Will cricket be better and fairer without umpire's call?

[sensible-indian-fan]

I agree here. Cricket is not about who can use this DRS better. That has very little to do anything with playing better cricket. Umpires should have full control and not players. Tactical reviews and all that makes it funny given that aim was to remove howlers. Just have third umpire step in if ground umpire fails to make use of tech otherwise ground umpires should consult the third umpires for help. That will be much better than current tactical review drama.

Easier approach is for 3rd umpire to check for all decisions. Might as well give it the FULL MONTY.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

2 balls hitting the stumps.

India loses both reviews.

Cook survives both times.

Where are those who said I was complaining?

Please stand up.

 

[sandsaims]

Umpire's call even on wether the ball is hitting in line or not is just BS.

 

[Smbhayi]

Why they can't get rid of umpire's call. As Dhoni said if you're using technology then use it 100%. Lets say if ball hits more than 80% then it should be out irrespective of what umpire signalled. and if it less than 80% then not out.

 

[street cricketer]

I think the way teams appeal has a very important role to play as far as the umpire's call is concerned.

We have to improve the way we appeal for the wickets. I'm not joking.

 

[Slog]

Why they can't get rid of umpire's call. As Dhoni said if you're using technology then use it 100%. Lets say if ball hits more than 80% then it should be out irrespective of what umpire signalled. and if it less than 80% then not out.

It would mean that the purpose of Drs is not being fulfilled

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/855685.html

This explains what you are talking about. Apparently there is some error even on impact.

Common sense is something that cricket lacks. Always has.

Anyone would know that you can't count a review as failed for umpire's call. On top of that, the technology itself has error margins which makes it even more obvious.

Even if we forget to do this at first, cricket has been played with DRS for years now and STILL that rule hasn't come into effect.

Even brain dead morons would make more sense.

Funny really.

DRS is meant to eliminate howlers yet one side can't contest even the most blatant of howlers for the next 20 overs for no fault of theirs.

England also had their ill-luck with DRS but that was partly due to them wasting reviews for plumb dismissal of Ansari. Stokes review was also stupid but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. He may have thought that he didn't edge it and expected the ball to slide down.

 

[anindo]

Anyways, one more question (though a bit unrelated to this thread)?

Would Stokes been given out/not out last innings if third umpire had ruled that as bat hitting ball? He was caught by fielder.

Yes he would have been given out. But the third umpire actually determined that he did not have conclusive evidence to rule that he hit it. So, in case the lbw was missing on DRS Stokes would have remained not out because the on-field umpire's call on the catch was not out.

 

[leg-side-flick]

Yes he would have been given out. But the third umpire actually determined that he did not have conclusive evidence to rule that he hit it. So, in case the lbw was missing on DRS Stokes would have remained not out because the on-field umpire's call on the catch was not out.

Third umpire would have told him that there was bat involved and then the main umpire would have listened and given him catch out

 

[MMHS]

Dream within dream stuff. Haha.

Got it.

Take this scenario - Shafiul in CTG was given out & he reviewed. Since Umpire thought it he was not playing shot, the verdict stood as without offering shot & Umpire informed that shot was not attempt. In another case, umpire might think he played shot (which I thought was the case - if Shafiul could bring bad & pad together on time & with the line of ball, then he won't have batted at 11) & then that call would have been revised.

If it was with Umpires -
1st Case - Dharma would have asked 3rd umpire - please check if the ball is hitting the stick or not; I believe he didn't attempt shot, hence no issues with point of impact.
2nd Case - Umpire would have asked 3rd Umpire - please check if the point of impact in within line or not; I believe the ball would have hit the stick, but he also attempted shot; hence, I just need to be confirmed if t's within line or not.

& that could be likely case in most scenario. I watched highlights of Cook's 3 reviews - nothing wrong or right in those 3 reviews & in normal circumstances, I believe main umpire might not have discusses any of the 3 decisions - at current context, IND lost both reviews & in next 2 overs, if a bat-pad is denied, they'll miss a wicket simply because Virat's 2 calls were probably less than 2 centimeter from over ruling the decision & IND would have their 2 reviews intact for any umpiring mistakes.

In current context, DRS is not about minimizing errors, rather it's about luck - which team is lucky with their close calls.

 

[Sin Nombre]

There are 2 clear issues with DRS.

Umpire's call should not lead to loss of reviews.

Umpire's call should also mean that the on-field umpire actually specifies what his call is before it goes upstairs. If he think the impact is doubtful but is actually not, it is an out. It is bizarre right now where the umpire may not give a call because he is unsure of the impact but then the third umpire does not give an out because the ball is brushing the wickets in simulation and the bowling team loses a review.

 

[Abdullah]

Ajmal to tendu was out.
So what.
Even without drs u r relying on luck. Umpire can give exactly the same delivery on 2 occaisions different results. And this is still the case.

But drs is to remove the howler.

 

[Major]

Tired of people complaining about DRS and not having proper knowledge of the technology being used

Let me put it simple.

Hawk eye technology only predicts where the ball would had gone. In reality that ball could had moved away due to wind pressure or some late ball movement, but hawk eye can't predict that. Hawk eye only predicts the place where the ball hit the pad till the destination of the ball to the stumps.

The reason why umpire's call is there is because;

The half of the ball hitting the leg stump or bails could either be out or not. If the ball is clipping leg stump in hawk eye, it doesn't mean that the batsmen has to be out lbw, in reality the ball could had been missed.

you have to understand what Leg before wicket is. Leg before wicket is when you block the path of the ball hitting the wickets. Now a ball hitting half a stump or bails is a probability, and even the technology as mentioned before can't predict that probability with 100% accuracy as many factors come in to play.

This is why, on the field decisions hold value. Because the naked eye could sense any late movement and make the judgement based on that assumption.

Also for those saying that the umpires call shouldn't mean a review being used up. Remember one thing, a review takes up alot of time. If umpire calls are not used as review, teams would be reviewing more and much more time would be wasted in test cricket.

And for those who say that DRS shouldn't be there altogether. Yes, the technology might not be 100%, but atleast its better then the naked eye.

DRS is not there to finish the howlers altogether. It is there to assists the umpires and minimize the howlers.

 

[Masquerade]

There are a lot of logic flaws in the OP's argument.

Firstly, you have to remember that the DRS essentially models the trajectory of the ball after imapct. This is not 100%. It will never be 100%. The moment after the ball impacts the batsman's pad is when the modelling kicks in. Hawk-Eye will then have to approximate the ball's path based on its calculations of air resistance, purchase from the pitch (inclduing bounce and grip) as well as what the bowler has done (lots of revs on the ball, very little revs etc). Purely because of this there will also be a margin of error in any of Hawk-Eye's predictions. This is exacerbated when a batsman's is hit a long way from the stumps because he has a long front foot stride or has walked down the wicket. Similarly, a very full ball that crushes the batsman's toes will also have its own errors. So simply because the DRS shows the ball hitting the stumps, doesn't mean that would have happened. For a close call, it is fairly likely that Hawk-Eye has also made errors and so, it shouldn't be an issue that the umpire's call is then used. Is this 'luck' as you put it? I guess. I prefer to say its trusting the skill of the umpire over the flaws of technology.

Also, it's completely wrong to say that just because you think a decision looked not out live, DRS and the umpire was wrong and it should have been not out. Just because you thought Saha was not out, does not make him not out. How about you get the umpires to give you a call next time, so you can tell them what you think, seeing as you are never wrong? Similarly, just becuase decisions were given out/not out 10 years ago, doesn't mean those same decisions should be made now. For example, in the past, lots of bowlers would be loathe bowling around the wicket, because umpires did not believe the ball could hit the stumpts. Some bowlers found this to be wrong and conducted an experiment to prove it was possible to hit the stumps from that angle. In the same way, umpires would never give a batsman out when they walked down the wicket to a spinner and got hit on the pads. We now know that it is possible to give these out LBW. I'm going to assume you didn't complain when Moeen Ali got given out in the first innings, so not sure why you're nitpicking issues.

