UDRS : Umpires and captains support review system

[Feed]

The umpire's cringe-worthy mistake during South Africa's second-innings shows why cricket needs new technology. More... Daryl Harper's howler lessens the stink surrounding the review system The umpire's cringe-worthy mistake during South Africa's second-innings shows why cricket needs new technology There are certain experiences in life that have a whiff of adventure about them. Going on holiday with Jacques Tati's Monsieur Hulot, taking a drive with Toad of Toad Hall, or bungee jumping off the new Burj Dubai perhaps. To these can now be added being umpired by Daryl Harper. It was Harper who today provided us with the umpiring howler for which we all craved. In one stroke, in one maladroit raising of the finger, Harper gave vindication to the umpire decision review system [or turds, as some people prefer to call it]. David Richardson, the general manager of cricket at the ICC, who gave an impressive demonstration of the new system before the start of this series between South Africa and England, must be tempted to send a case of champagne to Mr Harper and a bouquet of roses to his wife. It happened at the start of South Africa's second innings. With the last ball of the third over, bowled by Jimmy Anderson, Ashwell Prince wafted at a ball going down the leg-side and was given out by Mr Harper. A horrified Prince asked for a referral and the bashful Mr Harper [he keeps his bashfulness to hand because it is required at regular intervals] reversed the decision. Perhaps the official thought, wrongly, that Prince was walking, for he left his crease briefly. But it classified as an official howler. The umpiring in the first two Tests, at Centurion and Durban, was of such high quality, with Aleem Dar and Steve Davis particularly outstanding, that the main purpose of turds – to eradicate the really stinking decision - was never presented to us in a way that matched Richardson's gleaming demonstration. There are enough former pros at my hotel to make up an old England team - Dennis Amiss, Phil Sharpe, Shaun Udal, John Price and Doug Insole among them – and some of them shake their head sadly when the topic of new technology comes up. Mistakes, they say, were all part of the game in their day. They sound a little like old police inspectors bemoaning the introduction of DNA testing because they can no longer bang someone away for 20 years on a trumped-up charge. Or even hang them, perhaps, in the good old days of Timothy Evans. The game does need mistakes - it thrives on them. It is terrific to see a good batsman harried into error by a bowler's tenacious skill or to see a normally resourceful bowler lose his line, length and head before a batsman's calculated onslaught. But we do not want a buffoon in a white hat ruining a cricket match, whatever anyone says. The review system is a little clunky. It moves so slowly sometimes that one feels it should be proceeded by a little man carrying a red flag, as in the early days of motoring. That exultant moment, when a bowler takes a wicket, is now largely lost and the crowd is oblivious while the replays are being shown to everyone else. But it is evolving. It is less than a year since the shambles in Jamaica and already it feels as though we have moved from the Mesolithic period to the Neolithic and it will continue to be refined and improved, although it might be better if only umpires were involved, as in the Stanford Challenge, whatever the ICC says. But the game is better for new technology and that will become more obvious in due course. Talking of old pros back at the hotel, it was wonderful to watch them this morning, rushing breakfast and looking at their watches, as excited as children. We all were. At the start of play there was a frisson of expectation. The match was set up, as if by a Formula One engineer, to produce one of the great finishes. It still could. By tea-time, however, the heat and some indifferent England bowling had brought about a certain lassitude.

[teacup]

If the ICC wants to get rid of howlers all they have to do is let the third umpire intervene if the replays show that a decision is a howler. It is kinda stupid that on hand they want to remove the howlers as far as possible but at the same time give only 2 opportunities per team to review decisions. Why can't the third umpire be the judge of whether a decision requires a review or not? He can request the umpire in the middle to hold the game until he can review the decision.

[cowboysfan]

If the ICC wants to get rid of howlers all they have to do is let the third umpire intervene if the replays show that a decision is a howler. It is kinda stupid that on hand they want to remove the howlers as far as possible but at the same time give only 2 opportunities per team to review decisions. Why can't the third umpire be the judge of whether a decision requires a review or not? He can request the umpire in the middle to hold the game until he can review the decision.

when do you want the 3rd umpire to intervene?after the batsman has returned to the dressing room?.we are seeing a minimum of 2 minutes for the 3rd umpire to be sure of his recommdation.you cant hold up the game for every iffy decision.the review system is there to correct absolute howlers by the umpires.

