Review system under the scanner

[Sachinism]

On the stroke of lunch on the fourth day, Virender Sehwag entered the record books as the first batsman to be given out by the third umpire under the review system being trialled in the series. But the decision opened the door for more questions than answering the original one. Sehwag had padded up to a Muttiah Muralitharan ball which was delivered from round the stumps, had just pitched on leg - half of it was inside the mat - and straightened. It hit the inside of the front pad, which was barely on leg stump, and deflected onto the back pad, which was plumb in front of middle. Mark Benson turned down the appeal, but when the review was sought, the Virtual Eye, the ball-tracking device, failed to note the deviation off the front pad, instead showing the ball to be going on in the direction of middle. With these inputs, and the knowledge that Sehwag hadn't even offered a shot, Benson was left with no choice but to reverse his decision. The technology has been brought in to aid the umpire, but in this case, both technology and umpire made errors. The tracker should have frozen the moment when the ball hit the front pad, but the technology completely missed the fact that the ball had deviated towards middle stump after hitting the front pad. Even so, Rudi Koertzen, the third umpire, should have noticed it and taken it into account during his discussion with Benson. The ball might still have grazed leg stump, but there was enough doubt to sway the decision in favour of the batsman. As it turned out, Sehwag was given out on the basis of evidence which was incriminating, but incorrect. The review technology came under the scanner on the second day as well, when Tillakaratne Dilshan successfully challenged a caught-behind decision originally given against him. He had immediately asked for the review on the grounds that bat had hit ground, not ball. The snickometer - a device not used in the review system - showed later, though, that the ball had grazed the edge just before bat hit ground. However, the review system made a case for itself on two occasions soon after, when Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid were both rightly given out. Tendulkar was adjudged dismissed off a deflection off the back of the bat and the thumb after Billy Doctrove had turned down the appeal. Tendulkar looked to paddle sweep a doosra from Muralitharan that pitched outside the leg stump, but missed and from the front angle, the ball seemed to have gone off his front pad to leg slip. Tendulkar stood his ground but fielders behind the wicket were convinced about the edge and were proved right by the replay. Dravid got a thick inside edge to a googly from Mendis on the stroke of tea, but stayed his ground as Benson turned down the appeal. Mahela Jayawardene opted for the review, and Dravid was soon on his way.

[nospam]

what about dilshan? he was given not out when umpire gave him out + he did edge it according to snicko

[diegovegaz]

not only coz india has been at d receiving ends of d consequences of review system, i also feel that it is destroying the game the umpire's first n only decision should b considered

[Feed]

Referral system raises several points More... Sport Referral system raises several points S. Ram Mahesh Umpires may begin to lose the ability to respond spontaneously CLOSE ONE: Virender Sehwag was probably unlucky to be ruled out leg before through the referral system in the second innings of the first Test. GALLE: Sri Lanka’s mastery over India in the first Test at the Sinhalese Sports Club (SSC) in Colombo wasn’t confined to batting, bowling, and catching; the host’s use of the umpire referral system was better thought-out as well. The system raised several points of interest. For one, it exposed the hypothesis that the use of technology will eradicate umpiring errors. For another, it confirmed that the perfect decision is no nearer with the sophistication of technology. There is no such thing as the perfect decision, never has been; there are merely obvious decisions (in that they are immediately perceptible) and ones that need informed judgment. Real objective Fortunately, the ICC’s ambitions were modest. “We mustn’t forget what the real objective of this process is,” said ICC general manager (cricket) Dave Richardson. “That is to avoid obvious and clear mistakes.” For an innovation to succeed, particularly one that involves so critical a facet, it must be demonstrably better than the system preceding it. Which, in this case, translates to umpire referrals leading to consistently better informed decisions in a manner that is fair to both sides. The evidence of the first Test suggests that there certainly will be more information available to the umpires. But while that will help some decisions, it will confuse others. The system is defined and thus limited by the technology, its set-up, and its interpretation. “The technology might be accurate, but it is only as accurate as it is set up,” said Richardson. The referrals involving Tillakaratne Dilshan (first innings) and Virender Sehwag (second) were two instances where the on-field umpire may have been better off trusting his intuition. Dilshan immediately asked for a review of a caught-behind decision. This implies that he was convinced he hadn’t nicked it. Strange as it may seem, there are rare occasions when even the batsman isn’t aware — and this has happened in international cricket. The technology officially used to determine nicks involves slow motion replays and the sounds from the stump microphones. Neither was conclusive in this instance. Yet Snickometer, which isn’t being used because its accuracy isn’t beyond doubt, registered a spike in sound as the ball passed the bat, the sort that corresponds, we are told, to bat hitting ball. Now there were other sounds involved — just to illustrate the complexity inherent, consider what Michael Holding, one of cricket’s most intuitive minds, said during a similar instance. On crumbling surfaces, he said he had seen pieces of soil — loosened by the ball pitching on the playing strip — hitting the bat and producing a similar sound to a nick. The point being made here is that the umpire went against his instinct, reversing the decision because technology offered no conclusive proof to support either case. A similar reversal of a decision made by instinct occurred in the Sehwag case. The ball shaved the front pad before hitting the back pad. The ball-tracking technology didn’t seem to register this deviation. The impact on the back pad showed the batsman was in front. But when it had hit the front pad, the off-break, which turned barely a smidge, couldn’t conclusively have been deemed to be heading towards the stumps. May over-think Decision-making involves complexity — much like batting. Batsmen perform best when in the zone, when they can’t cognitively access how their mind works. The best results in umpiring seem to spring from a similar state of mind, from intuition. With the referral system, umpires may begin to over-think, and lose the ability to respond spontaneously. It is a difficult balance to achieve. The ICC must test Hot Spot, the technology based on thermal images, and remain open to any other that improves the information available. The most evolved system with the technology currently available will involve the television umpire intervening only in the most obvious cases, and trusting the instincts of his on-field colleagues when the technology is inconclusive.

