UDRS tracker for England/Pak

[Mr. Wicket]

One success already. Trott wrongly given out LBW, reviewed the decision and it was overturned due to an inside edge. Progress. Huzzah!

[Sid]

pak loses one referal,took a chance against peiterson

[Gunner_Mania]

It was a good review, but I think the right decision was made in the end.

[Desi Cartman]

if the hawkeye is accurate then how does it matter if it shows ball hitting the middle stumps or just brushing the off stump ? If its hitting the stumps then it should be out

[Gunner_Mania]

if the hawkeye is accurate then how does it matter if it shows ball hitting the middle stumps or just brushing the off stump ? If its hitting the stumps then it should be out

because its not 100% accurate. There is a margin of error which needs to be factored in.

[Lord]

It was a good review' date=' but I think the right decision was made in the end.[/quote'] not watching the match,but i feel if the replys r inconclusive the decision must ALWAYS be not out,even if onfield umpire says out.the batsman should be giiven out only if it absolutely conclusive.if even the replays r unsure,it shouldnt be given out

[Sid]

another referal gone for pakistan:hysterical:

[Pak_Fan_4_Eva]

:hysterical: Our love story with referrals continues

[Asim]

They were maximum sure on both occasions and so they have to use it vs most important wicket but they were unfortunate... (Meanwhile Pietersen gone with some regular method)

[Gunner_Mania]

not watching the match' date='but i feel if the replys r inconclusive the decision must ALWAYS be not out,even if onfield umpire says out.the batsman should be giiven out only if it absolutely conclusive.if even the replays r unsure,it shouldnt be given out[/quote'] No, then we are beginning to depend 100% on technology and are making the on field umpire redundant. If technology is inconclusive, the best bet is to stick to the onfield umpires decision. This way both 'charm' & technology are given equal weightage.

[thevortex]

because its not 100% accurate. There is a margin of error which needs to be factored in.

Gunner - when you get a chance, could you walk through this incident for me? I would love to know what actually transpired. Thanks in advance.

[Lord]

No' date=' then we are beginning to depend 100% on technology and are making the on field umpire redundant. If technology is inconclusive, the best bet is to stick to the onfield umpires decision. This way both 'charm' & technology are given equal weightage.[/quote'] but how can the umpire be sure wen even the technology cant prove anything?hes only taking a guess too.better giving the benefit of doubt to the batsmen

[Gunner_Mania]

England lose one now. Trott gone. Lord this review decision was an answer to your question. The umpire has given it out, because he thought it was out, the technology couldnt conclusively prove him wrong and so the decision stood.

[Desi Cartman]

Appeal for Peitersen was hitting the stumps in the same way ... ( except this one was off stump and Kevinder's was leg stump) .. So please explain why was this out not the other one ? There is no way that umpire's now if 66% of the ball was hitting or 49% .. so why is one decision out and the other not out :P PS: I understand that Umpire's decision stands but it seems illogical

[Sid]

ENGLAND loses review now and wat a poor call from trott,that was plumb

[Gunner_Mania]

Gunner - when you get a chance' date=' could you walk through this incident for me? I would love to know what actually transpired. Thanks in advance.[/quote'] KP was walking down the pitch and got hit on the pads. Asoka gave it not out, On review, there were two factors that were inconclusive, one that the impact was over 2.5m from the wkt and two the ball was kissing the top of the leg stump. Since the evidence was inconclusive, the 3rd umpire left the decision to the onfield umpire - who had already ruled it not out and the decision stood.

[thevortex]

No' date=' then we are beginning to depend 100% on technology and are making the on field umpire redundant. If technology is inconclusive, the best bet is to stick to the onfield umpires decision. This way both 'charm' & technology are given equal weightage.[/quote'] There are of course other ways in which with the current implementation the technology still renders the umpires redundant :). But yes in this example, I am with you.

[thevortex]

KP was walking down the pitch and got hit on the pads. Asoka gave it not out' date=' On review, there were two factors that were inconclusive, one that the impact was over 2.5m from the wkt and two the ball was kissing the top of the leg stump. Since the evidence was inconclusive, the 3rd umpire left the decision to the onfield umpire - who had already ruled it not out and the decision stood.[/quote'] Thanks, Gunner. What is your take on the entire thing? Would the ball have hit the stumps? Did you find yourself agreeing with Hawkeye on the impact point? What makes a 3rd umpire rule it as inconclusive? That Hawkeye shows the ball kissing the leg stump? What if that was not so? Remember you yourself said that the system was only indicative and that it does have an error margin? What happens then?

[Gunner_Mania]

Appeal for Peitersen was hitting the stumps in the same way ... ( except this one was off stump and Kevinder's was leg stump) .. So please explain why was this out not the other one ? There is no way that umpire's now if 66% of the ball was hitting or 49% .. so why is one decision out and the other not out :P PS: I understand that Umpire's decision stands but it seems illogical

It is not illogical, it is logical, because in both cases the umpires decision was final. Technology was not able to conclusively prove the umpire got it wrong. The onfield umpire makes the decision and his decision stays unless and untill Hawkeye conclusively proves that the umpire did a 'Bucknor'.

[Desi Cartman]

It is not illogical, it is logical, because in both cases the umpires decision was final. Technology was not able to conclusively prove the umpire got it wrong. The onfield umpire makes the decision and his decision stays unless and untill Hawkeye conclusively proves that the umpire did a 'Bucknor'.

I know its purpose is to undo the obvious wrong decisions but I think we should be either trusting technology or not .. especially when the ball is hitting the stumps, it shouldnt matter if its 49% or 51% of the ball hitting the stumps