Question on DRS

[randomGuy]

Let's say 2 runs needed to win off the last ball of the match. Bowler bowls, batsman struck on pad, 2 leg byes possible but umpire gives out LBW.  Batsman reviews decision and it's given not out through DRS. What happens in this case? Is the ball re-bowled?

[Tattieboy]

No 

At any time an umpire gives it out the ball becomes dead 

[randomGuy]

3 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

No 

At any time an umpire gives it out the ball becomes dead 

So that means the decision is reversed and 2 leg byes were possible (had the umpire given not out) yet the batting side loses?

[I6MTW]

7 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

Let's say 2 runs needed to win off the last ball of the match. Bowler bowls, batsman struck on pad, 2 leg byes possible but umpire gives out LBW.  Batsman reviews decision and it's given not out through DRS. What happens in this case? Is the ball re-bowled?

Are you asking if the ball is re-bowled if the decision was incorrect? Then no, because the delivery stands to have been finished. So only the decision will be overturned but the ball will not be re-bowled. Now, if they ran a run or two in that delivery I think the runs would not be counted. Now technically if the umpire took his time to give the original decision and they ran for a run or two(impossible in such quick time but supposedly) then one can argue that that they had already taken a run before the decision was given so the ball was not dead yet technically. Though, I am not sure it would work.

[randomGuy]

2 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

Are you asking if the ball is re-bowled if the decision was incorrect? Then no, because the delivery stands to have been finished. So only the decision will be overturned but the ball will not be re-bowled. Now, if they ran a run or two in that delivery I think the runs would not be counted. Now technically if the umpire took his time to give the original decision and they ran for a run or two(impossible in such quick time but supposedly) then one can argue that that they had already taken a run before the decision was given so the ball was not dead yet technically. Though, I am not sure it would work.

The situation came in my mind as a possible flaw of DRS where the aggrieved party got the decision corrected and yet lost the match on that ball only due to the wrong decision.

[Tattieboy]

Just now, randomGuy said:

So that means the decision is reversed and 2 leg byes were possible (had the umpire given not out) yet the batting side loses?

At any moment an umpire gives it out the ball cesses to be live. No point of an drs  appeal last ball of ODI or T20 because it doesn't achieve anything 

[I6MTW]

Just now, randomGuy said:

The situation came in my mind as a possible flaw of DRS where the aggrieved party got the decision corrected and yet lost the match on that ball only due to the wrong decision.

Has this ever happened in real life? I am sure it must have happened in the last over of a crucial game before, even in the case of other types of dismissals such as nicks, close catches, etc while running for a run. Especially with DRS being used everywhere these days. 

[randomGuy]

Just now, Tattieboy said:

At any moment an umpire gives it out the ball cesses to be live. No point of an drs  appeal last ball of ODI or T20 because it doesn't achieve anything 

Ok . But it seems for the bowling side atleast it does make sense to take review even on the last ball.

[I6MTW]

3 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

At any moment an umpire gives it out the ball cesses to be live. No point of an drs  appeal last ball of ODI or T20 because it doesn't achieve anything 

Now, if the batsman had hit the ball instead of an lbw, than there would definitely be a point, and the runs would be counted after appealing. But for other scenarios, pretty much pointless. 

[Tattieboy]

Just now, randomGuy said:

Ok . But it seems for the bowling side atleast it does make sense to take review even on the last ball.

Have you ever seen any drs overturned desions re balled ?

The laws of cricket should include for this one hyperthetical case ?

[randomGuy]

5 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

Has this ever happened in real life? I am sure it must have happened in the last over of a crucial game before, even in the case of other types of dismissals such as nicks, close catches, etc while running for a run. Especially with DRS being used everywhere these days. 

Wow there does seem a similar real life situation and there is even a thread on Quora

https://www.quora.com/If-2-runs-are-required-to-win-of-the-last-ball-the-umpire-gives-a-batsman-out-the-batsman-knows-he-is-not-out-so-he-completes-two-runs-and-calls-for-DRS-and-he-is-not-out-What-will-be-the-result

[Tattieboy]

1 minute ago, I6MTW said:

Now, if the batsman had hit the ball instead of an lbw, than there would definitely be a point, and the runs would be counted after appealing. But for other scenarios, pretty much pointless. 

You mean knicked it and given out one? 

As in all cases depends when the umpire gives out and in all my years playing I have never seen an umpire give an lbw after they run runs but that's not to say it will never happen especially the standard now 

[randomGuy]

2 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Have you ever seen any drs overturned desions re balled ?

No

The laws of cricket should include for this one hyperthetical case ?

I don't know. Maybe yes.

^^Inline

[I6MTW]

Just now, Tattieboy said:

You mean knicked it and given out one? 

As in all cases depends when the umpire gives out and in all my years playing I have never seen an umpire give an lbw after they run runs but that's not to say it will never happen especially the standard now 

I mean given as lbw but it turns out there's an inside edge. The batsman runs for a run, the umpire meanwhile gives it out. 

[maniac]

Cricket rules were not written keeping drs or technology in mind.

 

For most part of cricket if the umpire gives out the batsman is out.

 

Even now you can’t go with the assumption that the umpire will give a wrong decision. The umpire is expected to be right 10 out of 10 times. So yes that is a loophole in the game but it is what it is. Teams can try appealing but no guarantee that it will be a wrong decision after umpire gives out. you can’t change an entire rule keeping this scenario that might happen 1 in 1000 times.

Edited June 15, 2019 by maniac

[Tattieboy]

Just now, I6MTW said:

I mean given as lbw but it turns out there's an inside edge. The batsman runs for a run, the umpire meanwhile gives it out. 

No runs are given on a ball that is given out except runout 

[randomGuy]

9 minutes ago, maniac said:

Cricket rules were not written keeping drs or technology in mind.

 

For most part of cricket if the umpire gives out the batsman is out.

 

Even now you can’t go with the assumption that the umpire will give a wrong decision. The umpire is expected to be right 10 out of 10 times. So yes that is a loophole in the game but it is what it is. Teams can try appealing but no guarantee that it will be a wrong decision after umpire gives out. you can’t change an entire rule keeping this scenario that might happen 1 in 1000 times.

Noted. So you are basically fine with keeping the loophole while knowing that it exists. The common man doesn't know. What if that happens in a world cup final. The loophole will get a lot of attention then. 

[maniac]

Just now, randomGuy said:

Noted. So you are basically fine with keeping the loophole while knowing that it exists. The common man doesn't know. What if that happens in a world cup final. The loophole will get a lot of attention then. 

Ok let us say they incorporate the rule that if the umpire gives out and DRS is reversed the ball will be re bowled, let us say the batting team loses out on 2 legbyes as you said under current scenario.

 

 Let us say those 2 legbyes where needed to tie the game .

 

Now if the ball is rebowled as you want it to and is hit for a 6, isn’t that unfair on the bowling team also? A bowler has just bowled a beauty to tie the game but now under new rules the batsman gets another shot. Already isn’t the game too

much in the favor of the batsman?

 

All the scenarios we are coming up with is too specific and have 1 in a 10000 chance. Better to leave it the way it is.

 

What are he odds that a bowler will bowl an amazing delivery on the last ball of the innings with team needing 2-3 runs , the umpire will give it out, the batsman will run legbyes and DRS will over turn it. Too many specific scenarios have to come together. ICC has other stuff to worry about. It’s not even something they need to care about.

[randomGuy]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

Ok let us say they incorporate the rule that if the umpire gives out and DRS is reversed the ball will be re bowled, let us say the batting team loses out on 2 legbyes as you said under current scenario.

 

 Let us say those 2 legbyes where needed to tie the game .

 

Now if the ball is rebowled as you want it to and is hit for a 6, isn’t that unfair on the bowling team also? A bowler has just bowled a beauty to tie the game but now under new rules the batsman gets another shot. Already isn’t the game too

much in the favor of the batsman?

 

All the scenarios we are coming up with is too specific and have 1 in a 10000 chance. Better to leave it the way it is.

 

What are he odds that a bowler will bowl an amazing delivery on the last ball of the innings with team needing 2-3 runs , the umpire will give it out, the batsman will run legbyes and DRS will over turn it. Too many specific scenarios have to come together. ICC has other stuff to worry about. It’s not even something they need to care about.

Thinking of the solution is the later step. First one would have to decide whether to leave the loophole or correct it by adding lines in the rulebook.

 

You have assumed that I want it to be re-bowled. It could be the 2 on-field umpires' decision ( whether to re-bowl or not based on whether 2 leg byes were possible or not)... It(the decision to re-bowl) could also be a function of the situation of the match etc....the rule can be thought of I guess, will require time though.

[Tattieboy]

An incident happened in 2015 world cup Australia v England 

James Taylor facing 98* , he has a bat pad connection , him and Jimmy Anderson start to run , Taylor is given out , game stops , both batsmen stop and review . Meanwhile Maxwell knocks bails off .

Taylor given not out but Australia appeal for run out of Anderson then , he is given out ...wrongly !!

Taylor denied a century because umpires and 3rd umpire did not know rule with technology involved