-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Referral Discussion
- Thread starter Shri
- Start date
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
It wasn't really a ****up, it's just a limitation of the system. The on-field decision stands unless there is conclusive evidence that the decision was wrong, meaning that Hawkeye essentially says the ball couldn't possibly have missed the stumps. Anything which indicates some potential doubt means the on-field decision stands.
Shri
Mr. Glass
This wasn't a marginal one. Bowden could have seen the replays on the screen and could have overturned the decision himself anyway, it was well within his power do so. He ****ed up.
Bun
Banned
Anyone with half a brain and eye could see, once that was hitting him in line, would've taken out the stunps halfway up. A clear case of procedural stuffiness affectig actual output.
Bun
Banned
Does the rule define "exceptional" circumstance? It's open to abuse.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, but the counter-argument to that is that the UDRS is designed to protect the on-field decision of the umpire where there's any doubt, and being further from the stumps is a pretty accepted reason for "doubt" in LBW decisions. Anyone who watches cricket would have seen hundreds of close LBW shouts turned down because the batsman put in a big stride, in the days before UDRS.
It was obviously a bad decision but the review system isn't really designed to have the third umpire watch the replay and second guess the on-field decision, it's just to check for obviously wrong decisions, and easily found data like where the ball pitched etc. This particular decision highlights that limitation of the system, but the problem isn't really with the third umpire's conduct. He just followed the rule.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Faaip, there was no doubt. The ball was hitting.
There is doubt when you don't know whether the ball will hit because a player is far down. But there is no doubt when technology tells you the ball will hit half-way up middle, whether the player is just out of his crease or in front of the bowler's face.
There is doubt when you don't know whether the ball will hit because a player is far down. But there is no doubt when technology tells you the ball will hit half-way up middle, whether the player is just out of his crease or in front of the bowler's face.
Last edited:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
I'm not saying I was in doubt, I'm just saying that they have a rough estimation of "doubt" built into the UDRS system. If the ball is within a certain distance of missing, even if it isn't missing, it goes with the on-field decision. Similarly, if the batsman is a certain distance out of the crease it is assumed that the ball might have done something unexpected before reaching the stumps and therefore there is "doubt".
It's what you get when you replace a human judgement with a rigid system of rules based on predictive technology.
It's what you get when you replace a human judgement with a rigid system of rules based on predictive technology.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
This. Third umpire should have shown balls and used common sense.
Hopefully they sort the rule out so this issue can be closed.
Blaze 18
Banned
This.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
But they aren't allowed to.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Yeah, exactly. If the rules say don't overturn it if it's more than 2.5m, then you can't apply common sense.
Argue with the rules, fine but let's not give the umpires grief for doing their job.
Maximus0723
State Regular
This. Rule is rule.
Blaze 18
Banned
The ICC playing conditions relating to this part of the system come under Process of Consultation No. 3.3 (i). It states that if a 'not out' decision is being reviewed and the distance from impact to the stumps is greater than 2.5m then the third umpire passes this information to the on-field official along with: the distance from the wickets of the point of impact with the batsman, the approximate distance from the point of pitching to the point of impact, and whether the ball is predicted to the hit the stumps.
The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision."
India v England: MS Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo
The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision."
India v England: MS Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo
