Referral Discussion

[Jono]

Is it therefore stipulated in other scenarios not involving 2.5 metre rule (say ball hitting the top of leg stump but given not out) that the on field decision can change his decision, even though the technology says enough doubt to stick with the onfield umpire?

Or is it only the 2.5 metre rule where the umpire can reverse their decision if they like, or not do so if they like?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Said it in the England v SA match thread and haven't looked on here to see if it has been raised by others but surely 2 referrals a side is too many in a 50 over game when you only have 2 each in a test innings. You are seeing sides using far more speculative ones in this WC to try and get a wicket even when it is really a 10-90 call not even 50-50.

 

[Shri]

If anything 2 is too less. Thats just my opinion though, could be wrong.

 

[Howe_zat]

Tactical referrels are just not on in my book. As I've said before, the technology should be used wherever it's appropriate. I don't think the players should be involved at all after the appeal.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Tactical referrels are just not on in my book. As I've said before, the technology should be used wherever it's appropriate. I don't think the players should be involved at all after the appeal.

The thing is they are being used and you can see why. Ponting did one the other day when the Aussies had a side 3 or 4 down that was never out and England wasted one today in desperation. Just 2 examples there, if you only had 1 an innings you would save it for the shocker which is what i think it should be used for not a tactical gain on a tight one.

 

[GIMH]

The Duminy decision that was overturned today was highly questionable. The replays were inconclusive and as such the on-field decision should surely have stoof.

Of course, Jimmy made it irrelevant two balls later but it's food for thought in general about the system, IMO.

 

[marc71178]

Ummm... Yuvraj just got an LBW reversed which was originally given not out that was over 2.5 metres when it struck the pad.

So umm why was this given out? The ICC replied saying the 2.5 metre rule exists as a rule, and that Dhoni was wrong to complain about the Bell decision.

I'm confused.

Unusually prompt movement from the ICC

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Is it therefore stipulated in other scenarios not involving 2.5 metre rule (say ball hitting the top of leg stump but given not out) that the on field decision can change his decision, even though the technology says enough doubt to stick with the onfield umpire?

Or is it only the 2.5 metre rule where the umpire can reverse their decision if they like, or not do so if they like?

The umpire can change his decision in any scenario where UDRS comes up with an "On Field Decision", its just that they generally stick with their original decision.

 

[Jono]

Unusually prompt movement from the ICC

Haha interesting. Now they can reverse it "only if it is hitting any part of the middle stump"

At least they are trying I guess.

 

[Jono]

The umpire can change his decision in any scenario where UDRS comes up with an "On Field Decision", its just that they generally stick with their original decision.

Cheers

 

[Spark]

I am so confused.

---

So... is it still out if it hits in line and is hitting the middle of leg?

 

[Jono]

No, the 2.5 metre rule will then rule it not out if that was the original decision... as per my reading of the ICC's recent statement.

The umpires and ICC doing us UDRS defenders no favours.

 

[Spark]

Riiight. I am so ****ing confused.

The old rule was fine IMO. Commonsense was the order of the day, but I guess by specifying situations then at least we know when it is and isn't out.

 

[Blaze 18]

De Silva a shocker with UDRS - SuperSport - Cricket