 

[Bilal7]

A decision that looks easy not out can be given out and then ball could clip the stumps and make it umpire's call.

It the ball is clipping the stumps, it's not an "easy" not out and the umpire was within his rights to give it out. If it is a howler, the ball will either have pitched outside leg, impact would have been outside off or the ball would be missing the stumps. The DRS is made to counter howlers, not totally replace the umpires on the field.

 

[Chrish]

DRS just proves how rubbish umpiring has been all these years.. Makes me bit sad tbh

That being said I would love to know the current margin of error in ball tracking but they would never release that info

 

[SL_Fan]

Umpire’s call is a flaw in the system and makes little sense imo. I don’t see how it’s there to somehow negate the margin of error. If that’s the case then for example how come 1% of the ball hitting/impact can be given out but 49% of the ball hitting/impact can be given not out? Last time I checked 49% > 1%.

Essentially what it’s doing is just giving the benefit of the doubt to the on-filed umpire for the sake of it. That only makes the system both inconsistent and confusing for all involved. To make matters worse sides also lose reviews as well after getting screwed over by umpire’s call.

With the new rules they have increased the width of the hitting zone by around 3.8cm (half a stump's width on either side). While that has made umpire’s call not as harsh for bowlers the issue of inconsistency still remains. Once a decision is referred why not let the third umpire make the final decision given the evidence available regardless of the on-field call. Makes things easier, consistent and less confusing for the umpires, the players and the viewers. Keep it simple.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Unfrigging believable.

Benefit of doubt batsmen gets over-ruled by this idiotic rule.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Any proper system would declare Kohli was not out.

 

[volcyz]

Umpires call is pure garbage.

Nigel Llong is a filthy umpire one of the most worst.

Still unforgivable what he did against NZ for aus. Pure crap could be anything decision for Nathan Lyon.... absolute atrocious umpire.

 

[London_Lahori]

Umpires call is something I don't agree with because you're altering the laws of the game.

LBW basically becomes leg before wicket *with the exception of when the ball hits less than 50% of the stumps.

 

[Bilal7]

The on-field umpire's decision IS the new "benefit of the doubt". The game has changed, this isn't the 80s anymore where batsmen were given leeway because of how tough things were for them. Indians should be the last people to cry about this after watching Kohli score double after double on flat-beds.

 

[Bilal7]

Umpires call is something I don't agree with because you're altering the laws of the game.

LBW basically becomes leg before wicket *with the exception of when the ball hits less than 50% of the stumps.

Nothing has changed. If the umpire says it's out, it's out. If he says it's not, it's not. If the umpire has a shocker, you can get the decision overturned. As long as you use the DRS for overturning really horrid decisions and don't use it to try and get a second chance, there should be no complains.

 

[Junaids]

Any proper system would declare Kohli was not out.

DRS is there to overturn gross mistakes. It did its job perfectly with Kohli - there was no gross mistake to overturn.

Was he unfortunate? Yes. But it works the same way for everyone. There are marginal not outs and marginal outs. DRS does not exist to overturn them.

 

[Sachin136]

DRS is there to overturn gross mistakes. It did its job perfectly with Kohli - there was no gross mistake to overturn.

Was he unfortunate? Yes. But it works the same way for everyone. There are marginal not outs and marginal outs. DRS does not exist to overturn them.

DRS isn't just used to overturn major errors anymore.

 

[Junaids]

DRS isn't just used to overturn major errors anymore.

.....is, with respect, precisely why India is so bad at using it.

You are always going to need it to overturn 3 or 4 howlers in the match.

So you can't burn reviews challenging marginal decisions, which are likely to be upheld as Umpire's Call anyway.

You need to be certain as a batsman that it was missing an additional stump, or that you didn't touch it, or that it hit bat before pad.

 

[IMMY69]

umpires call is pathetic when you consistently get different outcomes for a similar decision...

Time and again you see one batsmen given out LBW due to Umpires Call and then in the same match a similar delivery is given not out due to Umpires Call.

 

[IMMY69]

Unless you have consistency in the umpires decision making you will always end up with different results...

 

[troodon]

Get rid of Umpires call.

As @SmBhai said, if the ball hits more than 50%, it is out irrespective of what on-field umpire says. If not, it is not out.

What this umpires call is doing is re-affirming the mistake of on-field umpire. Not good enough.

Outside of this DRS, everything else is perfect with DRS to me.

 

[cricketerB94]

At least, review should not be lost if it's umpire's call.

 

[MMHS]

DRS has to be taken off from players, otherwise it'll never be effective. On Day 2, Virat blew 2 DRS within 13 overs -after that, if there was a gross mistake by Umpire, we could have said it's India's fault to use DRS on chancy calls, but that doesn't serve justice.

I see only 2 solutions - the 1st one is give DRS to Umpires as I explained earlier in this post. 2nd one is better solution, but a bit high-tech & complex, which is used in US Sports - avail replays to umpires in personal capacity (that's not the large screen seen by everyone), so that if there is any confusion, umpire can watch the replay & take his decision. I am not sure how it can be done - in Basketball, Ice Hockey, Baseball or American Football, the adjudicators reach out to digital screens for replays; but in cricket, it's not possible for umpires to walk 100 metres & return for every replay.

May be, umpires can be availed an air plug for snicko, & a lap top, where they can watch replays via wi fi - but still it's too complex. Therefore, I'll stick to my first suggestion - on field umpires to take all the decisions, & the 3rd umpire to assist him. The communication can be both ways - on field umpire will ask specific questions, if he is not sure before a decision - and his decision is final. Other case is on field umpire makes a wrong call (either case - given a wrong out or saved a batsman) - if it's conclusive that the decision was wrong, before next ball, 3rd Umpire will call him to alter his decision or ask him to hold on for a better look.

DRS shouldn't be with players & it'll be always controversial as long as it's with players. For being bowled, one doesn't need the ball to hit stump 100%, 50% or 25% - what it needs is dislodging the bails, which can happen with 1% contact, therefore this percentage rule on LBW is also controversial.

 

[Syed1]

On field umps need to be given a wrist mounted IPad mini or something which gets real-time ball tracking and snicko information. Or if nothing else then just slow-mo.

 

[akki]

The on-field umpire's decision IS the new "benefit of the doubt". The game has changed, this isn't the 80s anymore where batsmen were given leeway because of how tough things were for them. Indians should be the last people to cry about this after watching Kohli score double after double on flat-beds.

oh isko v bnde ko koi reply krdo bechare ko ajkal 2 match se kohli score ni kr ra.....��mushkil se saalo me ek bar mauka milta hi jb kohli score na kre....u are funny though...

 

[rollingstoned]

Unfrigging believable.

Benefit of doubt batsmen gets over-ruled by this idiotic rule.

benefit of doubt in drs is not necessarily with the batsman, in this case the 3rd umpire interpreted the call correctly. Kohli was unfortunate that he hit the ball probably at the same time as when the ball hit the pad.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

benefit of doubt in drs is not necessarily with the batsman, in this case the 3rd umpire interpreted the call correctly. Kohli was unfortunate that he hit the ball probably at the same time as when the ball hit the pad.

I am talking about the rule.

Not the implementation of the rule which was correct.

 

[sa]

Any proper system would declare Kohli was not out.

Whats a proper system?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Umpire's call (dodgy whether it was that) got Warner.

Then that prompted Aussies to not review Marsh who was not out.

DRS claimed Kohli unfairly yesterday.

Today it claimed Warner and Marsh.

 

[Zak_Fan]

Umpire's call (dodgy whether it was that) got Warner.

Then that prompted Aussies to not review Marsh who was not out.

DRS claimed Kohli unfairly yesterday.

Today it claimed Warner and Marsh.

Marsh wasn't exactly DRS fault though.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Marsh wasn't exactly DRS fault though.

Yes but it was a result of a DRS fault.

Aus lost a review for a good call.

Made them circumspect to review the next with still a big part of the total to chase.

Part DRS and part their mistake.

 

[Zak_Fan]

Yes but it was a result of a DRS fault.

Aus lost a review for a good call.

Made them circumspect to review the next with still a big part of the total to chase.

Part DRS and part their mistake.

Yup, right.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Now umpire's call screws us with 1 review.

This is a carnage. )

 

[Zahid87]

Mitch Marsh was way more out than Warner. But thats the problem with Umpires Call.

The best way forward is to take the Umpires call aspect out. If its hitting, its hitting. Only needs to flick the bail to be out.

But then the ICC will say what is the point of the on field umpire. They have to justofy his position and not make him a lame duck.

 

[super hitter]

very much agree to this but I think, things have changed a little bit after the new ICC rules since I've seen some very good decisions, but yeah, the problem exists!

 

[gazza619]

The rule is just a non sense, I mean there is sense behind why this rule is there but it makes a mockery of the situation sometimes and some teams get an unfair advantage.

Either the ball is missing the stumps or hitting. Either the ball is hitting outside the off stump or inside. We shouldn't use technology and then provide for marginal technology errors. This creates more controversy as it all then depends on the original umpire call.

The sooner we get rid of this umpire's call, the better.

 

[cricketindiafan]

It’s working perfectly. Because sometimes decisions are not in your favour, doesn’t make it a bad rule. Current DRS system is the best we can have, works in favour or against each team almost equally.

 

[OmaIR1]

I've been complaining about this since it first started. It should be used like it is used in Tennis. If ball tracking shows that ball is in even if it's in by 1 mm it is considered in - No "umpires's call " nonsense. This way there is no bias because I know sometimes umpires are more likely to give decisions in favour of certain countries because of their cricketing stature. Then the opposition is on the losing end of those decisions which are clipping the stumps. You have to go all in with technology to make it fair or change the rules and say clipping the stumps is conisederent not out regardless of the umpire's call.

 

[BlackThunder]

It will be even a lot more fairer without any rules. That way there won't be any outside influence.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

DRS isn't an exact science. Ball tracking, in some scenarios, has a margin of error of up to 1cm so umpires call makes sense. Otherwise why even bother with umpires, why not use DRS 100% of the time?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Umpire's call is one of the most dumbest things we will ever get to see.

A decision can be out or not out.

Depends on your luck and the mood of the umpire.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You have to go all in with technology to make it fair or change the rules and say clipping the stumps is conisederent not out regardless of the umpire's call.

This.

 

[ManFan]

Been saying this for ages.

It’s made to vindicate the umpires’ decision rather than make the correct one.

How about, if it hits, it’s OUT.

If it misses, it’s NOT OUT.

 

[We Bleed Green]

All the people posting comments does not even understand the basics of cricket.

The rules of tennis are different from cricket. In cricket the benefit of doubt must go to batsman. This is an integral part of cricket as the rules are tilted slightly towards batsman.

If umpire thinks it's not out and it turns out to be umpire call then this is a good decision. Umpire call decisions can go either way and that's the beauty of the game.

If you remove benefit of doubt going to batsman rule then it fundamentally change the rule of cricket.

Stop moaning about everything.

 

[ManFan]

All the people posting comments does not even understand the basics of cricket.

The rules of tennis are different from cricket. In cricket the benefit of doubt must go to batsman. This is an integral part of cricket as the rules are tilted slightly towards batsman.

If umpire thinks it's not out and it turns out to be umpire call then this is a good decision. Umpire call decisions can go either way and that's the beauty of the game.

If you remove benefit of doubt going to batsman rule then it fundamentally change the rule of cricket.

Stop moaning about everything.

How much more benefit do they need?

Shorter boundaries, bats that have become three times the size of those used just thirty years ago, fielding restrictions, two balls in ODI’s, free-hits, etc.

