UDRS : Umpires and captains support review system

[bharat297]

Great article ... My sentiments exactly. I have no problem with using technology to improve decisions, but the players should be taken out of it. If the onfield umpires are unsure (of any decision, lbw, caught, run out, etc.) then they should be able to refer the decision upstairs.

[Ram]

Chappell makes a good point. The Review system was introduced to remove howlers, not pave the way for selfish batsmen to review marginal decisions in the hope that Hawkeye shows the ball missing the stumps by a whisker and the decision can be over-turned. If every other lbw decision is going to be reviewed, however straight-forward it is, why even have on-field umpires make lbw calls? We might as well direct all lbw appeals to the third umpire by default. One way of trying to correct this situation is to over-turn lbw (out) decision, ONLY if there was an inside edge or the ball pitched outside leg-stump or it is missing the stumps by yards. If it is either a marginal/close call, the umpire's decision must be retained. The other day, AB De Villiers padded up to a full delivery from Graeme Swann and was rightly given out. The appeal looked plumb - The ball was pitched up, it hit the batsmen in line and worse, he did not offer a shot. Yet, AB reviewed it and it was over-turned because hawkeye showed the ball missing the top of the stumps by a couple of inches. That doesnt make sense at all.

[teacup]

Great article ... My sentiments exactly. I have no problem with using technology to improve decisions' date=' but the players should be taken out of it. If the onfield umpires are unsure (of any decision, lbw, caught, run out, etc.) then they should be able to refer the decision upstairs.[/quote'] In the last sentence, he says "If the aim is to eliminate the howler, it would be better off if the process was under the control of the off-field official, who is more likely to overturn only those decisions where there are obvious mistakes." I don't think Chappell wants the process to be just another referral system albeit controlled by the on-field umpire (interestingly, that was experimented during the super-series in Australia many years back and was dropped because the on-field umpires where referring almost every lbw appeal to the third-umpire) but he wants it to be an intervention type system where the third-umpire would intervene when he spots a howler as soon as the decision is made.

[teacup]

Chappell makes a good point. The Review system was introduced to remove howlers, not pave the way for selfish batsmen to review marginal decisions in the hope that Hawkeye shows the ball missing the stumps by a whisker and the decision can be over-turned. If every other lbw decision is going to be reviewed, however straight-forward it is, why even have on-field umpires make lbw calls? We might as well direct all lbw appeals to the third umpire by default. One way of trying to correct this situation is to over-turn lbw (out) decision, ONLY if there was an inside edge or the ball pitched outside leg-stump or it is missing the stumps by yards. If it is either a marginal/close call, the umpire's decision must be retained. The other day, AB De Villiers padded up to a full delivery from Graeme Swann and was rightly given out. The appeal looked plumb - The ball was pitched up, it hit the batsmen in line and worse, he did not offer a shot. Yet, AB reviewed it and it was over-turned because hawkeye showed the ball missing the top of the stumps by a couple of inches. That doesnt make sense at all.

A week or so back, we had an interesting discussion on a suggestion I made about third-umpire's intervening when they spot a howler and doing away with the player referrals. To read more about this discussion, go to this thread

[thevortex]

A lot of the time the UDRS is seen as synonymous with Hawkeye. That to me is strange, to say the least. Hawkeye, to me, is the weakest part of UDRS. Forget the initial stated objective of the ICC representatives of technology (in this case, Hawkeye) being used to eliminate absolute howlers, it is creating howlers of its own. Plus, there is more doubt being introduced into what is essentially a simple game. Pertinently the benefit of doubt angle is also taking a beating. Lastly there is no independent verification of Hawkeye's accuracy coefficient. Having watched a lot of contests with Hawkeye being used, I am extremely doubtful of the usefulness and accuracy of Hawkeye - especially its predicted path. It is great as a commentator's visual aid when he attempts to draw in the armchair cricket fans to the action. But to be used by the umpire to make decisions - I shudder and shake at the thought of it. The worst part of all this is the ICC did not think twice before making the predicted path available to the 3rd umpire. If the 3rd umpire has all of this at his disposal, then why do we need the on field umpire? Just to pick up his walkie talkie and confer with his colleague sitting in the A/C cabin? That is a shame, if you ask me. ________ Sunset Boulevard Residence 2 Condo

[teacup]

