UDRS : Umpires and captains support review system

[teacup]

This system is meant only for overturning howlers ' date=' 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.[/quote'] What you are saying will never happen. Teams tend to use their referrals even on marginal decisions when a key player's wicket is at stake and they will continue to do so. Players expect/hope an umpire in the ICC panel to not commit a howler to rationalize their decision to use the referrals on marginal decisions. Like I said, it is in the interest of the ICC and the fans to see that a team does not lose a match because of incorrect decisions and whatever can be done to avoid this scenario has to be done with the help of technology. The UDRS, currently, is just a hogwash to stop teams whining about umpiring decisions when they lose a match.

[The Outsider]

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.

Huh? How far away does the umpire stand from the stumps? I am not asking the wicketkeeper and non striker to make perfect decisions but they should be able to pick up the really bad ones eg. ball pitching way outside leg, hitting the batsman way above the knee roll, hitting outside off, sliding way down leg. And experience has shown that on most occasions they have been able to pick them. A lot of times players just refer in hope rather than any justification because they are crucial wickets and they have reviews left.

[The Outsider]

Last session of a test in Calcutta, the game is in balance, nerves are taut, ball is turning and bouncing, batting side is trying to hang on, light is closing in, there is an appeal every over. It will be so wonderful for the game if precious time is taken out on every appeal because the third umpire has to review it.

[teacup]

Huh? How far away does the umpire stand from the stumps? I am not asking the wicketkeeper and non striker to make perfect decisions but they should be able to pick up the really bad ones eg. ball pitching way outside leg' date=' hitting the batsman way above the knee roll, hitting outside off, sliding way down leg. And experience has shown that on most occasions they have been able to pick them. A lot of times players just refer in hope rather than any justification because they are crucial wickets and they have reviews left.[/quote'] The keeper would not know the point of impact and his margin of error could be as big as half a pad-width.

[The Outsider]

The keeper would not know the point of impact and his margin of error could be as big as half a pad-width.

The bowler and keeper together would be able to ascertain if it was a terrible decision on most occasions. If they waste their breath on marginal decisions they are to blame because they don't understand what the system is there for.

[teacup]

The bowler and keeper together would be able to ascertain if it was a terrible decision on most occasions. If they waste their breath on marginal decisions they are to blame because they don't understand what the system is there for.

I think we are going around in circles, I suggest you read the earlier posts before commenting. I will make my point for the last time. It is not a question of how the reviews are being used but rather a question of can the system be made fool-proof against bad decisions that can become crucial in deciding the outcome of a match? I don't believe the current system can prevent that.

[teacup]

Last session of a test in Calcutta' date=' the game is in balance, nerves are taut, ball is turning and bouncing, batting side is trying to hang on, light is closing in, there is an appeal every over. It will be so wonderful for the game if precious time is taken out on every appeal because the third umpire has to review it.[/quote'] Again, I have already clarified that the third-umpire would not need to hold up the game to review every appeal. Please read my reply to urmybestfriend.

[The Outsider]

I think we are going around in circles' date=' I suggest you read the earlier posts before commenting. I will make my point for the last time. It is not a question of how the reviews are being used but rather a question of can the system be made fool-proof against bad decisions that can become crucial in deciding the outcome of a match? I don't believe the current system can prevent that.[/quote'] It cannot be made fool proof - the third umpire will have to make a subjective call on which decisions to review and which not to, if he is not going to review every one of them. That will again lead to a playing field which is not level. Right now the onus is on the players to make judicial use of technology to avoid howlers. Example, a ball hitting the batsman just outside the off stump might not get picked up by the third umpire on the first replay and so the batsman stays out. But the same umpire in another innings or some other umpire might review a similar decision for the batsman to be given not out.

[teacup]

It cannot be made fool proof - the third umpire will have to make a subjective call on which decisions to review and which not to' date=' if he is not going to review every one of them. That will again lead to a playing field which is not level. Right now the onus is on the players to make judicial use of technology to avoid howlers. Example, a ball hitting the batsman just outside the off stump might not get picked up by the third umpire on the first replay and so the batsman stays out. But the same umpire in another innings or some other umpire might review a similar decision for the batsman to be given not out.[/quote'] If the third-umpire cannot ascertain whether the impact is outside the line of off-stump or not in one slo-mo replay than he is incompetent. Also, the criteria to over-rule the on-field umpire need not change - the third umpire should be absolutely sure the on-field umpire is wrong.

[teacup]

It cannot be made fool proof - the third umpire will have to make a subjective call on which decisions to review and which not to' date=' if he is not going to review every one of them. That will again lead to a playing field which is not level. Right now the onus is on the players to make judicial use of technology to avoid howlers. Example, a ball hitting the batsman just outside the off stump might not get picked up by the third umpire on the first replay and so the batsman stays out. But the same umpire in another innings or some other umpire might review a similar decision for the batsman to be given not out.[/quote'] And I do agree, no system can be fool-proof in avoiding bad-decisions but the UDRS's goal should be that. Presently, the system falls well-short of ideal.