There’s no beauty in a ball that is hitting the stumps with 49% accuracy but because of umpires call, it is ruled NOT OUT.

 

[gazza619]

How much more benefit do they need?

Shorter boundaries, bats that have become three times the size of those used just thirty years ago, fielding restrictions, two balls in ODI’s, free-hits, etc.

There’s no beauty in a ball that is hitting the stumps with 49% accuracy but because of umpires call, it is ruled NOT OUT.

Spot on mate. 49% accuracy not being given out is not justice.

 

[ManFan]

Spot on mate. 49% accuracy not being given out is not justice.

It’s a video on YouTube where Pattinson is bowling to a Sri Lankan left-hander and it’s a centimeter to the other side of the seam.

And yet it upholds the umpires decision.

 

[hadi123]

I like the Umpire's call. ICC made the right decision by not making a team lose a review for that. I think it's fair because benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman as once they are out, that is it. They can't come back. If it's marginal, they could just get away with it, if everything was umpire's call then a lot of batsman would get out even though the ball could have missed. This doesn't need tinkering with. This rule is fine as it is.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Umpire's call is controversial because technology loses all the authority for all marginal , touch and go calls. Basically in those scenarios good old thumb rule of "Umpire's call is final" apply. Only howlers should be overturned (if used correctly by teams.

 

[BaankeJi]

Umpire call is nonsense. Should be removed.

 

[Major]

THe fans could be soo naive sometimes.

Problem with cricket is that the rule makers take everything into consideration and are really smart people, while the fans are just plain dumb.

Guys remember one thing, when a ball is being showed in Hawk eye, that is just a prediction. Predictions are not always right. The hawk eye prediction is made based on the data information it receives before it comes in contact with bat and ball.
The movement in ball the swing is just assumed with the data. In truth the ball that is not hitting more than 50% of the stump could miss the stump completely or vice versa.

Thus umpires call exist. It makes the field umpires decision relevent plus sometimes what we see with the naked eye may look to us that it might hit the stump, but technology might disagree.

Remember Ajmal and Tendulkar at 2011 mohali match.

Its a great decision by ICC that atleast a review is still retained on umpires call.

 

[barah_admi]

This topic comes from a lack of understanding why the DRS was implemented and why it is still used.

The point of it is to reduce really bad umpiring errors, something that was often complained about and attributed to some level of bias. So first and foremost, the review starts at the point that the umpire is correct and works backwards. Simple really.

 

[rhony]

THe fans could be soo naive sometimes.

Problem with cricket is that the rule makers take everything into consideration and are really smart people, while the fans are just plain dumb.

Guys remember one thing, when a ball is being showed in Hawk eye, that is just a prediction. Predictions are not always right. The hawk eye prediction is made based on the data information it receives before it comes in contact with bat and ball.
The movement in ball the swing is just assumed with the data. In truth the ball that is not hitting more than 50% of the stump could miss the stump completely or vice versa.

Thus umpires call exist. It makes the field umpires decision relevent plus sometimes what we see with the naked eye may look to us that it might hit the stump, but technology might disagree.

Remember Ajmal and Tendulkar at 2011 mohali match.

Its a great decision by ICC that atleast a review is still retained on umpires call.

Nailed it. Technology is there to support the on field umpire. Not replace him

 

[Third Man]

Been saying this for ages.

It’s made to vindicate the umpires’ decision rather than make the correct one.

How about, if it hits, it’s OUT.

If it misses, it’s NOT OUT.

How do you know, it hits? It's a prediction and simply an interpolation of the trajectory of the ball based on where it hits the pads. It has its margin of error and that's why they use the umpire's call.

 

[BaankeJi]

THe fans could be soo naive sometimes.

Problem with cricket is that the rule makers take everything into consideration and are really smart people, while the fans are just plain dumb.

Guys remember one thing, when a ball is being showed in Hawk eye, that is just a prediction. Predictions are not always right. The hawk eye prediction is made based on the data information it receives before it comes in contact with bat and ball.
The movement in ball the swing is just assumed with the data. In truth the ball that is not hitting more than 50% of the stump could miss the stump completely or vice versa.

