Hasan123
Test Star
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2016
- Runs
- 38,432
Current system is fine. I'm happy with it.
-
Contact the PP Team
Will cricket be better and fairer without umpire's call?
- Thread starter Saj
- Start date
gazza619
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Runs
- 14,214
Holy cow!! Why 3 meter rule? Why not 2.5 meter or 4 meter.
If the ball is hitting the stumps it should be out. End of discussion.
Sohail incident reignites DRS debate
An lbw shout that a decade ago would not have even warranted an appeal let alone serious consideration by an umpire has reignited a debate over how the rule is applied in the Decision Review System era.
Australia were denied the wicket of Haris Sohail on an lbw review during the second day of their first Test against Pakistan, with the left-hander profiting from the reprieve on 51 to push on to an otherwise chanceless maiden Test century in Dubai.
The incident, which came at a crucial juncture of the match, surfaced memories of Steve Smith's dismissal to Keshav Maharaj at the WACA Ground two years ago, while it also exposed divergent opinions from a number of former Test players.
On 51, Sohail danced down the pitch to off-spinner Nathan Lyon but, finding himself not quite to the pitch of the ball after being deceived in flight, padded the ball away with a lunging front leg.
Australia's appeal was turned down by umpire Richard Illingworth but after a lengthy consultation between bowler Nathan Lyon and skipper Tim Paine, Australia opted for what initially appeared an ambitious review.
While HawkEye deemed the ball the ball to have struck the left-hander in line and suggested the ball would have gone on to hit the woodwork, Sohail was spared as the impact of ball on pad was more than three metres away from the stumps.
Pakistan were 4-341 at the time and while Australia eventually engineered a collapse of 6-72 to finish off the innings, Sohail (110) Asad Shafiq (80) extended their partnership to 150 to push the game to very edge of Australia's reach with a first-innings tally of 482.
Debutant Marnus Labuchagne later admitted he'd had to brush up on the specifics of the rule that spared Sohail.
"When it's outside that three-metre radius, it goes back to umpire's call just because there's obvious doubt," Labuschagne explained post-play.
"When we saw that, I think Tim was just getting some clarification on the meaning of that and how it worked.
"We were discussing a little bit in the huddle whether the rule had been changed, whether the three-metre rule...I definitely didn't know (before the incident)."
The nuance that Labuschagne correctly identified is a little-known one.
It was introduced by the International Cricket Council into Test cricket's playing conditions in 2011 due to its belief that ball-tracking technology can’t accurately predict distances as great as the one Sohail had created between his leg and the stumps.
The clause only applies however to reviews from the bowling team of not out decisions. If umpire Illingworth had given Sohail out, the decision would have stood, which would have replicated the situation that saw Smith given out in Perth in 2016.
Former Test batsman Mark Waugh took issue with the rule, especially given Sohail was spared despite not offering a shot
"As soon as you don’t play a shot I reckon you should be able to be given out on the DRS even if it’s outside the three metres," Waugh said on Fox Cricket.
"Fair enough if you play a shot, I’ll happily live with that but if you don’t play a shot I reckon you should be given out otherwise you’ll have blokes running down the wicket and padding up to balls knowing they won’t be given out.
"It should be given out anyway."
But Dean Jones, another former Australia batsman, disagreed, insisting lbws shouldn't be given out when a batsman is more than three metres down the track.
"No way can any system or umpire, can say with any fair amount of confidence, that the ball would hit the stumps," Jones tweeted.
Paine, incidentally, has a history with this type of review.
In a 2011 ODI against England at the WACA, he was given out on review, despite have been struck on the pad more than 2.5 metres (a distance that was only later extended to three metres) away from the stumps.
England had reviewed umpire Paul Reiffel's not out decision, and ball tracking showed the delivery would have hit the stumps halfway up. Under the playing conditions in play at the time, Reiffel would have been within his rights to stick with his not out call but opted not to overrule the technology.
The way umpires used the system was tweaked midway through the World Cup in India later that same year, but the issue has continued to be a hot-button topic.
https://www.cricket.com.au/news/har...lia-first-test-dubai-uae-tim-paine/2018-10-09
An lbw shout that a decade ago would not have even warranted an appeal let alone serious consideration by an umpire has reignited a debate over how the rule is applied in the Decision Review System era.