[The Outsider]

And I do agree' date=' no system can be fool-proof in avoiding bad-decisions but the UDRS's goal should be that. Presently, the system falls well-short of ideal.[/quote'] It will give rise to many more problems in close in catches - many times whether the ball hit the gloves on the way out cannot be made from one replay. It will again lead to inconsistency - sometimes the third umpire will review it, sometimes he will not. In fact, the batsman and close catchers are the best judge here to make a review or not. What the present system does is get rid of inconsistencies to a large extent. As teams and umpires grow into it, it'll become the near perfect system. Even now, the biggest objection that you have raised that a team runs out of reviews and gets a howler has not happened in so many tests and chances for such a situation happening will go down as teams become more judicious.

[teacup]

It will give rise to many more problems in close in catches - many times whether the ball hit the gloves on the way out cannot be made from one replay. It will again lead to inconsistency - sometimes the third umpire will review it' date=' sometimes he will not. In fact, the batsman and close catchers are the best judge here to make a review or not. What the present system does is get rid of inconsistencies to a large extent. As teams and umpires grow into it, it'll become the near perfect system. Even now, the biggest objection that you have raised that a team runs out of reviews and gets a howler has not happened in so many tests and chances for such a situation happening will go down as teams become more judicious.[/quote'] If you had watched the Australia-West Indies series it (howlers) happened on many occasions after the team ran-out of referrals. It is not as rare as you think. Close catch decisions that are obviously wrong can be found-out in one replay, only those that are a little tricky need to be further reviewed and that is when the third-umpire comes in.

[The Outsider]

If you had watched the Australia-West Indies series it (howlers) happened on many occasions after the team ran-out of referrals. It is not as rare as you think. Close catch decisions that are obviously wrong can be found-out in one replay' date=' only those that are a little tricky need to be further reviewed and that is when the third-umpire comes in.[/quote'] They happened because Gayle, Chanderpaul, and Ponting wasted them on absolute nonsense. Not many have happened since and will go down further as teams decide to use their brains before calling for one. The cons of leaving it for the third umpire : 1. Inconsistencies in leg before decisions : The third umpire may not be able to make out on one replay whether the ball pitched outside leg or hit outside off. In some cases he'll review it and in others he won't. You might want to take the simplistic view of the umpire being incompetent, but the fact is that the ICC elite panel is full of incompetent umpires who at times have not been able to call a stumping correctly, even. So give him all the evidence you can at the behest of the players. 2. Caught behind decisions : The on field umpire says the batsman is not out and there is no appreciable deviation on the first replay. But snicko and hot spot show a clear nick. Again will give rise to inconsistencies where some angles which are easy to pick up on the first replay will be reviewed and others won't 3. Bat Pad decisions : The batsman and close in catchers are the best people to judge an edge. The first replay does not capture anything at times but a nick shows up on hot spot. More inconsistencies. 4. Time wasting : There is no upper limit on the number of referrals. Might be even as high as 15 in some innings on typical subcontinent turners. Under the present situation, a referral will be made only when the players are certain - if not we are assured of a maximum of 4 and if they get docked following that they only have themselves to blame for referring marginal decisions continuously. The pros of leaving it to the third umpire ..... hmmmm : 1. A team runs out of reviews and gets a bad decision. Well too bad, if your team was not idiotic enough to waste them on marginal decisions, you wouldn't be in this situation. Now you can either continue to be obstinate and not see the problems with the system you are suggesting or you can wait for how things will unfold and this system gets into gear over the next year into a near perfect system.

[achilles]

Good article

[teacup]

They happened because Gayle' date=' Chanderpaul, and Ponting wasted them on absolute nonsense. Not many have happened since and will go down further as teams decide to use their brains before calling for one. The cons of leaving it for the third umpire :[/quote'] My contention is teams will continue to use them on marginal decisions on crucial dismissals. You and the others seem to be quite optimistic on this count. Let's leave it at that.

1. Inconsistencies in leg before decisions : The third umpire may not be able to make out on one replay whether the ball pitched outside leg or hit outside off. In some cases he'll review it and in others he won't. You might want to take the simplistic view of the umpire being incompetent, but the fact is that the ICC elite panel is full of incompetent umpires who at times have not been able to call a stumping correctly, even. So give him all the evidence you can at the behest of the players.

If the third umpire is not able to decide if the ball pitched in-line or outside leg on the first replay than at worst it is a marginal decision and he need not bother to review. Remember the objective is to eliminate obviously wrong decisions and not marginal ones.

2. Caught behind decisions : The on field umpire says the batsman is not out and there is no appreciable deviation on the first replay. But snicko and hot spot show a clear nick. Again will give rise to inconsistencies where some angles which are easy to pick up on the first replay will be reviewed and others won't 3. Bat Pad decisions : The batsman and close in catchers are the best people to judge an edge. The first replay does not capture anything at times but a nick shows up on hot spot. More inconsistencies.

