ICC tweaks 2.5 metre DRS rule for 'consistency'

[NareshK]

I wouldnt call him egoistic or stupid. These are complicated rules and the DRS was not 100 % certain, so I think Bowden made the right decision under the circumstances.

[saneindian]

I wouldnt call him egoistic or stupid. These are complicated rules and the DRS was not 100 % certain' date= so I think Bowden made the right decision under the circumstances.

DRS can never be 100% accurate, does it mean no umpire should ever change his decision. It was his ego that showed him in poor light. But the joker that he is, expect him to repeat the same mistajke again when the next such opportunity comes.

[CSK Fan]

Has Bowden said anywhere he thought Bell hit the ball and so he gave him not out ? I dont think this is true.

I was talking about today's game, not Bell's dismissal

[CSK Fan]

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' date='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[/quote'] When he made the original descision, he made only based on the possibilty of the inside edge. In his mind, IMO, height was not a factor. Once the inside edge part was confirmed, he over-turned his desicion

[Passion]

Do not be stupid enough to criticize UDRS Hi Guyz, In recent weeks, there has been a lot of debate on UDRS and a lot of ignorant, bias and wrong facts were presented by some very naive people in their failed attemp to prove that UDRS shouldn't be part of cricket and I was compelled to create this thread to present hardcore facts rather than bias statements. The whole debate was started when bell was accurately given not out, tempers flared, nationalists jumped in, patriotism buldozed its way in and pushed cricket on the sidelines. Being a mad cricket lover, it was painful to see that during the whole debate the only loser was the cricket itself. Some of the people who were tiring their fingers posting comments here were naive and were not aware of cricket laws and especially lbw laws. I will try to tackle some of the comments myself but will highly appreciate support from fellow membes who are willing to put cricket first rather than their team. To start with lets look at two scenarios. The ball pitches on the off side, hit batsman on the off stump and would have hit the edge of the off stump. THE UMPIRE GIVES IT OUT The ball pitches on the off side, hit batsman on the off stump and would have hit the edge of the off stump. THE UMPIRE GIVES IT NOT OUT. Now both of them are accurate decisions. Fifty Fifty calls can go either way and it completely up to the umpire to decide that. The purpose of UDRS is to remove howlers and not to give decisions in favour of some particular team. Some time it will go against you and sometimes in favour of you and that is how the beautiful game of cricket is played. When URDS was on the table, the main concern was that UDRS will make umpires irrelavant, get rid of benefit of doubt going to the batsman and how to decide fifty fifty decisions. So ICC had to come up with the system, which doesnt change cricket laws but at the same make decisions more fair and current UDRS fits in perfectly well. It leaves the power in umpire hand, keep the system where benefit of doubt goes to the batsman by leaving the fifty fifty decisions firmly in umpire control but also get rid of umpiring blunders at the same time. Now lets look at 2.5 meters rule. If a batsman is far down the pitch, it makes it extremely difficult for umpire to accurately predict the trajectory of the ball, so umpire normally gived it not out unless he is 100 percent sure where the ball was heading. THIS IS HOW CRICKET HAS ALWAYS BEEN PLAYED AND IT WILL STAY THAT WAY. So when ICC was coming up with UDRS, They had to look at two things. Firstly accuracy of UDRS beyond 2.5 meters and secondly a system which will enure that even if batsman is far down the pitch but ball is hitting the stump will be given out every time. So they came up with this. Lets look at two scenarious again. The batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch, but its hitting stumps. UMPIRE GIVES IT OUT The batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch, but its hitting stumps. UMPIRE GIVES IT NOT OUT Both decisions are accurate. Because there are fifty fifty call and could go either way. If a batsman if beyond 2.5 meters down the pitch then third umpire will given all the information to field umpire and final call will be made by him. Some times it will go against you and some times in favour of you. Like it happened today. Bell was given not out and cussack was given out. Its a fifty fifty decision and can go either way. This is how beautiful game of cricket had always been played. Personally, i would like a slight ammendment that if a batsman is far down the pitch and it is hitting the stump, then whatever umpire original decision was, it should stay that way to end arguments and to bring consistency. Also Thanks to incredible bullying power of BCCI, and to a lesser extent ECB, we dont want umpire to feel that they must reverse the decions to avoid repercussions from the home board. Bowden was brave enough to give bell not out. Reason was that bell was far down the pitch and for bowden it was difficult to predict the trajectory of the ball so he gave benefit of doubt to batsman so he was right to not reverse it after input from third umpire. To conclude my argument, we want UDRS to get rid of umpiring blunders. But benefit of doubt is an essential part of cricket, and if some one dont like it then please GO AND PLAY FOOTBALL. I will appreciate sensible arguments, but keep personal attacks and prejudice out of this thread. Thanks

[vvvslaxman]

okay

[zen]

Not enough stamina left to read all that :P Is he referring to it depends upon the on-field umpires for the 2.5m rule and thus it is not DRS's fault?

[kabira]

^actually the ball was not hitting middle stump according to the hawkeye, so if we consider error, this one we can say "doubtful" hitting or not. So if umpire had stayed with his decision, it would n't have been bad call at all. In case of Bell, that was hitting middle of middle stump, even if you consider hawkeye's error, by all means it was hitting the stump. There was no doubt watsoever. Infact that day ball was not turning, today it was turning. So there was absolutely no doubt. Billy was just not keen on reversing his decision.

[Passion]

Not enough stamina left to read all that :P Is he referring to it depends upon the on-field umpires for the 2.5m rule and thus it is not DRS's fault?

What im saying is that if batsman is far down the pitch and it is hitting stumps then umpire original decisions must stand no matter what that is

[kabira]

also who was third umpire in England /India game and todays game?? May be today's umpire was able to explain on field umpire hte situation better, and other day he was not

[Clarke]

What happened to your original thread on Bell being not out, mr. neutrality personified ? What's the need for creating another one ?

[Passion]

What happened to your original thread on Bell being not out' date=' mr. neutrality personified ? What's the need for creating another one ?[/quote'] That thread was on bell. This one is about UDRS

[Clarke]

^^ The point from your end is the same. Will you create another thread on the 2.5m criteria once we see another dismissal ?

[Manny_Pacquiao]

What im saying is that if batsman is far down the pitch and it is hitting stumps then umpire original decisions must stand no matter what that is

wow, so u must be unhappy with this decision. cusack given out today

[kabira]

Here is my theory.. In India England game Rod Tucker was third umpire and he must have explained the situation to Billy, but billy did not turn his decision around, perhaps he is too reluctant. Chris Tucker must have seen the reply many times and he must have been convinced. Today, Chris Tucker was on field umpire, Erasmus was third umpire. Chris Tucker would have remember last weeks decision. He would have asked Erasmus some questions on where it was hitting, was ball turning etc. and he was smart enough to realize and overturned his decision

[Passion]

^^ The point from your end is the same. Will you create another thread on the 2.5m criteria once we see another dismissal ?

Some guy had already created a thread on cussack dismissal So please go and tell him that

[Passion]

wow, so u must be unhappy with this decision. cusack given out today

Ofcourse not. Im not unhappy nor do i disagree with umpire reversing his decision. I just feel umpire original decision must stay

[zen]

What im saying is that if batsman is far down the pitch and it is hitting stumps then umpire original decisions must stand no matter what that is

Then what would be the point in referring it .... Let say the umpire gives 'not out' based on the assumption that the ball has some distance to travel so he can't be sure if it is hitting the stumps, but with the help of the referral if it is believed that the ball could have gone on to hit the stumps, then umpire should have the right to change his decision to 'out' because now his doubts have been addressed .... The idea of the DRS is to help umpires make the right decision :winky:

[Passion]

ICC tweaks 2.5 metre DRS rule for 'consistency' The ICC has made a slight but significant alteration to the 2.5m rule, the most controversial segment of its decision review system (DRS) used in this World Cup, to enable more consistent application by the umpires. The change to the DRS rule No. 3.3 - which expands the umpire's scope for interpretation - follows its contrary usage in the first two weeks of the competition. An ICC spokesperson confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that the umpires have "changed the protocol" in the clause to ensure a "consistency" of on-field umpires when using the DRS pertaining to not out lbw reviews. A directive has gone out from the ICC's Umpires & Referees manager to all umpires that if an lbw appeal shows that even though there may be a distance between the stumps and the point of impact of 2.5m or greater, the on-field umpire can think of reversing the decision even if the replay shows that the ball is hitting "any part of the middle" stump. The altered 2.5metre rule came into application during an lbw appeal against Alex Cusack, India v Ireland, Group B, World Cup 2011, Bangalore, March 6, 2011 The altered rule came into application during an lbw appeal against Alex Cusack in the India v Ireland game © Getty Images Enlarge The previous rule required that the leg-before could be reversed - by the on-field umpire - only if the replay showed that the ball was hitting the middle stump dead centre. This change in the 'protocol' was brought into play in the India v Ireland match in Bangalore, when umpire Rod Tucker reversed his lbw decision against Alex Cusack off the bowling of Yuvraj Singh. Tucker was heard on the stump microphone asking third umpire Marais Erasmus to let him know whether the ball was hitting "any part of the middle stump." The third umpire, it was confirmed, was also required to give the on-field umpire "all relevant information" during an lbw review and not merely specific pieces of information during the DRS process. Teams had also been informed of this alteration in the rule and Yuvraj said later that while he "did not understand the 2.5 rule much", he knew it had been what he called "removed." He said the current rule stated that if, "the ball is hitting the line, it's out... I was just discussing it with Dhoni, so I took the referral." The application of the same 2.5m rule had led to two contrasting reviews under the DRS last week, one involving Ian Bell - in England's match against India - and the other the Zimbabwe captain Elton Chigumbura against New Zealand. Both batsmen were struck well forward from the stumps but the not out decision against Bell's was not overturned while Chigumbura was declared out. The 2.5m clause was included in the DRS rules following the expert view that the ball-tracker technology, in this case Hawk Eye, lost its accuracy when the distance between the point of impact and the stumps was greater than 2.5m. What the law says If a 'not out' decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps on any part of the middle stump (previously "within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps"). http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/current/story/504570.html What do you guyz think. Personally i disagree with this. Its just a time bomb waiting to be exploded. Lets look at two scenarios. A batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch and it is hitting part of middle stump. Orginal decision was not out. Team reviews it, umpire gives it Out. A batsman is more than 2.5 meters down the pitch and it is hitting part of middle stump. Orginal decision was not out. Team reviews it, umpire gives it Not Out. What the hell. Either Umpire original decision must stand. Or if ball is hitting part of middle stump or middle stump, it should be given out every time. What do you guyz reckon?

[Passion]

Then what would be the point in referring it .... Let say the umpire gives 'not out' based on the assumption that the ball has some distance to travel so he can't be sure if it is hitting the stumps' date=' but with the help of the referral if it is believed that the ball could have gone on to hit the stumps, then umpire should have the right to change his decision to 'out' because now his doubts have been addressed .... The idea of the DRS is to help umpires make the right decision :winky:[/quote'] wrong wrong wrong. If umpire had benefit of doubts in the first place because of how far batsman was down the pitch , then he shouldnt change his decision after referral. The idea of UDRS is to get rid of blunders and not to give fifty fifty decisions in favor of bowler. Benefit of doubt must always go to batsman. Thats how cricket has been played 200 years