The LBW Umpire Referral Flaw

[Athlai]

We can moan about the review system all we like but how often do we have series ruining howlers now? We're left with a lot of 50/50 calls to whinge about and markedly less total mind explosions.

It's good.

 

[Migara]

if more than one element goes as umpires call that means there is massive doubt. In this instance benefit of the doubt should be batsman's. When only one element (hitting the wicket or pitched off side of the leg pole), doubt isfine to be with the umpire.

the number of attempts should remain 2 for an innings. successful review which overrules umpire should be acknowledged by adding an extra review to the team. Any umpires call decision should not be counted as an attempt. If the review is grossly wrong then team loses the review.

 

[Red]

The LBW thing I really don't get is why balls that pitch outside leg can't be out LBW but balls that pitch outside off can be.

Racist against legspinners imo

 

[cnerd123]

The LBW thing I really don't get is why balls that pitch outside leg can't be out LBW but balls that pitch outside off can be.

Racist against legspinners imo

Nah you can't let bowlers like Giles be successful in Tests ffs. Good law IMO.

 

[Daemon]

The LBW thing I really don't get is why balls that pitch outside leg can't be out LBW but balls that pitch outside off can be.

Racist against legspinners imo

I'm just reminded of Paul Harris trying (and failing) to control Sehwag by bowling outside leg all day. It was so satisfying everytime Sehwag moved down leg and smashed him through the covers.

 

[Riggins]

I don't really have a problem with the system as it stands, however I would prefer if the same incident always resulted in the same decision rather than defaulting to the umpire. Whether that became a batsman's or a bowler's benefit of the doubt I don't really care. I think ideally I would prefer to see batsman with the benefit but the "amount" of ball needing to hit to trigger the doubt be lowered, maybe to 1/4 of the edge of the stump instead of 1/2 of the centre.

 

[Pratters]

The LBW thing I really don't get is why balls that pitch outside leg can't be out LBW but balls that pitch outside off can be.

Racist against legspinners imo

Leg spin is attacking bowling many times. Wouldn't this rule lead to leg theory for the leg spinner a lot?

 

[cnerd123]

I would prefer to see batsman with the benefit but the "amount" of ball needing to hit to trigger the doubt be lowered, maybe to 1/4 of the edge of the stump instead of 1/2 of the centre.

This doesn't make sense tho. The amount of ball that needs to hit the stump is decided by the error margin of hawkeye. It's not an arbitrary figure.

The hawkeye prediction is correct to within half the width of the ball. Therefore when only half the ball is hitting the stump, this means that it is possible that, had the ball been allowed to continue it's path, it may not have hit the stumps at all, or it may have hit the stump on the full. We cannot predict which would have happen. Therefore we let the on-field decision stand.

DRS is to overrule obviously bad decision, not to help us be 100% correct on marginal calls.

 

[Pratters]

When DRS was implemented, you can understand the need for wanting it to be 'safe'. Now it should try to be fairer. They are 3 stumps, not 2.5 stumps ffs.

 

[Riggins]

This doesn't make sense tho. The amount of ball that needs to hit the stump is decided by the error margin of hawkeye. It's not an arbitrary figure.

The hawkeye prediction is correct to within half the width of the ball. Therefore when only half the ball is hitting the stump, this means that it is possible that, had the ball been allowed to continue it's path, it may not have hit the stumps at all, or it may have hit the stump on the full. We cannot predict which would have happen. Therefore we let the on-field decision stand.

This is just not correct. It is an arbitrary figure.

DRS is to overrule obviously bad decision, not to help us be 100% correct on marginal calls.

Just because it was originally introduced to overrule really bad decisions is no reason it can't be used to improve other bad decisions too.

 

[Hurricane]

Marc and dan are correct and the system is fine. Just view the complaints about it are based on emotional reactions from fans about decisions that have gone against their team.
The other thing is that this system has been in place for donkeys years make your peace with it already. I was in a match thread during the World Cup and peeps were complaining why the bowling team didn't get its review refunded, and it was like, have you never seen this in action before.
The primary reason I support dan and Marc is that we need to limit how much this technology impacts the game and how many referrals there are. If I had my way there would be one review for each team and it wouldn't reset at the 80 over mark.