[teacup]

when do you want the 3rd umpire to intervene?after the batsman has returned to the dressing room?.we are seeing a minimum of 2 minutes for the 3rd umpire to be sure of his recommdation.you cant hold up the game for every iffy decision.the review system is there to correct absolute howlers by the umpires.

I think I did mention in my post that the third-umpire if he decides to review a decision, he can ask the umpire in the middle to hold the game until he has seen all the replays and can make a decision.

[cowboysfan]

I think I did mention in my post that the third-umpire if he decides to review a decision' date=' he can ask the umpire in the middle to hold the game until he has seen all the replays and can make a decision.[/quote'] people are already mad about holding up the game ,if a player is sure that he was wronged by the umpire then he can refer it immediately(and they can still retain the challenge).It cant be more simple than that,this way the players have some rights.

[PotterManiac]

Its still a mystery why the richest board isnt too keen on the system :winky:

[teacup]

people are already mad about holding up the game ' date='if a player is sure that he was wronged by the umpire then he can refer it immediately(and they can still retain the challenge).It cant be more simple than that,this way the players have some rights.[/quote'] There are couple of problems with the existing system. 1. The players in the middle are not always in the right position to judge whether the decision is right or wrong. 2. The emotional element is present in their choice to review a decision. A bowler or a batsman who is involved in the decision can show desperation when a decision goes against him. As a result of the above, most reviews at the moment are wasted. After they waste their opportunities there is just no way to overturn a howler by the umpire subsequently. I don't think the third umpire is going to review each and every decision. I can call most of the howlers by watching the action on TV without the help of slow motion. A trained umpire can surely do better. And, I don't think it would be too difficult for the TV crew to make instant replays available to the third umpire.

[cowboysfan]

There are couple of problems with the existing system. 1. The players in the middle are not always in the right position to judge whether the decision is right or wrong. 2. The emotional element is present in their choice to review a decision. A bowler or a batsman who is involved in the decision can show desperation when a decision goes against him. As a result of the above, most reviews at the moment are wasted. After they waste their opportunities there is just no way to overturn a howler by the umpire subsequently. I don't think the third umpire is going to review each and every decision. I can call most of the howlers by watching the action on TV without the help of slow motion. A trained umpire can surely do better. And, I don't think it would be too difficult for the TV crew to make instant replays available to the third umpire.

i agree that the players are still figuring out how to use the referrals and undoubtedly they will get better at it.

[teacup]

i agree that the players are still figuring out how to use the referrals and undoubtedly they will get better at it.

How? In Tennis the review system has been in place for about 3 years now and the players still waste most of their reviews.

[urbestfriend]

1. The players in the middle are not always in the right position to judge whether the decision is right or wrong.

I disagree. Batsman or bowler will be in the best position to judge the decision is right or wrong. for ex: If a batsman is given out caught behind, batsman definitely knows whether he is nicked it or not.

2. The emotional element is present in their choice to review a decision. A bowler or a batsman who is involved in the decision can show desperation when a decision goes against him.

This is part and parcel of the game.

As a result of the above, most reviews at the moment are wasted. After they waste their opportunities there is just no way to overturn a howler by the umpire subsequently.

Thats the reason why there are limited reviews. Review system should be used only for howlers. If a team chose to misuse reviews for correct decisions and waste their reviews and if they get a howler subsequently, its entirely team's fault and they are in no position to complain. With time pass by, teams have become more matured with respect to this system and reviewing only if they are sure.

I don't think the third umpire is going to review each and every decision. I can call most of the howlers by watching the action on TV without the help of slow motion. A trained umpire can surely do better. And, I don't think it would be too difficult for the TV crew to make instant replays available to the third umpire.

Reply and analysis takes time, so this is not a good idea. For ex: A batsman is wrongly given a not out by an on filed umpire, it is not possible for third umpire to analyse quickly and overturn the decision before the next ball is bowled.

[cowboysfan]

How? In Tennis the review system has been in place for about 3 years now and the players still waste most of their reviews.

are you comparing tennis to cricket?,a batsman knows if he nicked it or not.