[Feed]

How the umpire referral system worked Rajneesh Gupta provides a detailed analysis of the list of referrals made to the third umpire or the television umpire with all the important details during the first Test match. More... How the umpire referral system worked July 29, 2008 Having benefited immensely by the umpire referral system in the first Test match, Sri Lankan players may have welcomed the new ICC [images] initiative but India captain Anil Kumble [images] is not convinced yet. Some experts believe that the umpiring referral system, introduced in the ongoing Test series, played a crucial role in a thumping Sri Lankan victory as it helped the hosts scalp as many as four Indian batsmen. Rajneesh Gupta provides a detailed analysis of the list of referrals made to the third umpire or the television umpire with all the important details during the first Test match. Inns Over # Bowler Batsman Umpire Decision Our Verdict 1st :46th: Harbhajan Singh: Malinda Warnapura: Mark Benson :LBW appeal was turned down. Indian captain Anil Kumble asked for the review. Third umpire Rudi Koertzen ruled the batsman. Not Out. Correct decision. Indian skipper should not have asked for the review as the ball was going down the leg 1st: 106th: Zaheer Khan: Tillakaratne Dilshan: Mark Benson: After being given out caught behind by the on-field umpire, Dilshan asked for the review. However, the third umpire ruled him Not Out. Wrong decision. Dilshan was lucky to get reprieve. The third umpire thought that bat touching the ground made the noise, but replays showed that ball had also touched the bat at the same time. 1st 120th Harbhajan Singh Tillakaratne Dilshan Mark Benson LBW appeal was turned down. Captain Kumble asked for the review and again the decision was ruled in the favour of batsman. Correct decision. The referral should have not been made in the first place as the ball pitched outside the leg stump. 1st 159th Zaheer Khan Chaminda Vaas [images] Billy Doctrove India asked for the review after the LBW appeal was turned down though the batsman looked plumb in front. Replays indicated that there might have been an inside edge. Correct decision. The third umpire got it right because the batsman had got an inside edge before the ball struck his pads. 2nd 25th Ajantha Mendis [images] Sourav Ganguly [images] Billy Doctrove Sri Lankan skipper Jayawardene asked for the review after the LBW appeal was turned down. The third umpire ruled in the favour of batsman. Correct decision. Though Hawk-Eye suggested that ball would have hit the top of leg stump, the umpire was not 100% sure and quite rightly the batsman got the benefit of doubt. 2nd 49th Ajantha Mendis Anil Kumble Billy Doctrove After much deliberation, on-field umpire Doctrove gave Kumble out. As there was confusion whether he had been dismissed caught (bat-pad) or lbw, Kumble asked for the review. The third umpire ruled him out LBW. Correct decision. In the end the the third umpire gave the right decision, but all the confusion was unnecessary. 2nd 61st Ajantha Mendis Ishant Sharma Billy Doctrove LBW appeal was turned down. Captain Jayawardene asked for the review, but third umpire ruled batsman not out. Correct decision. Though batsman did not offer any shot, the ball had pitched outside the off-stump and did not turn enough. 3rd 7th M Muralitharan Virender Sehwag Mark Benson After the field umpire turned down an LBW appeal, Sri Lanka asked for the review. The third umpire over ruled the field umpire giving Sehwag out. Wrong decision. The ball had pitched 'just' on the leg-stump, hit the front pad first, then the back pad and would have definitely missed the leg stump. The third umpire, however, surprisingly ruled in the favour of the bowler. 3rd 24th M Muralitharan Sachin Tendulkar Billy Doctrove The close-in fielders appealed for a catch at leg-slip, but it was turned down. After the referral was made, third umpire ruled him out much to the dismay of Tendulkar. Correct decision. The ball had touched shoulder of Tendulkar's bat after clipping the pad before carrying to the leg slip fielder. 3rd 34th M Muralitharan Dinesh Karthik [images] Billy Doctrove Jayawardene appealed for a catch taken at second slip,which was turned down. Sri Lanka asked for the review but the third umpire ruled in the batsman's favour. Correct decision. The ball had bounced off Karthik's body and had not touched his bat. 3rd 35th Ajantha Mendis Rahul Dravid Mark Benson A bat pad catch appeal at short-leg was turned down. Upon referral the third umpire over ruled field umpire's decision and gave Dravid out. Correct decision. Replays clearly showed that Dravid had got an inside edge which hit his pad before going to the short leg fielder. Note: In the 28th over of Sri Lanka's first innings, opener Malinda Warnapura was caught by Zaheer Khan off his own bowling, but umpire Mark Benson signalled it a no ball. The replay showed that it was not a no-ball. It would have been interesting to see how this instance would have been handled had there been a referral to the third umpire. Overall, there were 11 decision referred to the third umpire through the new referral system in the first Test in Colombo. The television umpire Rudi Koertzen from South Africa [images] got it right on nine occasions but made two wrong decisions despite all the help at his disposal and both times India suffered.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Chandan]

Had Kumble sent it for review, then the third umpire would have to check the first thing and that is if it was no ball or not! If it was not a no ball then the third umpire would have to give it out.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[MundaPakistani]

Had Kumble sent it for review' date=' then the third umpire would have to check the first thing and that is if it was no ball or not![b'] If it was not a no ball then the third umpire would have to give it out.

No thats not fair because a batsman changes his shot after hearing the call.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

Mark my words, the referral system will be scrapped soon. Its inevitable that in any match, one team gets the better deal, from referring decisions, intentionally, or unintentionally. Essentially, umpire decision referrrals is an effort to achieve 'fairness' in something that fundementally has no concept of fairness.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[coffee_rules]

India couldn't have saved the match, even if all the batsmen had received repreives from the new system. They were clueless anyway.

[gs]

India couldn't have saved the match' date=' even if all the batsmen had received repreives from the new system. They were clueless anyway.[/quote'] It didnt help here. But had this system been in place earlier, we could have probably won or at least saved the Sydney test match. Bucknor and Son of Bucknor (SOB, read Symonds) took it away from India.

[kablooee87]

Like I said before, the idea of making sure they "get it right" is ok but the implementation is horribly flawed.

[ludhianvi]

I'd like to see it over the 3 tests and see how it goes. IMO, its definitely better than no referrals. Isnt this what most of the posters here wanted and were waiting for this a long time?

Like I said before' date=' the idea of making sure they "get it right" is ok but the implementation is horribly flawed.[/quote'] Why, what do you propose so the implementation is not flawed?

[Chorazin Reto]

seems like its going along well to me.

[yoda]

9/11 correct. that seems like excellent especially for the first test to use such. it is obvious that umps can get it "better" with tech than without.

[coffee_rules]

I want to ban referrels for LBWs. Hawkeye is a buggy software and should not be used for LBW decisions.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --