Cheating third umpire

[vvvslaxman]

Let us close the thread. It is embarrassing to throw hissy fit over one decision that eventually turned out to be right while we are getting canned like never before.

[Gotham Cronie]

Who had given RSD not out in the first place. So my question to you is was there enough evidence to overturn that decision?

Read my post on page 1.

This isn't the DRS system's fault. The DRS system it can only be overturned if there's is overwhelming evidence. It should have remained not-out. Even if someone thinks there was a nick, there is not overwhelming evidence. It's the implementation of the DRS that is the problem.

[urbestfriend]

Let us close the thread. It is embarrassing to throw hissy fit over one decision that eventually turned out to be right while we are getting canned like never before.

No he said he think he might have a feather , it doesn't change anything. You can't make a decision just based on player's body language. A right decision may have made, but it doesn't change the fact that third umpire was wrong in overturning the decision without any evidence.

[glogirl]

now BCCI will say this is the reason we were against the DRS.

[Ultimate_Game]

now BCCI will say this is the reason we were against the DRS.

And they would be spot on.

[Gotham Cronie]

Right! ICC needs to frame proper laws so that third umpire can 1) If inconclusive, always give the benefit to the batsman Or 2) always go with on-field umpire. There should be consistency in the third umpiring decision so that such howlers are not made and any deviations from these rules, umpires should be punished so that they don't misuse the technology.

"h) If despite the available technology, the third umpire is unable to answer with a high degree of confidence a particular question posed by the on-field umpire, then he should report that the replays are ÃòinconclusiveÃò. The third umpire should not give answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities." "k) The on-field umpire will reverse his decision if the nature of the supplementary information received from the third umpire leads him to conclude that his original decision was incorrect."

http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_D3AEB8DE36A8BD5FA8742FA636A83951_1306651186327_548.pdf

[Gotham Cronie]

Isn't implementation part of the DRS' date=' or any other, system? If a system can't be implemented consistently what good is it? And isn't BCCI objection all along have been that they are not in favor of DRS as it can't be implemented consistently?[/quote'] I'd say it's two different things. The on-field umpires are a "system." They implement the rules of cricket while umpiring. If a few of them mess up by not knowing the rules, should we scrap on field umpires? I've never read that the BCCI had an objection to the decision staying with the on field umpire when evidence in inconclusive. If anything, that rule supports the BCCI's stance that inconclusive evidence should not be relied upon.

[akshayxyz]

What is this crap about Bodylanguage? It is understandable that on field umpire can subconsciously pick the body language and that might affect the decision. For the third umpire ( DRS refree) - the rules are simple - hotspot, video reviews, snickometer ... - any irrefutable evidence from these available/allowed tech - then only overturn/uphold the decision. no reading the language of body crap. Benefit of doubt goes to the batsman. This is absolute howler - and umpires need to be educated about the system.

[Ultimate_Game]

What is this crap about Bodylanguage? It is understandable that on field umpire can subconsciously pick the body language and that might affect the decision. For the third umpire ( DRS refree) - the rules are simple - hotspot, video reviews, snickometer ... - any irrefutable evidence from these available/allowed tech - then only overturn/uphold the decision. no reading the language of body crap. Benefit of doubt goes to the batsman. This is absolute howler - and umpires need to be educated about the system.

Maybe they should factor in body language as well in the DRS system... I can see players like Clarke given not out based on their body language even if the stumps are lying on the ground :haha:

[darkknight]

It may have been a bad decision, but it wasn't a "howler". This was one of those close ones where it has been acknowledged that DRS will not work. DRS did catch out the earlier howler when Dravid had been given out. I believe Dravid nicked it, hot-spot is inaccurate at times but you can clearly see the deflection on camera. Those of you with Sky HD, pause the TV and map out the trajectory of the ball when it passes the bat, there is a clear deflection.

It was too uncertain to call it out. Benefit of doubt should go to batsman, according to old school books. Don't know why they ignored this golden rule.

[Gotham Cronie]

It was too uncertain to call it out. Benefit of doubt should go to batsman' date=' according to old school books. Don't know why they ignored this golden rule.[/quote'] Benefit of doubt should go to the on field umpire.

[Guest Gunner]

Benefit of doubt should go to the on field umpire.

No, I don't agree. If the on field umpire has given a marginal decision against the batsman it should be over turned if there is no clinching evidence against the batsman on review. The benefit of doubt always lies with the batsman and not with the on field umpire.

[CG]

Third umpires have given such howlers many times I remember our own ump giving a pak. Batsman runout when he was in in delhi in odi seried when they beat us in 2000,s .also srilankan third umpire during 2008 series gave such decisons.davies had a brain fade hearing sky commentary and gave it.but will not go unpunished as bcci will do something

[Gotham Cronie]

No' date=' I don't agree. If the on field umpire has given a marginal decision against the batsman it should be over turned if there is no clinching evidence against the batsman on review. [b']The benefit of doubt always lies with the batsman and not with the on field umpire.

Not according to the rules.

[Gotham Cronie]

Third umpires have given such howlers many times I remember our own ump giving a pak. Batsman runout when he was in in delhi in odi seried when they beat us in 2000' date='s .also srilankan third umpire during 2008 series gave such decisons.davies had a brain fade hearing sky commentary and gave it.but will not go unpunished as bcci will do something[/quote'] That's not the point. It wasn't the 3rd umpires right to even make a decision, good or bad. It was inconclusive so he is out of the picture.

[darkknight]

That's not the point. It wasn't the 3rd umpires right to even make a decision' date=' good or bad. It was inconclusive so he is out of the picture.[/quote'] Yeah, BCCI should stop his salary and make him quit. Sky showed Tendulakars missed stumping more than RD's out. Clearly the transmission is biased. And they can't even pull up a decent snico, saying its too noisy.

[21cent]

Wow. maybe this abysmal UDRS is the reason why India failed/is going to fail 4-0. Ban UDRS:sherlock:

[Gotham Cronie]

Yeah' date=' BCCI should stop his salary and make him quit. Sky showed Tendulakars missed stumping more than RD's out. Clearly the transmission is biased. And they can't even pull up a decent snico, saying its too noisy.[/quote'] The 3rd umpire doesn't control the transmission. :facepalm:

[Iconoclast]

Good man Dravid ... my respect for him only grows. Now kindly delete this thread

[asterix]

Good man Dravid ... my respect for him only grows. Now kindly delete this thread

As I said, he's been treated as a janitor of the team to protect some glory hunting players.. He batted the whole day and played a long innings only to be asked to come out again to open the innings. As if he as taken the contract of saving the collective arses of some players who can't be bothered or asked to change their batting positions.. Fecking they were playing their last innings on English soil and still thinking of saving their arses..