rkt.india Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Problem with umpire call is that it depends on umpire and brings luck factor. If you are given out by on-field umpire, you are out even if it is just clipping the stumps. Otherwise, if given not out on-field, same marginal clipping of the stumps is not out.
sourab10forever Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Now we need to ban this.Lost today's SS because of it.
Crookbond Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Problem with umpire call is that it depends on umpire and brings luck factor. If you are given out by on-field umpire' date=' you are out even if it is just clipping the stumps. Otherwise, if given not out on-field, same marginal clipping of the stumps is not out.[/quote'] The problem is people think technology is better than the umpire for these decisions. Just think it this way, for marginal decisions - technology can't tell you re correct answer. Therefore, you have to rely on human.
rkt.india Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 The problem is people think technology is better than the umpire for these decisions. Just think it this way' date=' for marginal decisions - technology can't tell you re correct answer. Therefore, you have to rely on human.[/quote'] Problem is you get two different decisions on similar marginal calls which can be unfair to one team and favor other team.
Crookbond Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Problem is you get two different decisions on similar marginal calls which can be unfair to one team and favor other team. A marginal call is when the error of hawk eye exceeds the relevant area. On these calls, the umpires make the decisions which can be either ways. It is just quite simple really.
bowl_out Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 One more today.... Such a crucial one... Poor UAE
bowl_out Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I think this umpire's call thingy is crap, given that you don't know what the umpire made a call on... In the case of Wilson's LBW appeal, it is very likely that the umpire thought it was going to crash into the stumps, but the impact was outside off... So, DRS overrules the umpire's thought on the point of impact... Should have been given OUT... If they want to persist with it, Can they not change the rule to be one where the umpire explains his decision to the third umpire, and the third umpire decides whether umpire's call applies to that part of the decision making or not... Very disappointed with this decision today :whack:
rkt.india Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I think this umpire's call thingy is crap, given that you don't know what the umpire made a call on... In the case of Wilson's LBW appeal, it is very likely that the umpire thought it was going to crash into the stumps, but the impact was outside off... So, DRS overrules the umpire's thought on the point of impact... Should have been given OUT... If they want to persist with it, Can they not change the rule to be one where the umpire explains his decision to the third umpire, and the third umpire decides whether umpire's call applies to that part of the decision making or not... Very disappointed with this decision today :whack: Marginal calls should be not out in both cases whether umpire has given it out or not taking the error factor into consideration.
adi B Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 i know it was the wrong decision but drs cannot overrule an umpire's call if its a 50-50 one to ensure the sanctity of the game(umpires decisions are esteemed).drs is only here to eliminate howlers not 50-50 calls,if u guys want to blame,then blame the umpires for not giving it out in the first place(looked plumb). all that being said i do agree with the suggestion that if its an umpire call and the fielding team loses the review then the review should not be counted,it should be restored
bowl_out Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 The definition of umpire's call itself is dubious... Why should it look at middle of ball vs middle of stump? Should it not be middle of ball vs edge of stump? Totally agree with Tony Grieg in this video: b86yWY-HDYo
MK55 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Marginal calls should be not out in both cases whether umpire has given it out or not taking the error factor into consideration. :hmmm: This will create more problems. Assume the error factor as +-50% of ball (not likely) and a situation where the umpire has given it out. Suppose that Hawkeye shows 49% of the ball is crashing the stumps. This will be classified marginal as per the current protocol. Now assume that the error in the projected path is already at a max of + 50% (away from the stump). So here a ball that is actually hitting 99% will end up given not out.