The feed given to third-umpires is not the same as what you and I watch on television. It comes with no commentary and crowd noise but with the sounds the stump mic picks up. So if there was a nick but no deviation there will be a sound. If there is a sound, the third-umpire might choose to review it further with snicko and hot-spots. For bat-pad the umpire will listen for two-sounds.

4. Time wasting : There is no upper limit on the number of referrals. Might be even as high as 15 in some innings on typical subcontinent turners. Under the present situation, a referral will be made only when the players are certain - if not we are assured of a maximum of 4 and if they get docked following that they only have themselves to blame for referring marginal decisions continuously. Now you can either continue to be obstinate and not see the problems with the system you are suggesting or you can wait for how things will unfold and this system gets into gear over the next year into a near perfect system.

There are no referrals here. Third-umpire reviews only when he chooses to. This is similar to the first version of the UDRS that was implemented during the Super-series in Australia where the decision was left with on-field umpires to ask for the Third-Umpire's help before arriving at a decision. That system failed because the on-field umpires were either playing it safe by referring every LBW decision and caught-behind or they were overconfident with their abilities. Here, it is the third-umpire who gets to decide if the on-field umpire's decision is obviously wrong. The key difference is the person making the decision is under no-pressure to review and he is allowed to overturn the on-field umpire's decision only when his absolutely sure that the decision was wrong. You are talking of me being obstinate but the truth is you are being close-minded in not acknowledging the merits of using a new UDRS system. Not even one of your supposed 'cons' of the system have any merit.

[DomainK]

Chumpire! England fury in South Africa as TV official misses Graeme Smith wicket snick

England have announced they intend to lodge an official complaint following Graeme Smith's controversial reprieve by the third umpire, Daryl Harper, during the second day of the fourth and final Test at Johannesburg. Smith, who top-scored for South Africa with 105, his 20th Test century, appeared to be given a let-off on 15 when he attempted a cut against Ryan Sidebottom and appeared to feather a nick through to the keeper, Matt Prior. Although the onfield umpire, Tony Hill, initially turned down England's appeals, the captain, Andrew Strauss, immediately used one of his team's two reviews, and the TV replays seemed to indicate an audible snick as the ball passed the bat. However, Harper upheld the onfield decision, claiming that he could not hear any noise on the replay that he was being shown in the third umpire's booth. An angry England coach, Andy Flower, claimed that this was because he had muted the volume on his television set, and confirmed that an official complaint was being made to the match referee, Roshan Mahanama. "He has obviously hit it because you can hear the nick on the replays," said Flower. "I don't blame him for standing but certainly with the technology available and everyone can hear the nick on referral, I find it very surprising that he hasn't been given out." Umpire Harper was at the centre of a previous review controversy involving England on their tour of the Caribbean in the spring, and Flower did not seek to mince his words. "I am not surprised he didn't hear it because he didn't turn the volume up on his speaker," he said. "I find it strange if you are listening for a nick you don't turn the volume up on your speaker." The initial belief, among confused commentators, was that the SABC feed used by the third umpire must have come from a different source to those used by Sky and Supersport, on which the noise was clearly audible. However, after seeking clarification from Mahanama, Flower discovered that this was not the case. "We found out that wasn't correct and one audio feed is used for everyone, and the second time [Mahanama] said that Daryl Harper had not switched up the volume on his mike and that is why we have heard the nick but the third umpire hasn't. If it wasn't such a serious match for us I would have found it amusing, I think it's very disappointing. "They said they did not deem it necessary to turn up the volume. But in the pre-series match referees meeting both Dave Richardson from the ICC and Mahanama explained on caught-behind referrals the volume would be turned up." For cost reasons, neither Snickometer nor HotSpot are being used in this series despite their successful application in other parts of the world, a state of affairs that Flower described as "illogical". "We were assured that, because we don't have that technology available, they would turn up the volume to listen for nicks," he added. "They didn't do that today and I find that hard to understand." Smith, for his part, did not deny there had been a noise, but maintained that he had stood his ground with good reason. "There definitely was a noise but I didn't feel I'd touched the ball," he said. "Even talking to Ashwell [Prince] as the review was going on I didn't feel the ball hit the bat. That can happen, maybe it did, maybe it didn't. "I thought it was my thumb on the bat handle, and I still don't feel like I hit it."

http://www.cricinfo.com/rsaveng09/content/current/story/444322.html

[yoda]

this is funny, only because it didn't happen to one of our players. ******s can't even determine a nick on replays even when the sound is obvious to others. there is no hope i am afraid.

[achilles]

This is so unbelievable of Harper. Daryl is a decent fella but can have absolute shockers

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[cowboysfan]

Wait a minute ... wasnt England the only team that stood stoutly against the referal system .... :giggle:

no,that is BCCI.england were reluctant but fell in line,without the referrals this series would have been tied at 1-1.