-
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.
***Official*** England in Sri Lanka 2012
- Thread starter Cabinet96
- Start date
Is very much benefit of the doubt to the on field umpire these days, not something I am entierly comfortable with but that is the way it is.
uvelocity
International Coach
and there's actually nothing that I know of in the rules which actually expressly gives benefit of the doubt to the batsman. Happy to be proven wrong though.
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm comfortable with it, for the URDS anyway.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's ridiculous that a guy making a split-second judgement with the naked eye overrides the opinion of someone who has the benefit of technology
Ruckus
International Captain
yeah I don't think there is either, it's just always been more of an 'unwritten law'. I personally like it, because I think at the end of the day batsmen usually have the harder task and one ball can mean the end of your innings...so it seems only fair to me, at least until the technology is improved to rule out such 'doubt'.
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
......the guy with the technology is the one saying "well I dunno"
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Yep its just convention, you are correct
Howe_zat
Audio File
Was found to be bollocks iirc.
Why should the batsman get the benefit of anything over the bowler?
I can see how they have arrived at this situation but it is far from satisfactory, better than no system at all though.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Exactly
When a guy who has the benefit of umpteen replays, etc cannot tell whether it's out or not then it is farcical to stay with the original decision
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Because really, giving the "benefit of the doubt to the batsman" just means you don't think it's out. You think it's close, but no cigar.
Ruckus
International Captain
Yeah exactly. It's like, there is no evidence suggesting it's out other than the onfield umpires initial decision (which frankly shouldn't mean much if the video umpires can't even pick anything up), so why let the bowler have it? Your essentially giving it out on no evidence, or very flimsy evidence at best. You could argue the onfield umpire's decision has some validity over the replays, but I really doubt it...