Thus umpires call exist. It makes the field umpires decision relevent plus sometimes what we see with the naked eye may look to us that it might hit the stump, but technology might disagree.

Remember Ajmal and Tendulkar at 2011 mohali match.

Its a great decision by ICC that atleast a review is still retained on umpires call.

This topic comes from a lack of understanding why the DRS was implemented and why it is still used.

The point of it is to reduce really bad umpiring errors, something that was often complained about and attributed to some level of bias. So first and foremost, the review starts at the point that the umpire is correct and works backwards. Simple really.

Umpire call was kept when DRS was not so accurate in it's early days. Now it is proven to be so accurate that umpire call doesn't matter. It is only a matter of time when it gets removed.

 

[ManFan]

How do you know, it hits? It's a prediction and simply an interpolation of the trajectory of the ball based on where it hits the pads. It has its margin of error and that's why they use the umpire's call.

Except it is considered to be more accurate than the umpire.

The umpire is human and a victim of normal sight. He cannot predict the trajectory of the ball as concisely as the DRS system can.

It makes little to no sense to register the unpires’ decision as equivalent to the DRS and uphold an incorrect one just because the former originally thought it.

Cricket is a game that is so far behind the rest of the global sports with its formatting and failure to adopt adequate technological means, that it should atleast attempt to obtain the absolute correct decision on reviews.

 

[barah_admi]

Umpire call was kept when DRS was not so accurate in it's early days. Now it is proven to be so accurate that umpire call doesn't matter. It is only a matter of time when it gets removed.

There is always a degree of error, which is what the umpire's call is there to negate HOWEVER DRS' purpose is to remove what is known as "howlers" not to disregard every umpiring decision.

 

[shokz1408]

No, because technology whilst helpful, will not be perfect, so just clipping the stumps it is best to leave the call to the on field umpire. I think teams should have x2 reviews in ODI's though.

 

[Executioner]

DRS was to cut down on howlers

END OF STORY

 

[fitCricFan]

Yes, absolutely, that's a no brainer.
Infact, teams won't have to travel for the 2019 world cup any more. The games will all be played remotely with no limit on reviews. You can even review the ball just bowled and if not to your liking, it will be bowled again.

 

[charlie007]

Umpire's call crap should be done away with. Either the ball is hitting the stump or it is not. Either you trust the DRS technology or you don't. In any case, DRS is pretty poor on balls that swing late - it just shows as a straight line after pitching, pointing to the direction in which the ball was going before pitching.

Also, esp for ODIs, they should do away with pitching outside leg stump or hitting outside the line of off stump crap when the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps.

 

[par]

Umpire call was kept when DRS was not so accurate in it's early days. Now it is proven to be so accurate that umpire call doesn't matter. It is only a matter of time when it gets removed.

I missed that news. Can you say when was it proven?

 

[cricketindiafan]

Were there any howlers in the Asia Cup?Perhaps a couple of them. But if a team does not use a review available to use DRS or has used up their review randomly, they should do not blame the system, rather blame their own incompetence. Kohli has got heavily criticised for being indiscriminate with his reviews and rightly so.

If you trivialise DRS usage, it will hurt you at some stage.

 

[happydavy]

All the people posting comments does not even understand the basics of cricket.

The rules of tennis are different from cricket. In cricket the benefit of doubt must go to batsman. This is an integral part of cricket as the rules are tilted slightly towards batsman.

If umpire thinks it's not out and it turns out to be umpire call then this is a good decision. Umpire call decisions can go either way and that's the beauty of the game.

If you remove benefit of doubt going to batsman rule then it fundamentally change the rule of cricket.

Stop moaning about everything.

So you may think you understand the cricket better than others, but your insight on "umpires call" rule is completely inaccurate. Umpires call is not there to establish benefit of doubt to batsman, umpires call is there to establish benefit to umpire's words over technology. If umpires gives out when the ball is hitting stumps marginally, the DRS retains it as "out" on the basis of umpires call. It doesn't give benefit of doubt to batsman and reverse the decision to not out. DRS doesn't in any way give benefit of doubt to batsman but it gives benefit of doubt to umpire's decision regardless of whether it was batsman friendly or bowler friendly. So stop educating people about things you don't understand yourself.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

So you may think you understand the cricket better than others, but your insight on "umpires call" rule is completely inaccurate. Umpires call is not there to establish benefit of doubt to batsman, umpires call is there to establish benefit to umpire's words over technology. If umpires gives out when the ball is hitting stumps marginally, the DRS retains it as "out" on the basis of umpires call. It doesn't give benefit of doubt to batsman and reverse the decision to not out. DRS doesn't in any way give benefit of doubt to batsman but it gives benefit of doubt to umpire's decision regardless of whether it was batsman friendly or bowler friendly. So stop educating people about things you don't understand yourself.

Thank you.

In fact, if cricket wants to give benefit of the doubt to batsmen, umpire's call should be declared not out.

Which in turn will validate the point made by those who are against umpire's call as its used now.

 

[gazza619]

Except it is considered to be more accurate than the umpire.

The umpire is human and a victim of normal sight. He cannot predict the trajectory of the ball as concisely as the DRS system can.

It makes little to no sense to register the unpires’ decision as equivalent to the DRS and uphold an incorrect one just because the former originally thought it.

Cricket is a game that is so far behind the rest of the global sports with its formatting and failure to adopt adequate technological means, that it should atleast attempt to obtain the absolute correct decision on reviews.

Nailed it. Umpire’s prediction is no different to technology’s prediction. Everybody is doing a damn prediction so for sake of justice we should use or the other.

 

[happydavy]

Cricket is a game that is so far behind the rest of the global sports with its formatting and failure to adopt adequate technological means, that it should atleast attempt to obtain the absolute correct decision on reviews.

I don't agree thar cricket is far behind other sports when it comes to adoption of technology, it's just that cricket is a game with extraordinarily high number of rules. No other sport have these many rules and that's why it hasn't become a global sport. Just think of lbw rule, can you imagine the number of use cases for lbw decision - where did the ball pitch, did it hit the pad in line, was the batsman trying to play the shot or not, did it pitch outside the leg stump, how far was the batsman from the wicket etc etc - this is over and above the prediction of whether or not the ball was hitting the stumps. You will struggle to find a sport with such atriciously high number of rules, and hence the confusion.

In other sports, technology is used to determine one single objective outcome, which in most cases is - whether or not the ball was over the line. In cricket, there are 5 scenarios which first determine whether or not it matters if the ball was over the line.

 

[Smbhayi]

It’s working perfectly. Because sometimes decisions are not in your favour, doesn’t make it a bad rule. Current DRS system is the best we can have, works in favour or against each team almost equally.

how when same thing have 2 decision? if you're using technology then use it full, there is no need to have umpire's call..

 

[Abdullah719]

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Fans are soooo dumb.

Administrators are the only intelligent people.

Stop whining.

 

[ads101]

Definitely lol. If it's out, it's out, players shouldn't be saved just because the umpire got it wrong. The DRS system is more accurate than the umpire.

The main reason umpire's call exists IMO is because they don't want the umpires to be undermined. And they want players to think about reviewing carefully. The DRS system is used to avoid howlers rather than debatable calls, but I think it should be used for the latter too. I don't think umpires will be undermined, but ICC probably thinks it safer to have umpire's call. Plus without umpire's call, an umpire could look like he makes a lot of wrong decisions, and ICC don't want them witch hunted.

I'm sure Umpire's call will eventually go anyway sooner or later, when people's distrust for the technology fades away with time.

 

[cricketindiafan]

View attachment 84507

View attachment 84509

More than 3 meters for the ball to travel, the trajectory projection isn't accurate enough in such cases and therefore it stays umpire's call.

In earlier eras, getting a LBW even on the front foot (forget after advancing down the pitch) was nearly impossible.