UDRS : Umpires and captains support review system

[Lord]

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?

no the original decision,whatever it was,would have stayed

[Ram]

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' date= 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.

Lol, are you even reading any of the posts Shwetabh? Much of what is being said in this thread is mostly legitimate and fully constructive criticism of the UDRS. The general theme of most of the posts in this thread has been - 'If you're going to do it, at least do it right..'

[punjabi_khota]

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.

I don't think you have seen UDRS being implemented of late. The ball missing the stumps by whisker DOES NOT change the decision by default. It ends up being "umpire's call" and whatever the original decision was, most of the times it stands. So many of such instances occured in aussie-poys games.

[The Outsider]

Lol' date=' are you even reading any of the posts Shwetabh? Much of what is being said in this thread is mostly legitimate and fully constructive criticism of the UDRS. The general theme of most of the posts in this thread has been - 'If you're going to do it, at least do it right..'[/quote'] Yeah, I read the posts and from reading them it looks like some of you are trying to design Bolometers to measure Cosmic Microwave Radiation. It's just such a simple thing to do - everything happens as before till the point the fielding or batting side feel a terrible decision has been made and ask the third umpire to double check it. If the third umpire finds sufficient evidence that a terrible decision was made, he overturns it. If not, the previous decision stays and the referrer gets docked a challenge attempt for wasting it frivolously. From some of the responses above it looks like some people want to do a supercomputer simulation with hand held next generation gadgets and what not. It's not that complicated, really. :giggle:

[Gunner_Mania]

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?

May be we didn't but certainly the players or atleast the captains and the coaches and even the TV commentators knew it before the series started in SA. I don't know where you watched this series but down here in the UK, Sky was broadcasting this series and there were so many in studio discussion and debates - Messrs Gower, Hussein, Atherton, Botham , Pollock et all particpating.

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.

According the rulebook the 3rd umpire doesnt make the decision. He just relays what he is seeing as per Hawk eyes predicted path. Here on Sky they actually were telling on air what the 3rd umpire was telling the umpire in the field coz they could also hear it. Its like 3 strikes and you are out. Pitching in Line, impact in line with the stumps, hitting the wickets. If all 3 were red - i.e. yes , yes and yes then it was out. If one of them was orange - or Umpire's call then whatever decision the onfield umpire took stood. Even in the case half the ball hitting the top of the bails, if the on field umpire said it was not out it was not out. and finally any one was green i.e pitched out side leg stump or wickets missing then it was not out. The UDRS works to a large extent based on what the technology is. The oen thing I will give to you is I don't know if Hawkeye is 99% accurate or if there is any independent research and verification of it, but either way they are the same for both the teams.

[thevortex]

Lord - I dont think we are at tangents at all. Both of us are arriving at the same conclusion. Strauss should have been ruled not out. Pure and simple. kpsrinivasan - thanks for the detail. I wonder if the 3rd umpire actually has those three lights up in his room! But all this does not increase my confidence in Hawkeye one single bit. ________ Sunset Boulevard Residence 2 Condo

[thevortex]

Yeah, I read the posts and from reading them it looks like some of you are trying to design Bolometers to measure Cosmic Microwave Radiation. It's just such a simple thing to do - everything happens as before till the point the fielding or batting side feel a terrible decision has been made and ask the third umpire to double check it. If the third umpire finds sufficient evidence that a terrible decision was made, he overturns it. If not, the previous decision stays and the referrer gets docked a challenge attempt for wasting it frivolously. From some of the responses above it looks like some people want to do a supercomputer simulation with hand held next generation gadgets and what not. It's not that complicated, really. :giggle:

Cricket was never a millimetres game, Outsider. And there is reason for that. A batsman was ruled out leg before only if the umpire was convinced absolutely that the ball would be hitting the stumps - of course given that it pitched in line and all that. Now where is the certainty with Hawkeye depicting the ball kissing the top of the bails? Cricket needs common sense. Not supercomputers. Unfortunately that is a commodity the collective ICC does not have too much of. Sadly. ________ BestDream

[Gunner_Mania]

Lord - I dont think we are at tangents at all. Both of us are arriving at the same conclusion. Strauss should have been ruled not out. Pure and simple. kpsrinivasan - thanks for the detail. I wonder if the 3rd umpire actually has those three lights up in his room! But all this does not increase my confidence in Hawkeye one single bit.

