***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[pup11]

Disagree. If hawk eye can't provide conclusive proof in that particular case, then the decision should not be overturned.

So if the on-field umpire gives a guy out and the hawk-eye shows the ball to be just clipping the stumps then its out, but if the umpire thinks otherwise then the guy in not out even if the ball is clipping the stumps, its hard to understand how exactly that works.

It just comes across as double standard being employed by the administrators of the game, the whole reason behind DRS being brought in is to make sure that the decisions are as conclusive as possible but this whole umpire's call thing is a grey area of this technology.

 

[Howe_zat]

Imagine the DRS were skipped. Then your comment becomes:

So if the on-field umpire gives a guy out then its out, but if the umpire thinks otherwise then the guy is not out, its hard to understand how exactly that works.

 

[pup11]

Its a good point about the principle of 'benefit of the doubt'. When the third umpire rules on the points 1. Pitch of ball, 2. point of contact and 3. hitting the stumps and finds that on one of the three there is a 'doubt' (orange colour instead of red or green) the legend reads "on pitch umpire call". I think the decision is not being made by the third umpire here. He leaves it to the on field umpire to think about it and decide once again. The fact that when the original decision was not out, and the on field umpire continues with not out, he IS, in fact up holding the 'benefit of doubt' principle.

Its when the original decision was out that the umpire does not give any benefit to the batsman and the reason for that is simple. The umpire DID NOT and DOES NOT have any doubt about the batsman being out. Where is the question of the benefit of doubt when there IS no doubt in the umpires mind.

The on field umpire exercises the benefit of doubt when he makes the decision in the first place and gives the batsman not out. The UDRS system is then brought in to see if the benefit of doubt is bonafide or is a 'doubtful benefit' :-)

DRS has come into existence only because people don't seem to have much faith in an on-field umpire's judgment making, but this umpire's call stipulation gives an umpire a chance to stamp his poor/inconclusive decision by bypassing technology which for me just beats the whole purpose of having technological aid.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

If the umpire gives the guy out and then DRS says that it's the umpires call, then no umpire in the world would ever go against his own decision, because he will make a fool of himself by doing so. The umpire's call in the DRS system was designed to protect the umpire.

 

[Jarquis]

lolHaddin

 

[Jarquis]

Your stance is ****ed though; we have established this.

Yeah, Pickup ignored my VM though

 

[marc71178]

DRS has come into existence only because people don't seem to have much faith in an on-field umpire's judgment making, but this umpire's call stipulation gives an umpire a chance to stamp his poor/inconclusive decision by bypassing technology which for me just beats the whole purpose of having technological aid.

So you're referring to close calls when UDRS is meant to deal with the obvious howlers? Judge it by what its aimed at and it works.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, Pickup ignored my VM though

I could probably fix your stance for the price of a plane ticket.

 

[Cabinet96]

What the ****ing hell just happened?

 

[pup11]

If the umpire gives the guy out and then DRS says that it's the umpires call, then no umpire in the world would ever go against his own decision, because he will make a fool of himself by doing so. The umpire's call in the DRS system was designed to protect the umpire.

The game isn't played to satisfy an umpire's ego therefore the emphasis should be on getting the right decisions made and only way that can be done is by letting the 3rd umpire call the shots during a DRS referral.

 

[Furball]

DRS has been a huge part of this game so far and has been very useful as well but without sounding too negative the ball tracking system is really starting to make very little sense, the game is designed in such a way that it is meant to provide the benefit of the doubt to the batter and if hawk-eye is being used to provide convincing decisions then these ''umpire's call'' decisions should be ruled in favour of the batsmen regardless of whatever decision an on-field umpire might have made otherwise that just makes the whole technology a bit shady.

Why should a batsman win a reprieve when he's been given out and there's no evidence that the ball would have missed the stumps?

 

[Furball]

The game isn't played to satisfy an umpire's ego therefore the emphasis should be on getting the right decisions made and only way that can be done is by letting the 3rd umpire call the shots during a DRS referral.

Particularly when it comes to lbws, the whole point of umpire's call is because there is a margain of error in the predicted path.

 

[silentstriker]

The game isn't played to satisfy an umpire's ego therefore the emphasis should be on getting the right decisions made and only way that can be done is by letting the 3rd umpire call the shots during a DRS referral.

But the point is that in case of 'marginal decision', you don't know what the right decision is, so you leave the those cases up to the intuition and experience of a human being.

 

[pup11]

So you're referring to close calls when UDRS is meant to deal with the obvious howlers? Judge it by what its aimed at and it works.

You gotta take into account that the teams are stripped of their referrals even when the call goes marginally against them which often leaves them with no referrals to challenge a howler.

AFAIC in scenarios where the ball is just clipping the stumps, half the ball pitching outside the line of leg stump, when the line of impact is inconclusive; a level of uniformity needs to come into decision making, because if technology is coming up with a murky picture then it shouldn't matter what the on-field umpire thinks.

 

[Turbinator]

Lol damn! Can't believe I missed this.

 

[Shri]

Wait a minute, isn't the 3rd umpire human too? Why don't they just make it his call then? He has access to replays and can form a much better opinion than the on field umpire in marginal calls.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The third umpire being human would also stick to the original decision made by the on field umpire.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The on field umpire gives it out, DRS says that it's a marginal decision and so umpire's call. The ICC has changed the rules to say that it becomes the 3rd umpires decision. Why would the third umpire then go against his colleague.

 

[marc71178]

You gotta take into account that the teams are stripped of their referrals even when the call goes marginally against them which often leaves them with no referrals to challenge a howler.

Yes, rightly so, since they've used a referral for something it's not designed for.

 

[Shri]

Yes, rightly so, since they've used a referral for something it's not designed for.

Pretty difficult for the players to decide if a decision is marginal or not in the heat of the moment I guess. For example a bowler is the only guy in the bowling team who has a clear, straight view of the stumps in a lbw appeal. Easy to miss fractional things in the follow through. A marginal call might feel plumb to them.