully hits inline and crashing into the middle stump, but it’s out when the ball pitches even way outside the off stump, barely hits inline and barely kissing the stumps?

This inconsistency needs to be removed since now we are using the tech.

Rule needs to be changed.
Either the ball MUST fully pitches within the lines of the stump and fully hitting in line and fully hitting the stumps should be out, OR it shouldn’t matter where the ball pitches (outside the off or outside the leg or within the line of stumps), as long as it’s fully hitting in line and fully crashes into the stumps, its out.

And the biggest reason we need to remove the umpire’s call is, what if the ball ever so slightly kissed the stump and the batsman is given out due to umpires call but practically if we let the ball actually kissed the stumps (as shown in the DRS replay) but bails won’t fall?

It has happen many, many times when the ball barely brushes the stumps but the bails won’t fall, which is not out.

In essence, three red dots is out, or else it’s not out. Umpire’s call should not have any say.

The reason why it's not out if the ball is pitched legside and hits the pads is because everyone would pack the legside field and keep bowling from wide angle to your pads which would be considered negative bowling in cricket. Cricket would become a game of french cricket where the only shot you can play is the leg glance.

Now why that would be considered negative bowling is a different topic altogether.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

The reason why it's not out if the ball is pitched legside and hits the pads is because everyone would pack the legside field and keep bowling from wide angle to your pads which would be considered negative bowling in cricket. Cricket would become a game of french cricket where the only shot you can play is the leg glance.

Now why that would be considered negative bowling is a different topic altogether.

And what would make the bowlers think that they are going to get tons of lbws when almost all batsmen are already extra strong on their legs?

You can bowl them all day on the leg side n they will connect