[ATTACH]839[/ATTACH] This is Deviliiers from the second test. The onfield umpire gave it out and since the 3rd umpire could not conclusively say, the decision remained with the onfield umpire. One other interesting point which I must admit I didn't know is that there is no such thing as a benefit of doubt favouring the batsmen in the laws of the game. It just one of things that umpires were giving in favour of the batsmen but are probably not doing it more often ow because they probably are relying hawk eye to vindicate their decision of giving out and not the benefit to the batsmen. I think that it should be the otherway round batsmen should get the benefit of doubt more often and hawk eye will vindicate the umpires decision. I agree that both Strauss and De viliiers in this case should have been given the BoD but not after it was reviewed but at the point of the original decision and if the decision was reviewed then they would have been not out. This has been a very interesting debate. Its nice to actually debate with fellow cricket fans. :hatsoff: to ICF for providing the forum

[achilles]

Stuart Broad tried to cheat in the recently ended test while batting. The ball brushed his guard, he knew it, yet he reviewed and on the big-screen when the vid was shown, the woman was so embarrassed and he knew gestured that it went off his guard. CHEAT !

[bharat297]

My only issue with a 3rd umpire intervening is when they would do it. Suppose a batsman has been adjudged LBW, he then starts to walk off ... when does the 3rd umpire intervene? Is it the time before the batsman leaves the field ? Will this result in batsman taking their time to leave the field in the hope that the 3rd umpire overturns it. I cant see a practical way for a 3rd umpire to get involved unless the onfield umpires ask for a review.

[teacup]

My only issue with a 3rd umpire intervening is when they would do it. Suppose a batsman has been adjudged LBW' date=' he then starts to walk off ... when does the 3rd umpire intervene? Is it the time before the batsman leaves the field ? Will this result in batsman taking their time to leave the field in the hope that the 3rd umpire overturns it. I cant see a practical way for a 3rd umpire to get involved unless the onfield umpires ask for a review.[/quote'] It should happen immediately after the first replay. If the decision is a howler, the third-umpire should suspect that the decision is wrong in the first replay (as per ICC specs, the third-umpire should get a replay on his TV monitor within 10 secs and this is evident from the fact that we get to watch at least one replay between consecutive deliveries) and request the on-field umpire to hold the game-up until he is done reviewing the decision. 10-20 secs is fast enough to intervene before the game progresses in any scenario(dismissal or otherwise). If you want to read more on this, go to this older thread

[thevortex]

Take one moment to think about this. With so many variables still being so unclear, is this how the implementation should have been rolled out by the ICC? At the highest level of the game, that too? No matter who sees it and how the technology is used, benefit of doubt to batsmen must stay. Otherwise we would give rise to manic umpires who are always worried about micro-details such as millimetres and miss the big picture. Is that what we want for the game that we so love and adore? Thanks kpsrinivasan for the pictures and yes I too enjoyed this discussion. In fact I am enjoying my brief stay here. ________ new developments in Wong Amat

[Feed]

UDRS : Umpires and captains support review system The ICC are happy with the Umpire Decision Review System after a reviewing some matches in which the system wasw used over the summer - and they're got support from key backers. More... Umpires and captains support review system January 21 2010 at 08:02AM London - Umpires and captains generally support the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) used in three countries during the southern hemisphere summer, according to International Cricket Council (ICC) general manager Dave Richardson. "At this point in time the general consensus seems to be it works, it gets more decisions right, it is resulting in more correct decisions," Richardson said in a telephone interview from the ICC's Dubai headquarters. The ICC has promised an investigation into the referral system after England complained about the performance of third umpire Darryl Harper in the fourth Test against South Africa. Harper was the official in charge of ruling on appeals from either side against the decisions of the on-field umpires. 'the general consensus seems to be it works' "We are better off with the old system," said England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) chairman Giles Clarke. "If the umpire is as deaf as a post and as blind as a bat at least it's the same for both sides." Richardson said the ICC had studied television footage from the four Tests in South Africa, six in Australia and three in New Zealand where the UDRS had been used. "The bottom line is that in all the series we have used it, 13 Test matches overall, if we hadn't used UDRS we would have talked about umpires getting about 91 percent of their decisions right," he said. "But we have been able to correct the number of those mistakes so the overall number now is 97 percent. So that to us is a significant improvement. From that fact alone it would be silly to throw the baby out with the bath water just because things go wrong occasionally." Richardson said the ICC was "completely happy" with the ball tracking systems in the three series, used to help the third umpire determine if an lbw decision was correct. 'If the umpire is as deaf as a post and as blind as a bat at least it's the same for both sides' "I can confirm that Hawk-Eye has been particularly good. In fact the Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye and the protocols that go with it have worked superbly well, they have been one of the biggest contributors to the fact that we've got so many more decisions correct," he said. The former South African wicketkeeper said there were still problems with technology such as hot spot, which uses infra-red cameras to see if a ball has brushed the bat or glove. "We have seen so many examples even in the Test matches this summer where there's no mark from hot spot, the ball didn't seem to deflect in any way but there's a noise and you wonder was that hitting the bat or did the handle keep clicking," he said. Overall, though, Richardson said umpires and captains approved the principle of the UDRS. "You get some umpires who are a little bit insecure, slowly but surely technology is taking over their job. Hopefully, they will realise this is doing something to preserve their job, letting them check on it if they think or someone thinks a mistake has been made," he said. "There are others who support it and think this takes the pressure off them because they feel they can make their decision now and the consequences are not going to be series-changing or career-threatening for players. "And there are probably some of them who think they are good enough, they don't need technology in the first place. It's a bit of a variety but I still maintain the majority are in favour of the way we are going. "I think the same thing can be said about the captains. The general feeling is, though, we definitely need to work to refine the specifications as the technology gets better and better." - Reuters

[thevortex]

I was trying to see if something is to be found in the article that is reflected in the headlines, but failed completely! :) In the end it appears that Richardson wants to confirm that ICC is completely happy with the UDRS and its implementations. No surprises there I guess. ________ ROLL A JOINT

[teacup]

It should happen immediately after the first replay. If the decision is a howler' date=' the third-umpire should suspect that the decision is wrong in the first replay (as per ICC specs, the third-umpire should get a replay on his TV monitor within 10 secs and this is evident from the fact that we get to watch at least one replay between consecutive deliveries) and request the on-field umpire to hold the game-up until he is done reviewing the decision. 10-20 secs is fast enough to intervene before the game progresses in any scenario(dismissal or otherwise). If you want to read more on this, go to this older thread

The idea of using the third-umpire as a proactive member of an umpiring team is gaining support. A couple of weeks back it was Ian Chappell who was advocating it and now it is Rob Steen.

Rather than being regarded as a third party, an optional extra, a last resort, the third umpire must be incorporated as part of a fully-fledged, inter-dependent, mutually supportive and equal team. He must be permitted to be proactive rather than merely reactive. Consider the following scenario, one that cropped up time and again during the recent Basil D'Oliveira Trophy series and one that will probably materialise again in Nagpur (aside from the fact that the series will not have UDRS) this weekend. Zaheer Khan angles an inswinger into Graeme Smith's pads, whereupon the ball straightens and strikes South Africa's captain on the knee-roll as his forward press takes him to the farthest edge of his crease. A lusty, concerted appeal rents the afternoon air. However, instead of hoisting an educated guess of a forefinger, Ian Gould demurs, alerted by a brief yet insistent buzzing in his ear. Up in the pavilion, the third umpire, who did the buzzing, believes there is room for doubt. Would the ball have singed the stumps or crept over? He scrutinises the replays for a minute, maybe two, then relays his verdict to Gould. Yes, Gould may well feel a trifle disempowered, a bit less manly. Yes, the time taken might even rob the paying customers of an over. Then again, if any sport can afford to take its time to get things right, it is assuredly cricket. We already hold up play to rule whether the ball has crossed the boundary.

[Gunner_Mania]

The idea of using the third-umpire as a proactive member of an umpiring team is gaining support. A couple of weeks back it was Ian Chappell who was advocating it and now it is Rob Steen.

However, instead of hoisting an educated guess of a forefinger, Ian Gould demurs, alerted by a brief yet insistent buzzing in his ear. Up in the pavilion, the third umpire, who did the buzzing, believes there is room for doubt. Would the ball have singed the stumps or crept over? He scrutinises the replays for a minute, maybe two, then relays his verdict to Gould. Yes, Gould may well feel a trifle disempowered, a bit less manly. Yes, the time taken might even rob the paying customers of an over. Then again, if any sport can afford to take its time to get things right, it is assuredly cricket. We already hold up play to rule whether the ball has crossed the boundary.

We might as well do away with the umpires in the middle. Once the ball hits the pad, the 3rd umpire can sit at home, why does he even need to be in the ground ?, looks at the Hawk-eye replays and calls and informs the operator at the ground who will flash a red or green light on the giant score board.

[teacup]

We might as well do away with the umpires in the middle. Once the ball hits the pad' date=' the 3rd umpire can sit at home, why does he even need to be in the ground ?, looks at the Hawk-eye replays and calls and informs the operator at the ground who will flash a red or green light on the giant score board.[/quote'] Yes, what Rob is suggesting is taking the idea to the extreme and I don't agree with it. You can implement the idea of using a third-umpire proactively in a less obtrusive manner by letting the on-field umpire call the decision as he sees it and letting the third-umpire intervene if based on a prelim-review (just one replay) he believes the umpire has got it wrong. The idea is if you can't tell in live action + one replay if the decision is incorrect than at worst the decision is marginal and not a howler.

[Mr Eintstein]

the objective of the UDRS is to remove howlers, so why has no-one thought of reducing the amount of reviews to one? that would force bowlers and batsmen to use it only when they're 100% certain (or very close to it).

[Gunner_Mania]

the objective of the UDRS is to remove howlers' date=' so why has no-one thought of reducing the amount of reviews to one? that would force bowlers and batsmen to use it only when they're 100% certain (or very close to it).[/quote'] I think 2 is fair. One would be a gamble.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --