Review system under the scanner

[sandtest]

You can't blame me Chandan. I am an Ishant fanatic these days.:--D

The review system exists to undo obvious wrongs, but it's clear that teams will ask for reviews simply because they have a few pending, and in some cases because bowlers always think that they have got their man

fact that review system is still in nascent stage of trial, it can only evolve further as more matches are played and different scenarios/incidents like these emerge. It doesn't matter who benefitted more from the system as long as system serves it's intended purpose of making sure that correct decision is made.

More than 15 minutes were lost in a morning session which had been extended by half an hour to make up for the lost overs on the first day. The review system exists to undo obvious wrongs, but it's clear that teams will ask for reviews simply because they have a few pending, as was evident from the Kumble instance, and in some cases because bowlers always think that they have got their man. In the first Test, Harbhajan Singh asked for one after the ball had pitched about half a foot outside the leg stump.

This line of arguement is flawed. Time lost in wasted review appeals can't be used as a cover to ridicule the new system. The very reason why there is a cap on no. of reviews one can use in case it keeps going unsuccessful is to shield the new system from unwarranted criticism generating due to time delays in tv referrals. Players may ask for reviews even when it might be obvious for a TV viewer, but number being limited for such review makes it irrelevant. Moreover, if time is such a concern then, why not reduce 5-7 overs in each days quota? What difference will it make anyway? Why criticize a system which is initiated with noble intention of providing both teams fair decisions so that a Sydney is not repeated in future.

[bunny]

First, ICC should have been using Hawk-Eye instead of Virtual-Eye. It seems to me that Hawk Eye was a bit more accurate. Anyhow, snickometer and Hot Spot should also be employed when required. But, the main thing is the third umpire should be provided with the predicted path of Hawk-eye. Hawk-eye has an error of 5 mm. Let's make it 1 cm/2 cms (whatever) and use that as the error margin so that if the ball is striking just the top 1 cm or the side 1 cm of the stump, it should be ruled not out or the umpire decision should stand (choose one of the two). There's no logic in 3rd umpire guessing what's gonna happen. Hawkeye would do a better job of that. It will also save time which is what Sambit Bal wants.

[cowboysfan]

i think the review system is here to stay.however,Bal has a point about the subjectivity about lbw's and so far the umpires have used the review as further evidence and not the final say which is how it should be.

[Brainfade]

I am still not sure why hotspot (for snicks) and hawkeye (for lbws) cannot be used. With hotspot, I understand the time constraints, but I'd rather wait 5 minutes than feel cheated by a decision for a long time. With hawkeye, I already think it does as good a job as the human eye. It'll only get better. The only reason to have an umpire is to coordinate the technology and maintain on-field discipline.

[SachDan]

Not a single post about the article!! How disappointing!!

Poor Chandan...bumped in to the wrong thread :D

[fineleg]

I am still not sure why hotspot (for snicks) and hawkeye (for lbws) cannot be used. With hotspot' date= I understand the time constraints, but I'd rather wait 5 minutes than feel cheated by a decision for a long time. With hawkeye, I already think it does as good a job as the human eye. It'll only get better. The only reason to have an umpire is to coordinate the technology and maintain on-field discipline.

Finally someone says it like it should be said :thumbs_up:

[kumble_rocks]

The author has completely ignored the fact that review system can help detect and eliminate batsmen being declared out on no-balls ! Review system is a must ! They introduced it in American football few years ago and it is worked smashingly well.

[cowboysfan]

The author has completely ignored the fact that review system can help detect and eliminate batsmen being declared out on no-balls ! Review system is a must ! They introduced it in American football few years ago and it is worked smashingly well.

wait-I thought they cannot rule on NO-balls.

[kumble_rocks]

wait-I thought they cannot rule on NO-balls.

Is it ? Even I am not sure now ! Can somebody please confirm.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Chaos]

i think bhajji has been going thru "shine my balls" problems. That maybe the reason for his poor performances lately.

[cowboysfan]

bossbhai is right-here's the official rule 3.7. The TV umpire should initially check whether the delivery is fair under Law 24.5 ('fair delivery - the feet') and under Clause 42.4.2(a) ('full toss passing above waist height'), where appropriate advising the on-field umpire accordingly.

[kumble_rocks]

KR, The bowling team cannot appeal for a wkt of a noball (even if the bowler is sure he hasnt overstepped) ... but if the umpire gave it out (assume he overlooked the noball) and the Batsman contested it ... the 3rd umpire will then inform the onfield umpire to change his decision as there is evidence that it was a no-ball.

I am little dense today !:--D . What I am trying to say here is Sambit Bal did not mention the fact that review decision will also nullify erroneous calls due to no ball being missed by the umpire . Let's take the example Ganguly's appeal for review when he was adjudicated leg before the first time around, If the review team realized that it was a no ball(although it wasn't in the real match), then irrespective of whether the ball was hitting the stumps or not , he wouldn't have been given out simply because it was a no ball .Am I wrong ?

[cowboysfan]

thats correct.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[fineleg]

That is correct. And thats how it is right now. But the problem with this is if the batsman gets holed out in the deep of a no-ball that wasnt called then usually the batsman doesnt even ask for a review.(Perhaps the non-striker needs to take on the responsibility of watching the front of the bowler and advice the batsman :-D ? )

God forbid, if the nonstriker is a SG or a VVS or a RD. These guys can get run out due to being slow runners even without these additional tasks!

[THX_1138]

Shining the wrong ball.:(( When will these idiots learn to behave in front of camera?

its not like they know that which particular instant is frozen in a frame. but nonetheless, he is an athlete... and well athletes need to adjust their equipment just like programmers need to adjust their kernels... or engineers need to adjust their simulations. heck if it was socially acceptable, i would scratch my crotch whenever i wanted to.. apart from being dressed in all velvet (5p for the first one to figure out where that quote is from).

[maaki]

Can someone list the referral rules Can someone list the referral rules

[Tapioca]

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/362178.html Courtesy : Kappax on the old board.

[Chandan]

Can someone list the referral rules

One entire thread is devoted to it. Read it if you want to know: Technology in cricket