Ultimate_Game Posted March 6, 2011 Author Posted March 6, 2011 But originally he thought it was not out. Why would he change the decision if DRS is not 100 % sure about the decision either ? We had two similar situations and two different results... 1. Bell Decision - Umpire gave it Not Out, DRS said it should be out but distance more than 2.5 m and Billy gives it Not Out. 2. Today's Decision - Umpire gave Not Out, DRS said it should be out even though it wasn't as plum as the Bell decision, and still the umpire changes his decision and gives it OUT. If DRS is not 100% why would umpire give it out in the 2nd instance? If DRS is accurate why wasn't Bell given out? Whichever way you look there's a problem with the system - it's inconsistent and it still depends on who's the umpire in the game.
NareshK Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 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 Today's Decision - Umpire gave Not Out, DRS said it should be out even though it wasn't as plum as the Bell decision, and still the umpire changes his decision and gives it OUT. Maybe in this case, the umpire thought there was an inside edge and gave him not out. When it was referred, the third umpire confirmed there was no edge and the on field umpire gave him out. It depends on the reason why the umpire gave him not out in the first place. Only when the batsman gets struck 2.5 + meters in front of the stumps, the hawk eye goes out of the picture. The rest of the review system can still be used.
Lord Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 lol ' date=' 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[/quote'] if I'm still having to accept bad decision,it rather be from the umpires.n its not only about correcting decisions.wen the umpires stick to thier decision in such cases,or wen thiers onfield call in marginal decisions,the teams lose a review for no fault of thiers,its huge disadvantage. I'm not against UDRS.just feel its too early to implement it.there r just too many issues,it should be in trial mode still
CSK Fan Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 u know what he thought:hysterical::hysterical:.it was clear in first replay that there wasnt bat involved With the replay yes but in real time it was really close and looked to have hit bat first. Even commentators said the same thing
CSK Fan Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 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 ? He said not put only because he thought there was an inside edge. Hawk Eye confirmed 100% that there was no edge so umpire over-turned his descision
Zap_Brannigan Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I dont think UDRS is to blame here but rather it is the ICC rules that defer the decision back to the umpire. Forget the 2.5 m rule. The bigger fk up is the "on field call". If the ball doesnt hit middle stump, it is supposed to be the onfield call. Umpires dont even have a chance of reversing their call. The ball can hit the same part of the stumps in the same innings and yet yield different decision because of the umpires first call. That is stupid. Imagine an umpire giving it notout because he thought it hit the bat but the outside of the ball hits the stumps, a decision that would have yielded out normally from the umpire. But ICC rules makes it on-field call and the umpire has no way to reverse his decision.
Lord Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Maybe in this case, the umpire thought there was an inside edge and gave him not out. When it was referred, the third umpire confirmed there was no edge and the on field umpire gave him out. It depends on the reason why the umpire gave him not out in the first place. Only when the batsman gets struck 2.5 + meters in front of the stumps, the hawk eye goes out of the picture. The rest of the review system can still be used. lets get back to England game.Billy gave Bell not out,presumably coz he thought it was going high.the umpire would've confirmed that it wasn't.not just with the hawkeye,even with the side on angle,one could see that there was no way it was gonna go over the stumps.so why did Billy not reverse it? in this game,even if the umpire thought there was an inside edge,the third umpire would have confirmed it wasnt the case.but he would've also said its 2.5 metres. n according to the rules ICC was talking about,umpire should've stayed his decision.but he didmt?wheres the consistency?
NareshK Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 He said not put only because he thought there was an inside edge. Hawk Eye confirmed 100% that there was no edge so umpire over-turned his descision Has Bowden said anywhere he thought Bell hit the ball and so he gave him not out ? I dont think this is true.
Sid Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 He said not put only because he thought there was an inside edge. Hawk Eye confirmed 100% that there was no edge so umpire over-turned his descision Good to see someone else has also seen the dismissal
Sid Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Has Bowden said anywhere he thought Bell hit the ball and so he gave him not out ? I dont think this is true. He is talking about todays dismissal
DomainK Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I think some umpires should be ready to give up their ego and correct the decision if they realize they have made a mistake. In spite of these controversies, DRS is welcome and is going to make a huge difference.
Lord Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 He said not put only because he thought there was an inside edge. Hawk Eye confirmed 100% that there was no edge so umpire over-turned his descision its not what he thought.once a decision goes up for a review they gotto look at all possiblities.the ball hit the batsman just above the knee roll n he was down the pitch.with side on angle,u could see that there was hint of doubt that it could go over.when theres such doubt,umpires decision must stay,no?atleast according to ICC rule book it should
NareshK Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 lets get back to England game.Billy gave Bell not out,presumably coz he thought it was going high.the umpire would've confirmed that it wasn't.not just with the hawkeye,even with the side on angle,one could see that there was no way it was gonna go over the stumps.so why did Billy not reverse it? The third umpire has no way of confirming the ball was going to hit the stumps. The hawk eye is not accurate for more than 2.5 meters, so he cant use that. He cant just assume that the ball was going to hit and tell Bowden.
Lord Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 The third umpire has no way of confirming the ball was going to hit the stumps. The hawk eye is not accurate for more than 2.5 meters' date=' so he cant use that. He cant just assume that the ball was going to hit and tell Bowden.[/quote'] cant assume?no need to assume.it was clear from side on.it hit Bell so low anybody can see that
NareshK Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 cant assume?no need to assume.it was clear from side on.it hit Bell so low anybody can see that I'm afraid the third umpire cant decide lbw decisions like that. If that's the case, why use Hawk eye at all ? Why cant the third umpire make all the decisions himself when its referred ? The camera angle of the shot, the trajectory and the bounce of the ball everything comes into the picture when it comes to lbw which the third umpire doesnt know anything about.
coffee_rules Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 The 2.5m rule is fine. It leaves the decision to the onfield ump. Some are smart and some are bowden.
Lord Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I'm afraid the third umpire cant decide lbw decisions like that. If that's the case' date=' why use Hawk eye at all ? Why cant the third umpire make all the decisions himself when its referred ?[/quote'] its only wen Hawkeye is out of the picture that I'm talking of side on angle.3rd umpire cant make the decisions,but can certainly relay the obvious.I'm assuming he did,It was billy whos stupid
saneindian Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 The third umpire has no way of confirming the ball was going to hit the stumps. The hawk eye is not accurate for more than 2.5 meters' date= so he cant use that. He cant just assume that the ball was going to hit and tell Bowden. When you say that, what it means is that the hawk eye is less accurate in its trajectory predictio than say when the distance is
vvvslaxman Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Doull just categorically said " Ego got in the way of Bowden"
Lord Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 When you say that, what it means is that the hawk eye is less accurate in its trajectory predictio than say when the distance is exactly
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now