Australia were denied the wicket of Haris Sohail on an lbw review during the second day of their first Test against Pakistan, with the left-hander profiting from the reprieve on 51 to push on to an otherwise chanceless maiden Test century in Dubai.
The incident, which came at a crucial juncture of the match, surfaced memories of Steve Smith's dismissal to Keshav Maharaj at the WACA Ground two years ago, while it also exposed divergent opinions from a number of former Test players.
On 51, Sohail danced down the pitch to off-spinner Nathan Lyon but, finding himself not quite to the pitch of the ball after being deceived in flight, padded the ball away with a lunging front leg.
Australia's appeal was turned down by umpire Richard Illingworth but after a lengthy consultation between bowler Nathan Lyon and skipper Tim Paine, Australia opted for what initially appeared an ambitious review.
While HawkEye deemed the ball the ball to have struck the left-hander in line and suggested the ball would have gone on to hit the woodwork, Sohail was spared as the impact of ball on pad was more than three metres away from the stumps.
Pakistan were 4-341 at the time and while Australia eventually engineered a collapse of 6-72 to finish off the innings, Sohail (110) Asad Shafiq (80) extended their partnership to 150 to push the game to very edge of Australia's reach with a first-innings tally of 482.
Debutant Marnus Labuchagne later admitted he'd had to brush up on the specifics of the rule that spared Sohail.
"When it's outside that three-metre radius, it goes back to umpire's call just because there's obvious doubt," Labuschagne explained post-play.
"When we saw that, I think Tim was just getting some clarification on the meaning of that and how it worked.
"We were discussing a little bit in the huddle whether the rule had been changed, whether the three-metre rule...I definitely didn't know (before the incident)."
The nuance that Labuschagne correctly identified is a little-known one.
It was introduced by the International Cricket Council into Test cricket's playing conditions in 2011 due to its belief that ball-tracking technology can’t accurately predict distances as great as the one Sohail had created between his leg and the stumps.
The clause only applies however to reviews from the bowling team of not out decisions. If umpire Illingworth had given Sohail out, the decision would have stood, which would have replicated the situation that saw Smith given out in Perth in 2016.
Former Test batsman Mark Waugh took issue with the rule, especially given Sohail was spared despite not offering a shot
"As soon as you don’t play a shot I reckon you should be able to be given out on the DRS even if it’s outside the three metres," Waugh said on Fox Cricket.
"Fair enough if you play a shot, I’ll happily live with that but if you don’t play a shot I reckon you should be given out otherwise you’ll have blokes running down the wicket and padding up to balls knowing they won’t be given out.
"It should be given out anyway."
But Dean Jones, another former Australia batsman, disagreed, insisting lbws shouldn't be given out when a batsman is more than three metres down the track.
"No way can any system or umpire, can say with any fair amount of confidence, that the ball would hit the stumps," Jones tweeted.
Paine, incidentally, has a history with this type of review.
In a 2011 ODI against England at the WACA, he was given out on review, despite have been struck on the pad more than 2.5 metres (a distance that was only later extended to three metres) away from the stumps.
England had reviewed umpire Paul Reiffel's not out decision, and ball tracking showed the delivery would have hit the stumps halfway up. Under the playing conditions in play at the time, Reiffel would have been within his rights to stick with his not out call but opted not to overrule the technology.
The way umpires used the system was tweaked midway through the World Cup in India later that same year, but the issue has continued to be a hot-button topic.
https://www.cricket.com.au/news/har...lia-first-test-dubai-uae-tim-paine/2018-10-09
U really neee to learn about lbw rule, there is no rule such as hutting stumps must be out , if batsman offered shot or not , was he coming down the pitch ? All this facts are taken in the picture just because in normal words LBW is if batsman intenally use leg or body to block the bowl which is consider illegal and he is given out , since nither umpire nor DrS can give acurrate or accountable result for impact more than 3 meter away its umpires call /given not out
And for your 2.5/3/4 meter theory!! Let me ask u some thing !!
- Why bowler is given warning for bowling above shoulder? Why set limit there ? Why not above head or below waist?