 

[Top_Cat]

Just because it was originally introduced to overrule really bad decisions is no reason it can't be used to improve other bad decisions too.

And that's pretty much what it's doing in a rising tide lifts all boats sorta way. Standards have increased, there are far fewer howlers than ever and even the definition of what constitutes a howler has changed.

 

[Hurricane]

Just because it was originally introduced to overrule really bad decisions is no reason it can't be used to improve other bad decisions too.

I once played in a match and I was out plumb lbw and the umpire didn't fire me because the other team were being jerks and were suing the league and he wanted us to win.
Later in the inning I was standing at the non strikers end and the ball went through the gate and should have clean bowled the batsman but at the last second it swung and missed the stumps.
"That is why I didn't give you out hurricane"
Which was bs. I knew why he didn't give me out.
But the delivery has been etched in my mind since. I won't give an lbw unless it is plumb and you are caught on the crease.
The cricket ball path is impossible to project with certainty due to the unpredictability of it (as I saw that day)
Using hawkeye for too great a role would be errant. My humble opinion only.

 

[TheJediBrah]

tbh I think the system is almost perfect the way it is. I believe "benefit of the doubt going with the umpire" is how it should be, however I feel that the margin of "Umpires call" is too big. You can have balls demolishing off-stump but still remaining not out because less than half the ball is going to be hitting. The Margin needs to be reduced. Margin of error of hawkeye isn't that big.

And imagine how pissed you'd be as a bowling side if you used your referral because batsman was given not out when ball was hitting off stump, and not only does the decision remain not out because only 49.9% of the ball is hitting but you lose your review when technically the decision should have been out.

Another change that could be made is for the review to only be lost by the challenging team if it is genuinely a bad review. And No loss of review for an "Umpires call" decision.

 

[weldone]

I once played in a match and I was out plumb lbw and the umpire didn't fire me because the other team were being jerks and were suing the league and he wanted us to win.
Later in the inning I was standing at the non strikers end and the ball went through the gate and should have clean bowled the batsman but at the last second it swung and missed the stumps.
"That is why I didn't give you out hurricane"
Which was bs. I knew why he didn't give me out.
But the delivery has been etched in my mind since. I won't give an lbw unless it is plumb and you are caught on the crease.
The cricket ball path is impossible to project with certainty due to the unpredictability of it (as I saw that day)
Using hawkeye for too great a role would be errant. My humble opinion only.

The lbw rule states that umpires must assume the ball wouldn't change path after impact.

And that's the only reason LBWs are possible with fulltosses from spinners tbh.

 

[Top_Cat]

tbh I think the system is almost perfect the way it is. I believe "benefit of the doubt going with the umpire" is how it should be, however I feel that the margin of "Umpires call" is too big. You can have balls demolishing off-stump but still remaining not out because less than half the ball is going to be hitting. The Margin needs to be reduced. Margin of error of hawkeye isn't that big.

And imagine how pissed you'd be as a bowling side if you used your referral because batsman was given not out when ball was hitting off stump, and not only does the decision remain not out because only 49.9% of the ball is hitting but you lose your review when technically the decision should have been out.

Another change that could be made is for the review to only be lost by the challenging team if it is genuinely a bad review. And No loss of review for an "Umpires call" decision.

Hadn't thought of this one, don't mind it.

 

[Dan]

Yeah I wouldn't mind the guideline for Umpire's Call changing. I mean, when the middle of the ball is impacting 1mm away from the centre of leg stump, Umpire's Call is taking the piss a bit. Should be any part of the ball impacts with the middle of leg stump, or the middle of the ball impacts with any part of the stump. Apply the arbitrary 'margin of error-slash-we don't want to fundamentally change the game' rule in a slightly more simple fashion -- put the 50% requirement on one of the objects doing the colliding, not both.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah I wouldn't mind the guideline for Umpire's Call changing. I mean, when the middle of the ball is impacting 1mm away from the centre of leg stump, Umpire's Call is taking the piss a bit. Should be any part of the ball impacts with the middle of leg stump, or the middle of the ball impacts with any part of the stump. Apply the arbitrary 'margin of error-slash-we don't want to fundamentally change the game' rule in a slightly more simple fashion.

I am comfortable with some thing on these lines as well..

 

[Dan]

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.

 

[Pratters]

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