Jump to content

ICC tweaks 2.5 metre DRS rule for 'consistency'


Recommended Posts

Posted

This dismissal made a mockery of the DRS system and Billy Bowden. The ball hit batsman more than 2.5 m from the wkt and in fact wasn't as close as the Bell decision. And still the umpire gave the Irish batsman out while Bell was given not out!!! WTF??? I have no clue how this DRS system works and is more of a lottery and it still depends on which umpire is in the middle. With umpires with big ego like Billy we will still get shockers.

Posted

Only explanation that can be made is Billy turned down the decision only becoz of the distance and today the umpire had doubts about ball hitting the bat and he was sure about ball hitting the stumps ,so he was not bothered about 2.5 m rule . But Billy fked up big time that day ,egoistic moron

Posted
This dismissal made a mockery of the DRS system and Billy Bowden. The ball hit batsman more than 2.5 m from the wkt and in fact wasn't as close as the Bell decision. And still the umpire gave the Irish batsman out while Bell was given not out!!! WTF??? I have no clue how this DRS system works and is more of a lottery and it still depends on which umpire is in the middle. With umpires with big ego like Billy we will still get shockers.
i think we would have been extremelyyyyyyyyyyy angry if sachin or viru was given out in a similar fashion, it just did not look out so yea UDRS is crap
Posted

dont blame UDRS , its a very good thing , that players can go against such bad decisions , fault decisions r reducing because of it . but yea its also not 100% perfect . but better than nothing .

Posted
Only explanation that can be made is Billy turned down the decision only becoz of the distance and today the umpire had doubts about ball hitting the bat and he was sure about ball hitting the stumps ,so he was not bothered about 2.5 m rule . But Billy fked up big time that day ,egoistic moron
ball wasnt hitiing the bat today at all.n it was hitting higher than it hit Bell
Posted
Only explanation that can be made is Billy turned down the decision only becoz of the distance and today the umpire had doubts about ball hitting the bat and he was sure about ball hitting the stumps ,so he was not bothered about 2.5 m rule . But Billy fked up big time that day ,egoistic moron
But the main point is that today's dismissal was given and the Bell decision wasn't even though if you look at the two dismissals the Bell decision was more plum. Basically ICC doesn't know what it's talking about and Dave Richardson should apologize to Dhoni for taking a shot at Dhoni for not knowing the rules. What now Mr. Richardson and ICC? Care to explain the rules again as I'm quite perplexed regarding the whole 2.5 thing.
Posted
ball wasnt hitiing the bat today at all.n it was hitting higher than it hit Bell
Did you watch the lbw or not,umpire turned down the decision becoz he thought ball hit bat first than the pad
Posted
But the main point is that today's dismissal was given and the Bell decision wasn't even though if you look at the two dismissals the Bell decision was more plum. Basically ICC doesn't know what it's talking about and Dave Richardson should apologize to Dhoni for taking a shot at Dhoni for not knowing the rules. What now Mr. Richardson and ICC? Care to explain the rules again as I'm quite perplexed regarding the whole 2.5 thing.
Well this rule is stupidity ,I bet even umpires dont know when to flollow it or even to neglect it
Posted
dont blame UDRS ' date=' its a very good thing , that players can go against such bad decisions , fault decisions r reducing because of it . but yea its also not 100% perfect . but better than nothing .[/quote'] its not about perfection,its way below that.it was stupid to make it mandatory so early,that too without HotSpot.
Posted
Well this rule is stupidity ' date='I bet even umpires dont know when to flollow it or even to neglect it[/quote'] Hence the apology to Dhoni. If ICC can take shots at Dhoni surely an apology is in order now.
Posted
Did you watch the lbw or not' date='umpire turned down the decision becoz he thought ball hit bat first than the pad[/quote'] u know what he thought:hysterical::hysterical:.it was clear in first replay that there wasnt bat involved
Posted

When the ball strikes the batsman 2.5 meters in front of the stumps and if the hawk eye says it hit the wickets doesnt mean its right. The 2.5 rule was brought in because the tracking system loses its accuracy at that point. So the decision rests with the onfield umpire to give the decision based on his evidence and in Bowden's case, he decided to stick with his original decision. So Bowden was right in giving the benefit of the doubt to Bell. I dont understand what the fuss is all about.

Posted
When the ball strikes the batsman 2.5 meters in front of the stumps and if the hawk eye says it hit the wickets doesnt mean its right. The 2.5 rule was brought in because the tracking system loses its accuracy at that point. So the decision rests with the onfield umpire to give the decision based on his evidence and in Bowden's case' date= he decided to stick with his original decision.
This is exactly the point we are discussing. Essentially it's still umpire's call even after the review. So umpires like Billy and Bucknor who think they are bigger than the game still screw someone because of their ego cozfor them, they are always right and it's DRS prediction which is wrong.
Posted
its not about perfection' date='its way below that.it was stupid to make it mandatory so early,that too without HotSpot.[/quote'] lol , how many bad decisions were corrected using it , so far , just 1 o 2 controversial decisions . without or with hotpot its really add value to the game
Posted
u know what he thought:hysterical::hysterical:.it was clear in first replay that there wasnt bat involved
Thnx for telling us
Posted
This is exactly the point we are discussing. Essentially it's still umpire's call even after the review. So umpires like Billy and Bucknor who think they are bigger than the game still screw someone because of their ego cozfor them' date=' they are always right and it's DRS prediction which is wrong.[/quote'] But originally he thought it was not out. Why would he change the decision if hawk eye is not 100 % sure about the decision either ?
Posted
When the ball strikes the batsman 2.5 meters in front of the stumps and if the hawk eye says it hit the wickets doesnt mean its right. The 2.5 rule was brought in because the tracking system loses its accuracy at that point. So the decision rests with the onfield umpire to give the decision based on his evidence and in Bowden's case' date=' he decided to stick with his original decision. So Bowden was right in giving the benefit of the doubt to Bell. I dont understand what the fuss is all about.[/quote'] u dont understand the issue at all.the umpires decision should stay no?how come one reversed it and other chose not to?there has to be some consistency

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...