A lot of the time the UDRS is seen as synonymous with Hawkeye. That to me is strange, to say the least. Hawkeye, to me, is the weakest part of UDRS. Forget the initial stated objective of the ICC representatives of technology (in this case, Hawkeye) being used to eliminate absolute howlers, it is creating howlers of its own. Plus, there is more doubt being introduced into what is essentially a simple game. Pertinently the benefit of doubt angle is also taking a beating. Lastly there is no independent verification of Hawkeye's accuracy coefficient. Having watched a lot of contests with Hawkeye being used, I am extremely doubtful of the usefulness and accuracy of Hawkeye - especially its predicted path. It is great as a commentator's visual aid when he attempts to draw in the armchair cricket fans to the action. But to be used by the umpire to make decisions - I shudder and shake at the thought of it. The worst part of all this is the ICC did not think twice before making the predicted path available to the 3rd umpire. If the 3rd umpire has all of this at his disposal, then why do we need the on field umpire? Just to pick up his walkie talkie and confer with his colleague sitting in the A/C cabin? That is a shame, if you ask me.

I agree with you on the predictive path usage. Without an independent scientific verification of it's accuracy, I wouldn't trust it completely. Further, there is no need for it. The third-umpire should predict the path of the delivery by noting the point of impact, the angle and the bounce. The technology that is allowed for LBWs should be limited to the 'mat' replay showing the 'in-line with the stumps' zone and the calculated distance between the point of impact and the stumps.

[thevortex]

The real concern is the haste shown by the ICC in implementing Hawkeye at the highest level of the game. Why the hurry in making the predicted path available to the 3rd umpire? Does it have anything to do with Wisden acquiring Hawkeye? I wonder... ________ Roll A Joint

[Lord]

i do not agree with the referral system,but if its gonna be used permanently,i feel 3 things should be ensured for its success 1.Regular use of Hotspot.if that means ICC paying its broadcasters for technology,so be it. 2.the final decision to be taken by 3rd umpire.once a decision is sent for a review,the on field umpire should be out of it n decision should be taken by 3rd umpires only. 3.in case of ANY doubt,the batsman should be deemed not out,irrespective of what the original decision is

[thevortex]

Yep. Hot spot I find much easier to tolerate than Hawkeye. Perhaps because it does not aim to 'predict' anything. One thought though - unless we have technology that is fool proof I think the final decision must still rest with the on field umpires. That is the way we can empower decision making in cricket. With cricket having grown to the extent it has, I dont see any reason why the on field umpire should not be provided with a small 5 inch gadget having an LCD screen with the ability to receive telecasts from the broadcaster. That way, the umpire can immediately view the action and take a decision - then and there. No dilly dallying. No confusion. Does anybody see any merit in this at all? ________ Infant zoloft

[Lord]

Yep. Hot spot I find much easier to tolerate than Hawkeye. Perhaps because it does not aim to 'predict' anything.

yes n its supposed to 100% accurate

One thought though - unless we have technology that is fool proof I think the final decision must still rest with the on field umpires. That is the way we can empower decision making in cricket.

its surprising u r saying this.didnt u protest Strauss' been given out in ur article?by what u r saying here.it seems that u agree with him being given out.original decision was upheld. as i said earlier,the batsman should get the benefit of doubt.for instance,in Strauss's dismissal,the ball was clipping the top of the stumps,it may or may not have knocked them.so i think Strauss should have been given out as nobody was sure

With cricket having grown to the extent it has, I dont see any reason why the on field umpire should not be provided with a small 5 inch gadget having an LCD screen with the ability to receive telecasts from the broadcaster. That way, the umpire can immediately view the action and take a decision - then and there. No dilly dallying. No confusion. Does anybody see any merit in this at all?

i dont see wats the need for that.we already have a big screen in ever match nowadays.i remember Simon Taufel reversing his decision at Lords wen Dhoni claimed a bump catch or Mark Benson reversing the decision in KL wen the ball appeared to be going off SRT's shoulder. i wonder why it doesnt happen more often

[Ram]

Some very pertinent and relevant thoughts and concerns being expressed in this thread..! :two_thumbs_up: Yes, it is kind of surprising the ICC has embraced the 'Hawkeye Predictive technology' this fast, that too in the first phase of implementation of the UDRS. If they were going to use technology to remove umpiring howlers, it would have made sense to implement tech assists in a phased manner; For eg, first the 'line of stumps on the pitch' zone, snickometer, hotspot, hawkeye etc.. But to go the whole hog just to begin with does raise some interesting questions.

[thevortex]

Lord - no, I am not disagreeing with myself there although I can see how it appears so. The thing is Tony Hill in that case did a bang up job of umpiring. He was wrong. And my whole argument in that article was that technology, if at all it could help cricket, could have helped reverse that decision. Instead it was used to reconfirm what was wrong and send the batsman on the way. In this case what I envisioned happening was something like this. Hill gives Strauss out. Harper sees the replay on TV and tells Hill that the ball appears to strike the top of the bails. In which case, Hill should see the 'benefit of doubt' aspect and give Strauss not out revoking his original decision. This is what I see as being best of both worlds. Keeping tradition alive as well as making meaningful use of technology. What happened was an utter botch up at all levels. Oh and about the big screen - it is not yet available at all venues. Particularly not for Test matches. Did you notice that? It all again boils down to money - as always. ________ The Peak Towers

[Lord]

Lord - no, I am not disagreeing with myself there although I can see how it appears so. The thing is Tony Hill in that case did a bang up job of umpiring. He was wrong. And my whole argument in that article was that technology, if at all it could help cricket, could have helped reverse that decision. Instead it was used to reconfirm what was wrong and send the batsman on the way. In this case what I envisioned happening was something like this. Hill gives Strauss out. Harper sees the replay on TV and tells Hill that the ball appears to strike the top of the bails. In which case, Hill should see the 'benefit of doubt' aspect and give Strauss not out revoking his original decision. This is what I see as being best of both worlds. Keeping tradition alive as well as making meaningful use of technology. What happened was an utter botch up at all levels.

u r exactly making the point i was making.in case of doubt,benefit of doubt should always go to the batsmen.Tony Hill gave Strauss out.the TV replays were inconclusive.the Hawkeye showed half the ball just cliiping the top of the bails.in accordance with what happens. an Orange 'Umpire's call" flashed on the screen n decision WAS UPHELD.from ur post u seem to be in favor of on field umpire making final decision in case of replays being inconclusive,dont you? BUT,from what i see,since there wasnt any conclusive evidence that he was out Strauss should have been out.the Hawkeye needed to show the full ball hitting the stumps.otherwise its not out.thats what i'm trying to say.

Oh and about the big screen - it is not yet available at all venues. Particularly not for Test matches. Did you notice that? It all again boils down to money - as always.

Oh yes,ICC should make it mandatory for all test venues to have big screens.ur suggestion is good.but a 5 inch screen can show different size of iimages

[The Outsider]

It seems that people warped in some unknown "charm" of the game are still blinded by the fact that the UDRS has been a success over the last few months. It has removed many blunders which could have affected results of tests and possibly series. There are some areas which need improvement and refinement, but the only opposition seems to be on the notion that challenging and umpires' decision is somehow not charming enough. Well, I am pretty happy with this move towards a lesser charming version of the game and so do most people involved seem to be except for a few stuck in some time warp of the previous century.

[Gunner_Mania]

Lord - no, I am not disagreeing with myself there although I can see how it appears so. The thing is Tony Hill in that case did a bang up job of umpiring. He was wrong. And my whole argument in that article was that technology, if at all it could help cricket, could have helped reverse that decision. Instead it was used to reconfirm what was wrong and send the batsman on the way. In this case what I envisioned happening was something like this. Hill gives Strauss out. Harper sees the replay on TV and tells Hill that the ball appears to strike the top of the bails. In which case, Hill should see the 'benefit of doubt' aspect and give Strauss not out revoking his original decision. This is what I see as being best of both worlds. Keeping tradition alive as well as making meaningful use of technology. What happened was an utter botch up at all levels. Oh and about the big screen - it is not yet available at all venues. Particularly not for Test matches. Did you notice that? It all again boils down to money - as always.

Since you mentioned this thread on your response I am posting my response here since you are discussing both hawk-eye and Hotspot. Technology is not perfect. My point is if the umpire had given not out, the decision would have remained not out. the 3.6 mm I hope is +/-. so it might be possible that the ball may not have bounced as high as hawk eye predicted and could have been hitting the stumps. If independent research can confirm the tolerance level then hwak eye should be used. The 3rd umpire should not be changing decisions but only telling the onfield umpire hawkeye cannot prove conclusively so I leave it upto you. Now then the onfield umpire should make up his mind - I gave it because I thought it was hitting, but now I am not so sure. I;ll change my decision OR I gave it because I thought it was hitting and I AM still convinced it is hitting so I'll give it out. Where the problem lies at the moment is the 'Umpire's call' means you will stick to the decision you have already made and not have a think about your decision again. In all honesty that might still open a new can of worms.

