Referral Discussion

[KiWiNiNjA]

If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, but the UDRS is apparently here to correct such decisions. Make of that what you will.

Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.

 

[M0rphin3]

If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.

Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.

This obviously.

 

[Shri]

Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.

No one can be sure it would have been given not out by other umpires. Others might have given it tbh. It was not a 50-50 decision, it was hitting middle halfway up. And I am not arguing against UDRS here, the 3rd umpire said the decision was up to the on field umpire and then he should have used common sense after seeing the replay on the screen and corrected his decision.

 

[Cruxdude]

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.

The rule doesn't say you can't overrule. It just says the on-field umpire decides and Billy screwed it up. Also seemingly this is not the first time. It happened with Tim Paine against England. There the batsman was given out in spite of how far down the track he was.

Middle of middle and you say doubt. Go get some brains on loan Mr Bowden.

 

[biased indian]

If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.

seems it has happened before and common sense was applied

7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.

 

[ankitj]

So there are some inconsistencies on how the discretion is being used. These need to be ironed out to make decision making more uniform. Will happen with time I guess. Throwing UDRS out of the window is not a solution obviously. It seems a little contrived though that this had to happen against the team most reluctant to adopt UDRS!

 

[Spark]

seems it has happened before and common sense was applied

7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.

Yep, and Watson vs. Zimbabwe as well was one where he was some way down the pitch. Both times it was given out, and correctly IMO - if it hits you in line, and it is clearly going to hit the stumps (as it was on both occasions) then it's out. The only reason distance down the pitch should matter is whether the word "clearly" applies.

In short, Billy Bowden was being an idiot. But how many times have we said that before?

 

[Jono]

seems it has happened before and common sense was applied

7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.

That's lame. A stupid rule and an inconsistent one. The worst combination.

I'm still for the UDRS, but that rule is ****ing ********. No other way of putting it.

 

[Cruxdude]

That's lame. A stupid rule and an inconsistent one. The worst combination.

I'm still for the UDRS, but that rule is ****ing ********. No other way of putting it.

Actually speaking the rule just asked the on field umpire to use common sense for these cases. Sadly Billy lacked it.

 

[ankitj]

Actually speaking the rule just asked the on field umpire to use common sense for these cases. Sadly Billy lacked it.

Yes, if the replay showed the ball just hitting the top of the wickets for example, it will be legitimate for the on field umpire to give that not out for being hit very far in front of the wicket. But in this case it was middle of middle stump. No question of considering the 2.5 m distance.

 

[Spark]

Yeah having seen the replay now that is a dreadful decision by Billy. Really quite horrible.

 

[Daemon]

I ****ing hate umpires. Always ruin things.

 

[salman85]

Sometimes things will go your way,sometimes they won't.Reverse the teams,and you would see England/English fans getting upset,and the Indians accepting it as a part of the game.

Lighten up.**** happens.

 

[ankitj]

Sometimes things will go your way,sometimes they won't.Reverse the teams,and you would see England/English fans getting upset,and the Indians accepting it as a part of the game.

Agree with that. But like to think I am different

 

[Howe_zat]

Bell doesn't get it either.

Part #54 in the ongoing "Ian Bell Doesn't Understand Things" saga.

 

[Jarquis]

I will say that I think the people who are saying it's a horrible decision are focussing on the fact it was hitting middle half way up. In real time quite a few people had doubts whether it was outside the line or not.

 

[Cruxdude]

I will say that I think the people who are saying it's a horrible decision are focussing on the fact it was hitting middle half way up. In real time quite a few people had doubts whether it was outside the line or not.

Where it hit is not the predictive element of Hawkeye. The only predictive part is how it goes after hitting the pad. So there was no issue about hitting in line.

Think what lost India the match is not appealing for Strauss caught behind.

 

[Blaze 18]

Where it hit is not the predictive element of Hawkeye. The only predictive part is how it goes after hitting the pad. So there was no issue about hitting in line.

Think what lost India the match is not appealing for Strauss caught behind.

Twice!

 

[Shri]

Match fixing ****s!