putrevus Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 ok if anyone has answer to this question please do. The last appeal against Trott, Hawkeye shows the ball is hitting the stumps and its shown as umpires call , so if umpires gives it out it is out and he gives not out it is not out. two questions 1 if the review was taken by SA in this instance why should they lose the review the ball is hitting the stumps so aren't they are right? 2. why on one call it is out and on another call it is not out. on another another note I may be wrong but it seems to me, England has been getting this benefit of doubt from both sides Their Batsmen are not being given out and their bowlers are getting out decision on these types of calls and if opposing teams review they are losing on both counts and England is enjoying massive advantage on these types of calls.
Crookbond Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 ok if anyone has answer to this question please do. The last appeal against Trott, Hawkeye shows the ball is hitting the stumps and its shown as umpires call , so if umpires gives it out it is out and he gives not out it is not out. two questions 1 if the review was taken by SA in this instance why should they lose the review the ball is hitting the stumps so aren't they are right? 2. why on one call it is out and on another call it is not out. on another another note I may be wrong but it seems to me, England has been getting this benefit of doubt from both sides Their Batsmen are not being given out and their bowlers are getting out decision on these types of calls and if opposing teams review they are losing on both counts and England is enjoying massive advantage on these types of calls. You have a fair point on 1, on 2 unfortunately not. The goal of the DRS is to minimize glaring errors - like an inside edge for an LBW etc.. So, the batsman's life rests with the umpires. Lets say if the umpire has given him OUT and the decision was marginally NOT OUT or OUT as shown by the hawk eye the batsman's life is still on the umpire as technology is not perfect.
putrevus Posted July 19, 2012 Author Posted July 19, 2012 You have a fair point on 1, on 2 unfortunately not. The goal of the DRS is to minimize glaring errors - like an inside edge for an LBW etc.. So, the batsman's life rests with the umpires. Lets say if the umpire has given him OUT and the decision was marginally NOT OUT or OUT as shown by the hawk eye the batsman's life is still on the umpire as technology is not perfect. That is nonsense, This crap will not curb umpires like Bucknor who always seems to favor one side, so guys like him will come out smelling roses with this hawkeye rule. DRS came into effect to minimize the effect of umpires like biased bucknor on the match. In Sydney test Indians were not just outraged by wrong calls alone they were also outraged by one sided calls where they got double whammied. This nonsensical hawkeye rule will not alleviate any umpiring bias.
Pagalpanti Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 DRS was brought in the first place to challenge the on-field umpire. Therefore its absolutely rubbish when they go with umpire's decision if the ball is not "fully" hitting the stumps. Why take away the review then? Also if a batsman is bowled it doesn't matter that the ball has hit the stumps fully or just tickled it right? If they are so unsure about hawk-eye why use it then? The DRS is here to stay but the ICC needs to fix how it functions. In present state there are just too many loopholes.
Crookbond Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 That is nonsense, This crap will not curb umpires like Bucknor who always seems to favor one side, so guys like him will come out smelling roses with this hawkeye rule. DRS came into effect to minimize the effect of umpires like biased bucknor on the match. In Sydney test Indians were not just outraged by wrong calls alone they were also outraged by one sided calls where they got double whammied. This nonsensical hawkeye rule will not alleviate any umpiring bias. NO.
putrevus Posted July 19, 2012 Author Posted July 19, 2012 When it comes to DRS they should be no onfield umpire's call option, The very definition of referral is one side is not happy with umpire's call. On calls like above either it should be out or not out . If ICC is not sure on technology then don't use it for LBW just use it where it is 100% certain.
Ultimate_Game Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 When it comes to DRS they should be no onfield umpire's call option' date= The very definition of referral is one side is not happy with umpire's call. On calls like above either it should be out or not out . If ICC is not sure on technology then don't use it for LBW just use it where it is 100% certain. Agree fully. Just like we do nowadays, make a rule that in case of border-line decisions (the so called "on field umpire call) give the advantage to batsmen. Thus the rule is consistent and umpire bias can't influence the decision.
Crookbond Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 When it comes to DRS they should be no onfield umpire's call option, The very definition of referral is one side is not happy with umpire's call. On calls like above either it should be out or not out . If ICC is not sure on technology then don't use it for LBW just use it where it is 100% certain. This is what's exactly happening now. :phehehe:
putrevus Posted July 19, 2012 Author Posted July 19, 2012 This is what's exactly happening now. :phehehe: it is not happening in england now
Crookbond Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 it is not happening in england now It is. The technology for LBW is used to over rule the umpire only when it's 100% certain. In all other cases, the on-field umpire's call precedes. :hehe:
putrevus Posted July 19, 2012 Author Posted July 19, 2012 It is. The technology for LBW is used to over rule the umpire only when it's 100% certain. In all other cases, the on-field umpire's call precedes. :hehe: go away from this thread u r not just getting it.
Crookbond Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 go away from this thread u r not just getting it. I want to stay on this thread and not get you. :beee:
audioman Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Well played Dexter. The idea behind DRS is to just eliminate howlers. That is it. The howlers are the ones that hurt a game most, and hurt batsmen most. I love the DRS, even in its current state. Though, I do agree with one part of the lead post. If there are at least 2 reds, do not penalize the bowling side - that might be something the ICC can look at.
Crookbond Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Well played Dexter. The idea behind DRS is to just eliminate howlers. That is it. The howlers are the ones that hurt a game most' date=' and hurt batsmen most. I love the DRS, even in its current state. Though, I do agree with one part of the lead post. If there are at least 2 reds, do not penalize the bowling side - that might be something the ICC can look at.[/quote'] Exactly what I said in Post #3. The only part where I hate DRS is when it's being used as a tactic. The reason I hate it because it conflicts with the rule book - "No external help can be used .... " part. If they want DRS to be used as a tactic, it should be formally mentioned.
bajrang Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Well played Dexter. The idea behind DRS is to just eliminate howlers. That is it. The howlers are the ones that hurt a game most' date= and hurt batsmen most. I love the DRS, even in its current state. Though, I do agree with one part of the lead post. If there are at least 2 reds, do not penalize the bowling side - that might be something the ICC can look at. pretty much this, it pisses me off when captain/players starts gambling with the reviews. if a guy sitting at home can see that the batsmen is not out he should be given not out. you dont even need freaking DRS for that. inside edge lbw, "daylight between bat and ball" catches, ball changing her zip code after being clobbered but umpire saw no nick. just eliminates these kinda stuff and game would be good.
audioman Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 pretty much this' date=' it pisses me off when captain/players starts gambling with the reviews.[/quote'] Unfortunately, given the nature of most teams out there - save, perhaps, England with its spread-out batting strength - this will keep happening very often. As an opposition skipper, will you rather use one of your reviews on an iffy shout against a game-changer like Sehwag, over a very good shout against Kohli? Yes. Will you rather use an iffy one against Chanderpaul instead of a good over against Bravo? Most definitely yes. It is bound to happen, because as skipper, you don't wanna have to live with missing a play.... for the rest of the match, and sometimes for the rest of your career.
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