Loading ...
equatorPlease tell me what the hell the review system is good for?
Kemar Roach is given out caught behind.
He refers it.
The ball is close to the bat.
There doesn’t appear to be any noise.
There is no mark on hot spot.
The original decision stands.
Perhaps it wasn’t obvious enough.
Perhaps I have no idea what the word obvious means.
We miss possibly a pretty cool ending to a test.
I’m going to bed now.
3 in the AM is not the best time to work out the referral system, mind you I haven’t had much luck understanding it during the day either. The umpires seem to give random decisions with it, or without it. And it doesn’t seem to matter which country or continent it is used on, or what teams are involved, the decisions still don’t make sense.
Cricket is a funny game, obviously.
The referral system is sound, but somehow umpires find ways of screwing up what should be a simple process. At least in the Chanderpaul instance there was a sound. Here there was nothing. Everything suggested he hadn’t hit it, even the Aussie commentators. Their ineptitude is frustrating.
The obvious irony is that if he was given not out – and Australia were the team to appeal it – he would have still been not out. Obviously we don’t know anything about this stuff. Bowden just wanted to go home.
Snicko “showed” an edge, but it’s not part of the referral process.
TT´s last blog ..EASY, TIGER
WTF.I was hoping Billy’s decision would be overruled.Hotspot showed no hot spot.and it was promptly given out.darn!
@jrod – i don’t know what your thoughts are but this tennis style appeal system is bonkers. let the on-field umpire be the only one to ask for a review. otherwise just implement a full camera system and get rid of onfield umpires altogether.
but you can always count on the ICC to have a bob each way and completely lose the plot.
Yep a bullshit decision ruining a possibly much more exciting end to the game
I think the UDRS has been thought up by a bunch of lawyers.
I would know because I am one.
UDRS sounds distinctively like “judicial review”for cricket.
What it means is that when a higher court takes up the decision of a lower court/authority in review (as opposed to taking it up in appeal), they don’t see if the decision is right or wrong according to law but whether the lower court could have come to that decision on the basis of the material before it and the settled law.
The problem is that this is a tricky legal concept that is being force fed to cricket and causing more problems. The previous system ended up creating an appellate court system on field and this one is trying to create a judicial review system off field.
Mind you, a lot of lawyers don’t like the concept of judicial review itself so…
Alok, spot on description. Actually getting the decision to be the right one isn’t the most important thing in any of this or so it seems. It’s more about looking at how the umpire on-field made the decision.
I am starting to think less and less that players should be able to appeal things like LBWs. It should be up to the umps to ask for a hand if they feel it is necessary.
Top comments Alok. As a laywer, can we get you over to the ‘Free Sulieman Benn’ thread to referee the carnage?
I’ve got not easy answers re the current legalese choked referral system, except to say that is there any reason we can’t go back to 3 referrals rather than 2? 2 just seems a bit of a crap shoot for no real reason – I thought the India/Sri Lanka series back a couple of years and the Aus/SA series this year worked ok with 3 referrals. If the decision is weighted towards the umpire’s decision – what does it matter if everyone gets one more.
But Hewy it already seems that the players are much worse judges than the umps of lbws anyway so why give them more of a chance to stuff it up with hopeful requests and slow down the over rates?
after getting Aussies out for 150, I thought it was possibly the best chance WI had to equalize the series. But still this task proved big for them. Damn! Roach was also unlucky.
Rishabh Jain´s last blog ..Come On Windies!
The supposed aim of the system is to remove the ‘howlers’. The change to only 2 referrals this series has created situations where that simply has happened.
I don’t really care if captains call for hopeful appeals – it’s only one more each. And we’ve gone from 3 referrals with some chance of getting a decision reversed, to 2 referrals and a very small chance of getting it reversed – it seems now the balance is wrong.
I reckon that only 2 chances just adds too much of a tactical decision making process to the issue – something the support coaching staff probably have wet dreams over, but doesn’t really add to the game of cricket.
Ideally, rather than the players, I’d like to give it to the 3rd umpire to appeal – ie he’s got till the next ball or the batsmen leaving the arena to indicate that he wants to check the decision.
Howlers dont need appeals – the third umpire can intervene and reverse the decision whenever one is made.
Appeals will only encourage teams to protect their own interests at the cost of fairness. They will mostly be used cynically, and everyone will parrot that its ok to do so, since everyone wants to win, blah blah blah…
I want to see a full camera system and get rid of onfield umpires altogether. Then the players would be free to settle their arguments on the pitch. Sulieman looks like he could take on Johnson and Haddin both. I would favour Gayle to take out Watson.
It is not shocking to see Ponting praising umpires when aussie get favourable umpiring decisions. This kind of thing happening forever.
I am with jogesh on that one that Howlers can be fixed by third umpire. The whole appeal system not working if the umpire makes bad call , it enforces bad call.
I think it is bad design. You do not need to remove it complely , can be fixable by changing rules.
What is the use of roach appealing when he is not going to get a decision favourable even technology show he did not nick it.
It is just stupid.
Ok i have come to this conclusion.
Appeal system should apply to only grounded catch and LBW. And rest of the decision to be Field umpire decision is final.
I do not want appeal system enforcing field umpires bad call. Instead bad call stays as it is.
if any other Bad decisions if third umpire sees it based on technology , he can over rule based on the clear cut evidence not interpretation of what could be or what should be.
MY mantra is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
So any kind of decision that can’t enforce that mantra should not be part of UDRS.
We do not want third umpire enforce already bad call by field umpire.
SO UDRS should apply to LBW and Grounded catches and Run Outs and Stumping. ALL other catches should not be part of UDRS until we have a way of having as many camera angles. And Sound synchronization that Bat has internal sensor and ball has internal sensor , so it can find it from proximity alert combined with sound from Bat sensor That is in future.
Atpresent we can have UDRS for LBW and RUN OUTS and Grounded catches.
Third umpire can intervene if he see any other howlers if he thinks it is necessary. Like haddin dislodge the bails is a howler and no one noticed it.
Jrod, there was definitely a sound, just not one that you would usually associate with an edge. Probably not out, but as Alok says, the system only reviews a decision. The problem is that in some cases there are good reasons not to rely on the camera evidence. However, this is one case where I hoped it would be overturned, even though the technicalities don’t say so.
Alex, get a grip – when a batsman is/isn’t caught behind the concept of “guilt” is completely irrelevant.
Jonathan´s last blog ..From west to west
Jonathan,
On Snicko – often times Snicko detects a sound even though there is daylight and then some between the bat and ball. It has happened often enough for Snicko to be correctly disregarded as a tool for evidence for nicks.
Cheers,
What makes it to prove that batsman did not nick the ball? 1 feet distance? 1″ distance? what angle? Snicko is uselss. It is like lie detector test. It should not be evidence.
HOTSPOT is better. It shows there is no nick. Some People say faint edge..how faint is faint?.
Why do even appeal if third umpire is not going to over rule. I think UDRS should stay clear of caught behind. It is just not going to work. People always complain in either way. People may not like the angle they see.
The appeal system is ridiculous. If there’s an appeal left with 1 wicket to go you should appeal even if you were clean bowled, just in case the umpire missed a no-ball. Ludicrous.
I have not seen a lot of hot spot, but did see the Sarwan dismal just before lunch when he was caught behind off Hauritz. He walked straight away indicating he knew he hit it, but hot spot showed no contact. This concerned me because I thought hot spot was definitive and snicko was not. Is that the case or do I have it wrong?
Homer, I didn’t mention snicko – the sound was audible without bringing the graphs out. The thing is that there are plenty of sounds that are not caused by edges.
Jonathan´s last blog ..From west to west
It looked like Roach knew he was out but technology creates uncertainty when it’s supposed to do the opposite.