You see? Because game works according to rules.Not according to how u prefer ur beloved team players given result in favour
DuckMaster
Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2018
- Runs
- 172
On this forum - Yes, if Pakistan is on the receiving end. Not otherwise.
On a more serious note, to the naked eye it does seem like closer to this side or that. But I guess its still the fairest outcome possible given the fact that Umpires are human. Angels like Shakoor Rana and Khizar Hayat are things of the past.
On a more serious note, to the naked eye it does seem like closer to this side or that. But I guess its still the fairest outcome possible given the fact that Umpires are human. Angels like Shakoor Rana and Khizar Hayat are things of the past.
DRS should never be with players. It’s to eradicate umpiaring gross mistakes, not to save batsmen or give chancy wickets to bowlers.
On field Umpires should be allowed to take own call, only if he is not sure can consult with his buddy or if a wrong decision is given against batsmen, before the next man starts his innings, 3rd umpire can suggest the main umpires to recall the batsman.
Umpire’s call is one of the most confusing & controversial thing in cricket.
On field Umpires should be allowed to take own call, only if he is not sure can consult with his buddy or if a wrong decision is given against batsmen, before the next man starts his innings, 3rd umpire can suggest the main umpires to recall the batsman.
Umpire’s call is one of the most confusing & controversial thing in cricket.
gazza619
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Runs
- 14,214
Well i know the rule regarding batsman not offering a shot or if the ball is pitches outstide leg. My point is that if you make an appeal for lbw and the umpire says not out and then you go to hawk eye which says that 49% of the ball is hitting the stumps but since it is umpires call it is not out, that is plain rubbish to me. We all know that only 0.1% of the ball needs to hit the stumps.
Indiafan
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Runs
- 19,664
- Post of the Week
- 8
Except there is an error limit in Hawk Eye and when they say 49% is missing the stump it can mean ball is completely missing the stumps because of the error limit. The animation you see on the screen of the ball hitting is not the ball actually hitting, it is a calculated projection which has an error limit
cricketindiafan
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Runs
- 7,323
- Post of the Week
- 1
We have been through those rules. IIRC earlier 50% of the ball had to be hitting stumps (the ball-tracking software should rule that more than half of the ball would hit a zone that was between the middle of the off and leg stumps and below the bottom of the bails for it to be given out). There was a lot of hue and cry on that as well. Which is when it was decided to give supremacy to umpire's call 2 years back which IMO is the best way to go.
The problem with umpires call is that in cricket umpiring doesn't have any standardization. To the same delivery, 50% umpires will give out and 50% will give not out. Someone like David Shepherd didn't used to give any lbws, and then we had Venkatraman who was quite liberal in giving batsmen out lbw. That lack of standardization is still continuing with the culture of umpire's calls.
Extra_Cover
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Runs
- 2,065
- Post of the Week
- 8
On Haris Sohail decision it is clear that was out. There should not be any question into consideration that it was clearly out. Factors that the decision should be out are as follows:
Impact was within the line:
An lbw call is made on three factors (pitch, impact and hitting). On these basic terms it was all red for Sohail.
Use of technology:
In prior years the benefit was given to batsmen because the umpires cannot predict the travel path of ball if impact was over 3m as such. The technology of hawkeye is precisely designed to get rid of this bias. Clearly hawkeye predicted that to be hitting stumps so impact being 3m or 15m should not make a difference.
Impact was within the line:
An lbw call is made on three factors (pitch, impact and hitting). On these basic terms it was all red for Sohail.
Use of technology:
In prior years the benefit was given to batsmen because the umpires cannot predict the travel path of ball if impact was over 3m as such. The technology of hawkeye is precisely designed to get rid of this bias. Clearly hawkeye predicted that to be hitting stumps so impact being 3m or 15m should not make a difference.
ARK Rafay
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 6,685
Hawk-Eye system isn't perfect. Therefore you have Umpire's call in place. (Just like old times). But where Hawk-Eye is accurate why don't we use it. That's exactly what is happening. Unless some big progress is made in technology this is the best ICC can do.
sensible-indian-fan
ODI Star
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Runs
- 35,587
- Post of the Week
- 3
Soft signal is basically umpire's call.
Umpires who need technology to decide open and shut run out cases will MAGICALLY know whether a catch was taken cleanly or not from far away.
I don't mind this dismissal but this methodology is BEYOND STUPID.
#Kohli #ICC #idiots
Umpires who need technology to decide open and shut run out cases will MAGICALLY know whether a catch was taken cleanly or not from far away.
I don't mind this dismissal but this methodology is BEYOND STUPID.
#Kohli #ICC #idiots
Last Monetarist
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 7,910
The soft signal needs to be done away with and a new directive should be introduced instead which advocates clearly for the benefit of the doubt to either pass to the batsman or the fielder. So everyone knows where they stand when the video evidence is not conclusive.
Saurav
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Runs
- 19,087
Either you use technology or you don't.What's the point of using technology if onfield call still gets precedence
That can also happen without DRS. And I'm sure it did previously
I don't mind the umpire's call the soft signal though is stupid, technology isn't perfect but that should never be a reason to not use it at all.
sensible-indian-fan
ODI Star
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Runs
- 35,587
- Post of the Week
- 3
Then what's the use of DRS?
I can make the right decision but I will pick the wrong one due to stupid policies eh?
Abdullah719
T20I Captain
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2013
- Runs
- 44,825
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">So that’s not out. <a href="https://t.co/79hfzaHOC4">pic.twitter.com/79hfzaHOC4</a></p>— Dale Steyn (@DaleSteyn62) <a href="https://twitter.com/DaleSteyn62/status/1090980968138186753?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Nothing against umpires, but I don’t understand how a LBW can be both out and not out depending on his decision...? <br>Surely if it’s hitting the stumps, no matter what percentage, it’s out?</p>— Dale Steyn (@DaleSteyn62) <a href="https://twitter.com/DaleSteyn62/status/1090983828787773442?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Nothing against umpires, but I don’t understand how a LBW can be both out and not out depending on his decision...? <br>Surely if it’s hitting the stumps, no matter what percentage, it’s out?</p>— Dale Steyn (@DaleSteyn62) <a href="https://twitter.com/DaleSteyn62/status/1090983828787773442?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
shaaik
First Class Star
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Runs
- 3,984
Umpires call finally going our way on this tour.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Holding on the Mohammad Rizwan decision "He was unfortunate, there has to be consistency. All the umpires call decisions should be not-out. As an umpire you cannot be sure that was hitting the stumps. That should have been given not out" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ENGvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ENGvPAK</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1291793303726424065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
Michael Holding saying that umpires need to be consistent - cannot say it might be hitting for some and not hitting for others!
had the situation been vice versa, pakistani fans wouldn't had cared.
Umpires call should exist, and this isn't an issue. Umpire gave a fair decision here.
Pakistan sucked, and we should admit it instead of trying to put hte blame on the umpire now.
Technology isn't accurate 100%. If we gonna whine about neutral away umpires, than we knew this before the series. ICC placed this condition, and if this was a very big issue PCB could had denied the series request
Umpires call should exist, and this isn't an issue. Umpire gave a fair decision here.
Pakistan sucked, and we should admit it instead of trying to put hte blame on the umpire now.
Technology isn't accurate 100%. If we gonna whine about neutral away umpires, than we knew this before the series. ICC placed this condition, and if this was a very big issue PCB could had denied the series request
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Holding ripping into the umpiring "if it's just clipping the stumps, give it out every time and not just sometimes. It should be out for everyone, not just for some" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ENGvPAK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ENGvPAK</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1291796986652499974?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
James
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Runs
- 50,859
- Post of the Week
- 2
Disagree with Holding, and he has been waffling on about this for quite a few weeks now. Was glad to hear Nasser shutting him down towards the end of today’s play.
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 89,125
The younger umpire seems biased towards England
ElRaja
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2010
- Runs
- 10,568
umpires call is fundamentally flawed, the law of game states the benefit goes to the batsmen. having said that the answer is be scientfic, go in a lab, bowl 100,000 balls at the stumps, and see how many times out of those hawkeye gets it right, if its above 99.9% remove umpires call, otherwise stick with it.
Chokli
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Runs
- 5,468
Umpires Call keeps the Umpires still in the game.
The current review system is the as good as it can get, 3 reviews is a great addition too.
The current review system is the as good as it can get, 3 reviews is a great addition too.
Artaxerxes
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2016
- Runs
- 1,251
Holding is SPOT ON.The umpires call was biased .I wouldn't call it inconsistent.In England's case he did not give the batsman(Broad?) out but he gave out Pakistan batsman(RIzwan).In both cases the ball just scraped the bails.
ManFan
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2017
- Runs
- 6,372
It’s either hitting the stumps or not.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
Here's the replay of that Burns lbw decision, which shows the ball clipping the top of middle stump:
James
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Runs
- 50,859
- Post of the Week
- 2
Biased English umpire just gave an England batsman out and it was umpire‘s call. lol
Thomaskutty
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Runs
- 1,616
Somebody should teach Holding about the concept of margin of error prevalent in every technology, which is what the umpire's call is all about. It's a perfectly reasonable feature of DRS.
Umpires call has no relation to the margin of error, it's an arbitrary margin picked by the ICC to maintain some control with the on field umpires.
Thomaskutty
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Runs
- 1,616
How do you know? Maybe the predictive path wasn't 100% accurate during testing and trials, so they created the umpire's call thing.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
MIKEY has a particular gripe with that Burns lbw decision, and similar 'umpire's call' ones like it...
"There we have it again; it's a matter of whether you as an umpire think the ball is hitting the stumps.
"If it's that high - I'll continue saying this - it should be given not out. If they're going to give that out, then give every single one like that out, then no-one will complain.
"But, when you have 'umpire's call' like that and it depends on what each umpire says, one umpire will say out and the other will say not out - that cannot be right.
"That is protecting the umpire; the player is more important than the umpire, protect them."
"There we have it again; it's a matter of whether you as an umpire think the ball is hitting the stumps.
"If it's that high - I'll continue saying this - it should be given not out. If they're going to give that out, then give every single one like that out, then no-one will complain.
"But, when you have 'umpire's call' like that and it depends on what each umpire says, one umpire will say out and the other will say not out - that cannot be right.
"That is protecting the umpire; the player is more important than the umpire, protect them."
Because that is what people at Hawkeye have said. Nothing is 100% accurate but the margin of umpires called has no relation to the margin of error of the technology (and is much larger than it).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
Was Shan a little unlucky here? Ball just clipping but since the umpire gave him out - he didnt have a chance.
Kenpachi
Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
- Runs
- 237
Bad call from Shan to leave a ball that came in.
He didn't play a shot so umpire went with the bowler.
Can't blame the umpire at all
He didn't play a shot so umpire went with the bowler.
Can't blame the umpire at all
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
The umpire had a choice to say i am not it would be hitting the stumps - but he chose a 50 50 and the batsman's goose was cooked
hitthestump
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Runs
- 5,353
DRS stops howlers. That decision wasn't a howler. Nothing to see here imo.
Grunge101
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2013
- Runs
- 1,486
- Post of the Week
- 2
Something needs to be done about the DRS
Yes, i am ********** right now because Abid was given out at a very crucial time when about 20% of the ball was brushing the leg stump.
Its illogical beyond belief that the exact same incident would be given out or not out simply based on the ground umpire initial instinct. ICC need to adopt either of these two approaches suggested by former players
Tendulkar : every ball hitting the stumps should be given out, even if its just only brushing the stumps
Holding : If the less than 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps, it should be not out irrespective of the initial decision by the ground umpire.
Personally im with Sachin, but id be ok with either solution. Just end this malarkey we have right now. This ''ending the howlers'' approach has caused more controversy than before.
Yes, i am ********** right now because Abid was given out at a very crucial time when about 20% of the ball was brushing the leg stump.
Its illogical beyond belief that the exact same incident would be given out or not out simply based on the ground umpire initial instinct. ICC need to adopt either of these two approaches suggested by former players
Tendulkar : every ball hitting the stumps should be given out, even if its just only brushing the stumps
Holding : If the less than 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps, it should be not out irrespective of the initial decision by the ground umpire.
Personally im with Sachin, but id be ok with either solution. Just end this malarkey we have right now. This ''ending the howlers'' approach has caused more controversy than before.
sweep_shot
World Star
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 53,282
I am with Sachin also.
If ball is hitting stump, it is out.
If ball is hitting stump, it is out.
Infinitee786
Tape Ball Regular
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Runs
- 515
The reason they kept umpires call was to to keep them on the field and also because the technology isn’t 100% accurate.
Having said that the one thing we can establish is Hawkeye will have a fixed margin of error and this will stay the same no matter the delivery or team etc.
I’d rather have an objective margin of error than a subjective “umpires call” based upon instinct
At least if the tech says it’s going to hit then everyone will accept it. The margin of error will be the same for everyone so it can be widely accepted and the game can move forward for the better.
As time goes on, and technology improves Hawkeye will become more accurate thus reducing its margin of error.
Get rid of umpires call. It will turn non cricketing fans away in confusion and disgust.
Having said that the one thing we can establish is Hawkeye will have a fixed margin of error and this will stay the same no matter the delivery or team etc.
I’d rather have an objective margin of error than a subjective “umpires call” based upon instinct
At least if the tech says it’s going to hit then everyone will accept it. The margin of error will be the same for everyone so it can be widely accepted and the game can move forward for the better.
As time goes on, and technology improves Hawkeye will become more accurate thus reducing its margin of error.
Get rid of umpires call. It will turn non cricketing fans away in confusion and disgust.
Pak_Pace
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Runs
- 1,694
Both Sachin and Holding's suggestion would eliminate the inconsistencies but I would go a step further on the margin of error analysis since I'm assuming the margin varies based on how far the ball has to travel. If the batsmen's pad is an inch away from the stumps, the margin of error would presumably be considerably less than compared to if they were 3m down the pitch.
So to incorporate that, have the tracker show the full circle of probability (ie. margin of error), not just where the ball is hitting the stumps (which is the centre of that circle). This eliminates the "more/less than half the ball hitting" umpire's call decision and actually takes in the full margin of error. Depending on how far the batsman is down the pitch, less/more than half the ball hitting will have different total margins of error. Now if the positions of the ball within that circle shows it to be touching the stumps for more than 50% of the circle area, it's out and otherwise not out.
This method should work out more logically than the current one, and thus result in more confidence being shown in the system.
Take for example the pad being right up against the wicket (assume 99% accuracy of the tracker for being this close to the stumps): if the decision is not out and it gets reviewed, 49% of the ball hitting the stumps would result in a final not out decision. Yet the ball tracking is saying with 99% confidence that it would hit exactly where it's showing, and 100% that it would hit the stumps. Holding's suggestion in this case would not be logical, even if consistent.
As the batsman gets further down the pitch, the circle would get bigger and thus more chances of ball not hitting stumps. Thus the 3m rule (which normally to the eye always seems hard to call) will also logically have more chances of not hitting, rather than a still image of the ball (in the centre of that circle) which may or may not be in line with the stumps.
So to incorporate that, have the tracker show the full circle of probability (ie. margin of error), not just where the ball is hitting the stumps (which is the centre of that circle). This eliminates the "more/less than half the ball hitting" umpire's call decision and actually takes in the full margin of error. Depending on how far the batsman is down the pitch, less/more than half the ball hitting will have different total margins of error. Now if the positions of the ball within that circle shows it to be touching the stumps for more than 50% of the circle area, it's out and otherwise not out.
This method should work out more logically than the current one, and thus result in more confidence being shown in the system.
Take for example the pad being right up against the wicket (assume 99% accuracy of the tracker for being this close to the stumps): if the decision is not out and it gets reviewed, 49% of the ball hitting the stumps would result in a final not out decision. Yet the ball tracking is saying with 99% confidence that it would hit exactly where it's showing, and 100% that it would hit the stumps. Holding's suggestion in this case would not be logical, even if consistent.
As the batsman gets further down the pitch, the circle would get bigger and thus more chances of ball not hitting stumps. Thus the 3m rule (which normally to the eye always seems hard to call) will also logically have more chances of not hitting, rather than a still image of the ball (in the centre of that circle) which may or may not be in line with the stumps.
I think it should be if more than 50 percent is hitting the stumps then out if less than 50 percent then not out
Smbhayi
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Runs
- 14,661
Umpires call is absolute joke.. by umpires call a biased umpire can favor a team..
Kenpachi
Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
- Runs
- 237
Agreed
Agreed that's why it should be how much percent has hit the wicket
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2015
- Runs
- 15,745
Agreed, the lack of consistency and standardisation of decisions is the worst thing. The exact same delivery can be given out or not out depending on the original split-second instinctive decision from the umpire, it makes no sense.
Have one standard rule across the board, that every LBW is either definitively out or not out irrespective of what the umpire originally thought.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
So Shadab hard done by this call vs Morgan?
So Shadab hard done by this call vs Morgan?
Guess people can argue that we were lucky because Banton's LBW was umpires call too. So in this match it balances out. Shame becuase the match could have been very diffenet otherwise
Indiafan
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Runs
- 19,664
- Post of the Week
- 8
Batons wicket looked hitting outside the off but umpire gave out and was not over tuned because it was umpires call
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,138
The MCC World Cricket committee (WCC) met recently via Conference Call. It was the first meeting of 2021, following the postponement of the physical meetings which were planned for 2020.
Decision Review System (DRS)
The committee debated the use of ‘Umpire’s Call’ for LBW decisions made via the Decision Review System, which some members felt was confusing to the watching public, particularly when the same ball could either be Out or Not out depending on the on-field umpire’s original decision. They felt it would be simpler if the original decision was disregarded on review, and that there was a simple Out or Not out, with no Umpire’s Call. The ‘hitting zone’ of the stumps would still be retained, which had to be hit by at least 50% of the ball for an Out decision. If such a protocol was introduced, they felt it should also include a reduction to one unsuccessful review per team, or for the relevant review to be lost irrespective of its outcome.
Other members were satisfied with the current system, feeling that it was important to retain the human element of the on-field umpire’s decision, which takes into account the ‘benefit of the doubt’ that has existed in umpires’ decisions for many years. They felt that supporters did understand the concept of ‘Umpire’s Call’.
Decision Review System (DRS)
The committee debated the use of ‘Umpire’s Call’ for LBW decisions made via the Decision Review System, which some members felt was confusing to the watching public, particularly when the same ball could either be Out or Not out depending on the on-field umpire’s original decision. They felt it would be simpler if the original decision was disregarded on review, and that there was a simple Out or Not out, with no Umpire’s Call. The ‘hitting zone’ of the stumps would still be retained, which had to be hit by at least 50% of the ball for an Out decision. If such a protocol was introduced, they felt it should also include a reduction to one unsuccessful review per team, or for the relevant review to be lost irrespective of its outcome.
Other members were satisfied with the current system, feeling that it was important to retain the human element of the on-field umpire’s decision, which takes into account the ‘benefit of the doubt’ that has existed in umpires’ decisions for many years. They felt that supporters did understand the concept of ‘Umpire’s Call’.
Misbah on Pavilion said that when Waqar was coach and he was captain, they actually went to ICC HQ and had a meeting on this with them.
He said whatever the decision is it should stay that way when it gets reviewed. If the decision isn't accurate for umpire than that decision cant be accurate for the teams aswell. It means the UDRS is supporting the umpires.
I even said that if its hitting than dont do negative marking on the umpire, but it should be one way for players. If its not out than be not out if its out than be out.
MIsbah said that make the ration 80-20 or even 30%, not 50 or more. As the accuracy of hawkeye is 98%, so when 30% of the balll is clipping stumps that should be out, if its less than that than make it not out, not 49% or 51%.
He said whatever the decision is it should stay that way when it gets reviewed. If the decision isn't accurate for umpire than that decision cant be accurate for the teams aswell. It means the UDRS is supporting the umpires.
I even said that if its hitting than dont do negative marking on the umpire, but it should be one way for players. If its not out than be not out if its out than be out.
MIsbah said that make the ration 80-20 or even 30%, not 50 or more. As the accuracy of hawkeye is 98%, so when 30% of the balll is clipping stumps that should be out, if its less than that than make it not out, not 49% or 51%.
Similar threads
- Poll