[teacup]

I disagree. Batsman or bowler will be in the best position to judge the decision is right or wrong. for ex: If a batsman is given out caught behind' date=' batsman definitely knows whether he is nicked it or not.[/quote'] The example you suggest is good only for nicks but LBWs are the most frequently reviewed decisions. A batsman would never know for sure if the ball pitched in line or not and if the bounce will carry the ball over the stumps. Some batsmen may be better than others in their judgement but in most cases it is only a guess. As for bowlers, their follow through takes them away from the line of stumps and makes them out-of-position to judge LBW positions.

This is part and parcel of the game.

If we do agree that errors are part and parcel of the game, why do we need a review system?

Thats the reason why there are limited reviews. Review system should be used only for howlers. If a team chose to misuse reviews for correct decisions and waste their reviews and if they get a howler subsequently, its entirely team's fault and they are in no position to complain. With time pass by, teams have become more matured with respect to this system and reviewing only if they are sure.

You are making the review system sound like a hogwash, where the onus is not getting ALL the howlers out but to have a system that will just shut up whiners who feel undone by the incompetency of an umpire. May be that is what the ICC sought to achieve with this system :)

Reply and analysis takes time, so this is not a good idea. For ex: A batsman is wrongly given a not out by an on filed umpire, it is not possible for third umpire to analyse quickly and overturn the decision before the next ball is bowled.

I didn't quite get what you mean here but that is what is happening already. First, the bowling team or the batsmen in the middle discuss whether to use the review or not. With nobody being quite sure, ultimately the captain, in the case of the fielding team, or the senior batsman makes the choice. All this takes time. If the decision is left to a third umpire, all he needs to do is press the instant-replay button on his DVR remote or an equivalent device and watch the action again on slow motion before deciding whether to review or not. If he thinks the decision could be wrong, he immediately buzzes the on-field umpire, who in turn puts the game on hold until a final decision is reached. So, contrary to what you say, time is saved with the 3rd umpire making the decision and it is bound to be more effective in ruling out howlers, if that is the real objective.

[teacup]

are you comparing tennis to cricket?' date='a batsman knows if he nicked it or not.[/quote'] Is the review system only there for caught behind decisions? Most reviews are for LBWs.

[The Outsider]

Is the review system only there for caught behind decisions? Most reviews are for LBWs.

The wicketkeeper and non striker are in as good a position as any to judge a howler.

[teacup]

The wicketkeeper and non striker are in as good a position as any to judge a howler.

The wicketkeeper stands about 25 yards behind the stumps and moves in the direction of the ball as it hits the batsman. He is obviously in a better position than other fielders but he is surely not in as good a position as the third umpire to judge the decision. Same with the non-striker. The number of reviews wasted is an evidence of this fact.

[urbestfriend]

The example you suggest is good only for nicks but LBWs are the most frequently reviewed decisions. A batsman would never know for sure if the ball pitched in line or not and if the bounce will carry the ball over the stumps. Some batsmen may be better than others in their judgement but in most cases it is only a guess. As for bowlers' date=' their follow through takes them away from the line of stumps and makes them out-of-position to judge LBW positions.[/quote'] 1) If you think a batsman or a bowler is not in good position to judge LBW decision,same should apply to on-field umpire. This means whenever an LBW decision is given by in-field umpire or a shout from bowler not given by on-field umpire, third umpire has to hold up the game and review the decision which is not at all practical. 2)You are wrong if you think howlers are marginal decisions. Howlers are obvious wrong decisions and a batsman or a bowler will definitely in a position to judge and refer.

You are making the review system sound like a hogwash, where the onus is not getting ALL the howlers out but to have a system that will just shut up whiners who feel undone by the incompetency of an umpire. May be that is what the ICC sought to achieve with this system :)

In the current system, a successful review doesn't reduce the teams no of reviews. So onus on players not to review non-howlers. This is good system where there is a trade off between overturning howlers and wastage of time due to reviews.

I didn't quite get what you mean here but that is what is happening already. First, the bowling team or the batsmen in the middle discuss whether to use the review or not. With nobody being quite sure, ultimately the captain, in the case of the fielding team, or the senior batsman makes the choice. All this takes time. If the decision is left to a third umpire, all he needs to do is press the instant-replay button on his DVR remote or an equivalent device and watch the action again on slow motion before deciding whether to review or not. If he thinks the decision could be wrong, he immediately buzzes the on-field umpire, who in turn puts the game on hold until a final decision is reached. So, contrary to what you say, time is saved with the 3rd umpire making the decision and it is bound to be more effective in ruling out howlers, if that is the real objective.

As I told you howlers are not marginal decision which can go either way but obvious wrong decisions. So a player could easily recognize a howler by on-filed umpire and review it. If a third umpire has to take a call,then he has to hold up the game after every decision or every shout , analyse the video and take a decision. Imagine if this is happening in a subcontinent dust bowl where spinner shouts for an LBW decision every other ball, how much time will be wasted because of reviews? In current system , there are maximum 4 reviews in an innings, so if we assume that a review takes one minute, so 4 minutes will be wasted per innings. But in a dust bowl, you can expect 20-25 shouts a day, if third umpire has to review each decision 25 minutes will be wasted which is clearly impractical.

[teacup]

1) If you think a batsman or a bowler is not in good position to judge LBW decision' date='same should apply to on-field umpire. This means whenever an LBW decision is given by in-field umpire or a shout from bowler not given by on-field umpire, third umpire has to hold up the game and review the decision which is not at all practical.[/quote'] An on-field umpire is stationary, standing straight in line with the stumps and can judge if the ball is pitched in-line, the direction of the ball and the bounce. The batsman cannot be sure about any of these and the bowler cannot be sure of if the impact was in-line, especially if the bowler is a fast bowler. The non-striker is about 3 feet away from the straight-line so he can't be sure either. Neither can the wicket-keeper as the point-of-impact is not known to him. That is why today, the on-field umpire is correct more than 90% of the time but not the fielders or the bowlers. The third-umpire's view will be almost as good as the on-field umpire as the camera is positioned in-line with the stumps.

2)You are wrong if you think howlers are marginal decisions. Howlers are obvious wrong decisions and a batsman or a bowler will definitely in a position to judge and refer. In the current system, a successful review doesn't reduce the teams no of reviews. So onus on players not to review non-howlers. This is good system where there is a trade off between overturning howlers and wastage of time due to reviews.

I did not say howlers are marginal decisions, you seem to have made that up yourself. My point was players waste their referrals on marginal decisions as they are not in as good a position to judge and are emotionally motivated to review a decision. When a howler does happen they may find themselves left with no referrals.

[teacup]

As I told you howlers are not marginal decision which can go either way but obvious wrong decisions. So a player could easily recognize a howler by on-filed umpire and review it. If a third umpire has to take a call,then he has to hold up the game after every decision or every shout , analyse the video and take a decision. Imagine if this is happening in a subcontinent dust bowl where spinner shouts for an LBW decision every other ball, how much time will be wasted because of reviews? In current system , there are maximum 4 reviews in an innings, so if we assume that a review takes one minute, so 4 minutes will be wasted per innings. But in a dust bowl, you can expect 20-25 shouts a day, if third umpire has to review each decision 25 minutes will be wasted which is clearly impractical.

You misinterpret what I said again. The third-umpire watches the action and the replays, when necessary, and asks the on-field umpire to hold the game only if he believes the umpire as got it wrong. If it is a howler, the third-umpire would have caught it during live action itself or at-least with the first replay he watches. There will enough time for that one replay considering that we get to see at least one replay on TV ourselves before the next ball is bowled. Now consider the case where the third umpire can control the replays.

[urbestfriend]

I did not say howlers are marginal decisions, you seem to have made that up yourself. My point was players waste their referrals on marginal decisions as they are not in as good a position to judge and are emotionally motivated to review a decision. When a howler does happen they may find themselves left with no referrals.

This system is meant only for overturning howlers , not marginal decisions so a player is at fault if he decides to refer to a marginal decision. If he is not sure, better to walk off..! Marginal decision is always on-field umpires prerogative and this is the case for 100+ years of cricket history. But a batsman or bowler iis very sure that a decision is wrong, then he can utilize this system and get justice. Teams are learning this hard way and utilizing the review system properly nowadays. If a player decides to review a marginal decision, then he is misusing the system , so he is at fault for losing a review.Limited no of review servers as deterrent for a player to review the marginal decisions, so a players responsibility to use the review aptly and not let the team in a position with no referrals for a genuine howler.

[Sachinism]

A batsman should know where his stumps are and therefore should be able to judge whether the ball pitch in line or not.