zakk Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 in similar situation one batsman given out by umpire has to go and another one not given can still bat and score BIG :headshake:
bowl_out Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 in similar situation one batsman given out by umpire has to go and another one not given can still bat and score BIG :headshake: That's always been the case in cricket for 150 years... What are you smoking now? :dontknow:
CSK Fan Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Problem is you get two different decisions on similar marginal calls which can be unfair to one team and favor other team. That is because H/E's error rate is both + and -. Currently error margin is considered as 4.5cm. So if umpire's call is not out, +4.5cm is considered which means ball will miss stumps completely. But if umpire's call is out, -4.5cm is considered which means ball will hit middle of stump. It's the probability of a ball to be in a certain region and not at one point
MK55 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 The definition of umpire's call itself is dubious... Why should it look at middle of ball vs middle of stump? Should it not be middle of ball vs edge of stump? Totally agree with Tony Grieg in this video: This is also a very important point. Because it shows that the ICC is currently not consistent with the requirements of the LBW decision. Also the ICC should take a definitive call about the error margin, else we cant differentiate a good decision from a howler. This has to be true even if we are not 100% sure of the technology. If they are unsure, they can be more conservative and probably increase the margin (which I think they are doing right now). Now if the on-field call is not out and the decision is to be overturned, they want more than 50% of the projected ball to hit the MIDDLE of the outside stump so that even if we consider the error margin (assuming that its close to 50% of the ball), some part of the ball will be kissing the MIDDLE of the stump. But if the on-field umpire gives it out, all they want is that projected ball should kiss the outside part of the stumps for justifying the on-field decision. Now here if we consider the flexibility offered by the error margin, basically all they want is more than 50% of the ball to be hitting from the OUTSIDE EDGE to justify the decision. This clearly shows that they are also not consistent with the requirements of LBW and it varies as per the on-field decision.
Kalia_Test Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Completely agree with MTC here in this thread. People are not getting the stuff on error rate I think. It might be simpler if the TV replay shows a range of 4.5 cm all around the stumps and above and tell whether the ball is hitting 100% within that range. If it is, it is OUT...if it is not, it is NOT OUT....This obviously means that kissing stumps will be out ( as we are now sure that the ball was definitely kissing stumps even after accounting for error rate) . Don't even talk about umpire's call in the replay as it is making them villians for no reason.. Whether teams should lose a review or not is also addressed by the above. You tried to use a review for marginal call, you lost it. I would like 2 reviews per innings though.
rkt.india Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 :hmmm: This will create more problems. Assume the error factor as +-50% of ball (not likely) and a situation where the umpire has given it out. Suppose that Hawkeye shows 49% of the ball is crashing the stumps. This will be classified marginagood vw as per the current protocol. Now assume that the error in the projected path is already at a max of + 50% (away from the stump). So here a ball that is actually hitting 99% will end up given not out. You are making it complicated. Any call that is marginal to today's rule should be given not out. It will be decided w they decide it now. It means those decisions which are not overturned due to umpire's call should be overturned to not out. if umpire has not given a batsman out then ball must hit middle of the stump to over turn that umpire decision. Same should be applied when umpire has given you out if it isn't the case, it should be overturned to not out. It will be fair for both the teams. With current rules, what on field umpire decides becomes an important factor. I give an example, in attest between Aus and WI, Gayle was given LBW by DRS on a marginal call because onfield umpire had given him out while Pointing got away on referral on similar marginal call because infield umpire didn't give him out. That was unfair for WI. It brings luck factor. Either you give both out or both not out.
MK55 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 You are making it complicated. Any call that is marginal to today's rule should be given not out. It will be decided w they decide it now. It means those decisions which are not overturned due to umpire's call should be overturned to not out. if umpire has not given a batsman out then ball must hit middle of the stump to over turn that umpire decision. Same should be applied when umpire has given you out if it isn't the case' date=' it should be overturned to not out. It will be fair for both the teams. With current rules, what on field umpire decides becomes an important factor. I give an example, in attest between Aus and WI, Gayle was given LBW by DRS on a marginal call because onfield umpire had given him out while Pointing got away on referral on similar marginal call because infield umpire didn't give him out. That was unfair for WI. It brings luck factor. Either you give both out or both not out.[/quote'] I get your point. In fact, in one of my earlier comments on the previous page, I was supporting a system that does not use the on-field umpire's input. There, basically I had argued that we are choosing the limits of the error margin in a way that would protect the on-field umpire's decision, which would in some cases result in more errors. But that is a different topic as some would then argue that the on-field umpires should be trusted more than some unproven technology...... All I'm saying here is that if we give all marginal calls not out, (and marginal probably is less than 50% of the ball hitting the stumps as per the current system) then there will be cases where the bowlers will be adversely affected despite bowling a delivery that would actually go and hit 99% of its volume..
Stuge Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Its 50-50 .. Remember Sachin's Decision in WC semi final .The decision was reversed bcoz ball didn't touch any part of the stump in hawk eye and it been ball touch even a 1mm .He would have been given out based on umpries call .
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