[thevortex]

u r exactly making the point i was making.in case of doubt,benefit of doubt should always go to the batsmen.Tony Hill gave Strauss out.the TV replays were inconclusive.the Hawkeye showed half the ball just cliiping the top of the bails.in accordance with what happens. an Orange 'Umpire's call" flashed on the screen n decision WAS UPHELD.from ur post u seem to be in favor of on field umpire making final decision in case of replays being inconclusive,dont you? BUT,from what i see,since there wasnt any conclusive evidence that he was out Strauss should have been out.the Hawkeye needed to show the full ball hitting the stumps.otherwise its not out.thats what i'm trying to say. Oh yes,ICC should make it mandatory for all test venues to have big screens.ur suggestion is good.but a 5 inch screen can show different size of iimages

Let me attempt to explain one more time. I repeat I am in favour of the on field umpire making the final decision. In this case what should have happened is Harper conveying that the ball was only clipping the top of the stumps. [Hold for one moment here. My bone of contention is that if Hawkeye depicts the ball clipping the top of the bails, it is fair to say that the ball was going atop the stumps! :)] Now does ICC follow that system of empowering the standing official with information from the TV replays? No. It does not. He simply becomes the messenger boy in that case and the decision is taken by the 3rd umpire. This is precisely why I am for empowering the field official himself with a small device taken in with him or with a giant screen or whatever else makes sense. I say this because only the umpire who took the original decision would have a perspective of all things - pace, bounce, variation et al and using the replay evidence can take an appropriate call on the decision. Either confirm it or revoke it. So, in that above scenario again, Harper should have gone back to Hill and said, 'Hey Tony, Hawkeye says the ball would have clipped the top of the wicket. Plenty of doubt, I guess.' In which case Tony might have hemmed and hawed but finally would have had to revoke his decision and rule in the batsman's favour. That did not happen. Now here I am questioning two things. One - Hawkeye's depiction of the ball clipping the top of the bails. Two - the logic behind the 3rd umpire trusting a predicted path developed by a private company (owned by Wisden). There is a third aspect. According to the rulebook Harper should not have given that out as it clearly says that only a full impact of the ball can be given out. So, technically, no matter which umpire this decision should have rested on, the end result should have not out. Is that not ironic? Now, lets separate Harper's mistake from Hawkeye's accuracy and I think the picture might become clearer. In my opinion to those who use Harper's inadequacy to defend Hawkeye the best medicine is to use Taufel and have Hawkeye thrown out with the kitchen waste. That is how good he is - consistently! Hope this helps. ________ Vaporizer

[thevortex]

Since you mentioned this thread on your response I am posting my response here since you are discussing both hawk-eye and Hotspot. Technology is not perfect. My point is if the umpire had given not out' date=' the decision would have remained not out. the 3.6 mm I hope is +/-. so it might be possible that the ball may not have bounced as high as hawk eye predicted and could have been hitting the stumps. If independent research can confirm the tolerance level then hwak eye should be used. The 3rd umpire should not be changing decisions but only telling the onfield umpire hawkeye cannot prove conclusively so I leave it upto you. Now then the onfield umpire should make up his mind - I gave it because I thought it was hitting, but now I am not so sure. I;ll change my decision OR I gave it because I thought it was hitting and I AM still convinced it is hitting so I'll give it out. Where the problem lies at the moment is the 'Umpire's call' means you will stick to the decision you have already made and not have a think about your decision again. In all honesty that might still open a new can of worms.[/quote'] kpsirinivasan - I think my reply to Lord has answered your post. Let me know if it has not. Actually it is quite hazy as to whether if the on field umpire had ruled that not out and Smith had asked for a referral, whether Strauss would have been ruled leg before on the basis of the ball clipping the bails. After all why should it be any different when the bowling team appeals? That is what simple logic says. Admittedly giving a batsman out may be Harper's mistake. But lets see if that is the case. After all not all of us knew that ICC had ordered the use of the predicted path in Hawkeye to be made available to the TV umpires right from November 2009, did we? Who is to say that they did not amend any rule regarding that subject from then to now? ________ Vaporizer Bulb

[yoda]

There are two issues with current umpiring. 1. Incompetent umpires 2. Not enough information live to make a good call The latter is addressed by technology, former by player challenge. Both are needed in the long run, but the logical process is to first get the right technology in place for the third umpire, use it effectively in all decisions where possible and then to also add a player challenge system on top of that to eliminate any chance of a missed or botched call.

[teacup]

Now does ICC follow that system of empowering the standing official with information from the TV replays? No. It does not. He simply becomes the messenger boy in that case and the decision is taken by the 3rd umpire. This is precisely why I am for empowering the field official himself with a small device taken in with him or with a giant screen or whatever else makes sense. I say this because only the umpire who took the original decision would have a perspective of all things - pace, bounce, variation et al and using the replay evidence can take an appropriate call on the decision. Either confirm it or revoke it. So, in that above scenario again, Harper should have gone back to Hill and said, 'Hey Tony, Hawkeye says the ball would have clipped the top of the wicket. Plenty of doubt, I guess.' In which case Tony might have hemmed and hawed but finally would have had to revoke his decision and rule in the batsman's favour. That did not happen. Now here I am questioning two things. One - Hawkeye's depiction of the ball clipping the top of the bails. Two - the logic behind the 3rd umpire trusting a predicted path developed by a private company (owned by Wisden). There is a third aspect. According to the rulebook Harper should not have given that out as it clearly says that only a full impact of the ball can be given out. So, technically, no matter which umpire this decision should have rested on, the end result should have not out. Is that not ironic? Now, lets separate Harper's mistake from Hawkeye's accuracy and I think the picture might become clearer. In my opinion to those who use Harper's inadequacy to defend Hawkeye the best medicine is to use Taufel and have Hawkeye thrown out with the kitchen waste. That is how good he is - consistently! Hope this helps.

I don't think the UDRS was implemented with the aim of ensuring that the benefit of doubt always rests with the batsman. It's aim is to eliminate clearly wrong decisions. In the case that you mention, at worst, the decision against Strauss is marginal and so there is no provision to overrule it with the UDRS.

[Lord]

Let me attempt to explain one more time. I repeat I am in favour of the on field umpire making the final decision. In this case what should have happened is Harper conveying that the ball was only clipping the top of the stumps. [Hold for one moment here. My bone of contention is that if Hawkeye depicts the ball clipping the top of the bails, it is fair to say that the ball was going atop the stumps! :)

No it is not fair to say that the ball would necessarily go over the stumps if the Hawkeye.i actually was more inclined towards ball hitting the stumps but was not sure,hence wanted him to be given BOD.

Now does ICC follow that system of empowering the standing official with information from the TV replays? No. It does not. He simply becomes the messenger boy in that case and the decision is taken by the 3rd umpire. This is precisely why I am for empowering the field official himself with a small device taken in with him or with a giant screen or whatever else makes sense. I say this because only the umpire who took the original decision would have a perspective of all things - pace, bounce, variation et al and using the replay evidence can take an appropriate call on the decision. Either confirm it or revoke it.

the final decision is still taken by the onfield umpire.the 3rd umpire is there to convey to him what he sees on replay which is quite similar to ur screen suggestion.

So, in that above scenario again, Harper should have gone back to Hill and said, 'Hey Tony, Hawkeye says the ball would have clipped the top of the wicket. Plenty of doubt, I guess.' In which case Tony might have hemmed and hawed but finally would have had to revoke his decision and rule in the batsman's favour.

do u really expect an average umpire to change his decision unless hes absolutely sure hes wrong?there is pride at stake n an umpire would do everything to uphold his original decision.thats why i say the final should be takenn by 3rd umpire.we all can pretty much make up about the pace n bounce of the pitch by wattching on TVs so that shouldnt be a problem

That did not happen. Now here I am questioning two things. One - Hawkeye's depiction of the ball clipping the top of the bails.

that means ball will clip top of tha ball,but only according to the hawkeye.it means the decision is 50-50 n hence batsman should get BOD imo.

Two - the logic behind the 3rd umpire trusting a predicted path developed by a private company (owned by Wisden).

thats because it lends transparency.seeing it only upto the point oof impact again brings subjectivity n judgement of 3rd umpire into equation n wen both the umpires have to make decision,it lends confusion. do u remember the Samaraweera decision in 3rd test in SL wen we toured there in 2008.then the hawkeye was used till point of impact n 3rd umpire after seeing that decided that batsman was not out,despite him being clearly out.wen the Hawkeye's predictive was used later for viewers,it showed the ball hitting MIDDLE OF MIDDLE STUMP.it turned out to be a series changing decisiion

There is a third aspect. According to the rulebook Harper should not have given that out as it clearly says that only a full impact of the ball can be given out. So, technically, no matter which umpire this decision should have rested on, the end result should have not out. Is that not ironic?

thats because he didnt trust the predictive path of Hawkeye blindly.the ball may or may not have gone over.since there was doubt,the original decision stayed

Now, lets separate Harper's mistake from Hawkeye's accuracy and I think the picture might become clearer. In my opinion to those who use Harper's inadequacy to defend Hawkeye the best medicine is to use Taufel and have Hawkeye thrown out with the kitchen waste. That is how good he is - consistently! Hope this helps.

Taufel is a great umpire n Harper is horrible as an onfield umpire.but thats a different issue altogether:--D