The LBW Umpire Referral Flaw

[Athlai]

If the reviews are not lost, people will keep reviewing which we don't want.

Has to be umpires call though.

I'd probably just give each team 6 reviews a match, 3 for batting, 3 for bowling and allow umpires calls to not count.
I'm absolutely fine with reviews taking place if it is legitimately close enough to go either way.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Oh and I like Umpire's Call being a lost review because it disincentivises ****s like Watson and Broad from reviewing every marginal decision. And they still do it way too ****ing often.

If the reviews are not lost, people will keep reviewing which we don't want.

Meh. Only if the margin was reduced. You shouldn't lose a review when the umpire gets it wrong and you are right just because it's not quite wrong enough.

 

[Pratters]

Meh. Only if the margin was reduced. You shouldn't lose a review when the umpire gets it wrong and you are right just because it's not quite wrong enough.

I would argue it the other way around. With the margins being reduced, if you lost the appeal, it would have been a poor appeal more often than not.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would argue it the other way around. With the margins being reduced, if you lost the appeal, it would have been a poor appeal more often than not.

Yeah that's what I said

I think

 

[Pratters]

Yeah got it now.

 

[Daemon]

Yep you shouldn't lose reviews on umpires calls. But if you review and it fails and isn't an umpires call decision, you play the rest of the game on roller skates.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The idea that the technology isn't good enough is BS of the worst kind. Cricket is just very precious about the umpires being in control.

 

[Pratters]

Lillian calls a spade a spade.

 

[marc71178]

Meh. Only if the margin was reduced. You shouldn't lose a review when the umpire gets it wrong and you are right just because it's not quite wrong enough.

But in that case the umpire is right, not you. How hard is it to understand that?

 

[TheJediBrah]

But in that case the umpire is right, not you. How hard is it to understand that?

Uh, I think you're confused

 

[dfrinku]

If your appeal is too over the top and then you don't follow it up with a review, you should lose a review.

 

[Maximas]

I've always thought the area of 'umpires call' (the outer half of the outside stumps) should actually be extended to include half a stump width next to the outer stumps and half a balls height above them. I've always been unsure of how the technology can be certain the ball will miss the stumps when it's half a centimeter away but not sure when half the ball is hitting the stumps.

 

[Stapel]

If your appeal is too over the top and then you don't follow it up with a review, you should lose a review.

Though I sympathise with this idea, I think the embarrassment for a bowler who ferouciously appeals but doesn't even consider a review after the being turned down, is quite enough fun.

 

[Daemon]

I've always thought the area of 'umpires call' (the outer half of the outside stumps) should actually be extended to include half a stump width next to the outer stumps and half a balls height above them. I've always been unsure of how the technology can be certain the ball will miss the stumps when it's half a centimeter away but not sure when half the ball is hitting the stumps.

Yep. The last time we had this debate on cw someone brought this up and it makes no sense for it to not work both ways.

 

[marc71178]

Uh, I think you're confused

How so? The margin of error means that the umpire is correct in close calls. If the umpire is correct how can the reviewer be correct as there is no evidence to overturn it, hence the review is wrong. Lose a review and move on.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Whatever margin for error Hawkeye has it's still far better at predicting the path of the ball than an umpires eyes in real time with one look. They just want to go with the umpires where possible. Eventually all LBW's will be decided in an instant using technology with a buzzer going off in the umpires ear (or an indication of some kind) if it's out.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How so? The margin of error means that the umpire is correct in close calls. If the umpire is correct how can the reviewer be correct as there is no evidence to overturn it, hence the review is wrong. Lose a review and move on.

Nope. Review last page of thread. It is explained very clearly.

The margin of error is too large. Hence some decisions that are definitely wrong, still stand thanks to umpires call.

 

[Stapel]

Not sure if it was posted, but the margin of error, due to the middle of the ball having to hit inside the middle of the stump, is 5.4 cm (a bit more than 2 inches). Whether this is too large, is arbitrary, not?

I look at it this way: If you bowl the perfect delivery, hitting the off stump not right in the middle (from a lateral perspective), but 1 millimetre from it, my gut feeling says a not-out decision should be overturned.

 

[marc71178]

Nope. Review last page of thread. It is explained very clearly.

The margin of error is too large. Hence some decisions that are definitely wrong, still stand thanks to umpires call.

The margin of error has come from the people, who make hawkeye though hasn't it? They'd know more what the margin of error is on their own system than somebody watching would.

Regardless of what you try to say, under the current system, umpires call means there is not the evidence to prove the umpire wrong so therefore there is no evidence that the decision is wrong.

 

[Dan]

Yep. The last time we had this debate on cw someone brought this up and it makes no sense for it to not work both ways.

Because if the ball is predicted to miss the on-screen stumps entirely, it is sufficiently far enough away from the 'strike zone' (as i'm going to call it) to be outside of the margin of error/arbitrary don't-****-up-the-game measure.

I can't quite work out how to explain this, so I've channelled my inner Heef to provide a paint diagram



The black rectangle is that strike zone -- if 50% of the ball hits inside that, the decision is out (I would change this rule so that if any part of the ball is tracked to impact inside that zone, the decision is out). The edge of the stumps doubles as the edge of the margin of error zone.

The red ball is clipping the stumps; it's within a half-stump-width 'margin of error' zone, hence Umpire's Call.

The pink ball is missing the stumps. By virtue of the ball being projected to miss the stumps, it cannot possibly be within the half-stump-width margin of error to impact the strike zone.

If you apply the margin of error twice (strike zone to edge of stump, edge of stump to half-stump-width outside of stump), you get an Umpire's Call zone double in size, utilising a margin of error that is larger than it needs to be. And then you have bad LBW decisions being upheld when the ball was a) plainly missing the stumps and b) not within the actual margin of error of the designated 'strike zone'

The only way to create this in such a way that you could apply it to both sides of the edge of the stump was if the 'strike zone' was expanded to reach 3/4 of the way to the edge of the stumps, and the 'margin of error' to extend to 1/4-stump-width outside the width of the stumps:

And let's face it, given that the overarching tradition of cricket decision making is "benefit of the doubt to the batsman", it's a lot easier to cop a ball just fractionally clipping off stump not being given out, than it is a ball just fractionally missing off stump being given out. And having the edge of the on-screen stumps double as the edge of the margin-of-error zone makes actually displaying the margin of error a hell of a lot easier -- less floaty lines in the air required to denote the outside edge of the margin of error as well as the edge of the 'strike zone' and the on-screen stumps themselves.