Reviews in Cricket

[ManinBlack]

Watching the Test Match yesterday there were lbw shouts given not out & not appealed where the bastsman would have been out. Also one where the player walked & would have been adjudged not out if he had appealed. There were also a couple of instances where the Snickometer proved the umpire wrong. In view of the obvious unreliability of the umpires to get the decision right all of the time would it not be an idea to review automatically all lbw & catch appeals? The technology exists so why not make use of it? Either that or give both teams a lot more reviews so that any questionable decision can be looked at.

 

[Hobbit]

I think there should be more reviews available to the Captains but I don't agree with all catches being reviewed. For example, if the batsman smashes it towards the boundary and is clearly caught at chest height, whats the point of reviewing it?

 

[ManinBlack]

I think there should be more reviews available to the Captains but I don't agree with all catches being reviewed. For example, if the batsman smashes it towards the boundary and is clearly caught at chest height, whats the point of reviewing it?

I agree, more important for lbw decisions. Perhaps I should have said catches by the wicket keeper or, possibly the slips if there was any doubt that the ball carried. Basically, any decision where the umpire isn't sure and feels he needs help from the technology.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Watching the Test Match yesterday there were lbw shouts given not out & not appealed where the bastsman would have been out. Also one where the player walked & would have been adjudged not out if he had appealed. There were also a couple of instances where the Snickometer proved the umpire wrong. In view of the obvious unreliability of the umpires to get the decision right all of the time would it not be an idea to review automatically all lbw & catch appeals? The technology exists so why not make use of it? Either that or give both teams a lot more reviews so that any questionable decision can be looked at.

I agree and actually mentioned this in the cricket thread. Why not review these marginal appeals? Those that clearly carry or are caught in the outfield don't need looking at. It stops the batsman not walking as per yesterday and surely takes a lot of pressure of the umpires. How hard would it be to refer as cricket seems to have got their review system spot on and could be easily looked at quickly and referred back to the pitch. Take away reviews from each team and let the umpires (including 3rd umpire) be sole decision makers

 

[Rooter]

It's a no from me, I like it the way it is, adds some excitement and keeps the game human if that makes sense.. Part of the tactics on when to review, when not to etc, it all balances out at the end of the day and if the batsman walks when not reviewing if available or vice versa with a fielding team not appealing, then more fool them.

 

[Deleted member 18645]

The whole replay/human discussion is huge in baseball now too. One of the minor leagues has come to an automatic strike zone instead of the umpire calling it behind the catcher. I have always been in favour of the human element in the game but yesterday's play at Edgbaston was unreal - almost every decision was over-turned or proven to be wrong. I am moving towards the camp in cricket where every LBW is checked and technology makes the decision instead of the umpire.

 

[fundy]

Yesterday was the worst day of umpiring I can remember in a very long time!

Personally like it as it is, theyre stuggling to bowl 80 overs in a day let alone the 90 theyre supposed to and adding in even more reviews just erodes it further (especially now theyve removed banning captains for poor over rates)

I actually think the DRS should be changed to a simple out or not out and the umpires call part removed though!

 

[Piece]

I think the immediate decision is with the umpire. Then use the tech to confirm or revoke. No "umpire's call", it's either hitting the stumps or its not.

 

[Beezerk]

I think the immediate decision is with the umpire. Then use the tech to confirm or revoke. No "umpire's call", it's either hitting the stumps or its not.

They need to ditch umpires call for lbw, it's either hitting the wickets or it isn't, half a ball or not.

 

[GB72]

If used properly then these things can be a massive benefit. The issue I see is the one that I have seen appearing with certain refs in rugby, they stop making decisions and leave it to technology to sort out.

 

[Don Barzini]

It’s fine as it is. I think the statistics would prove that in the vast majority of situations the umpires get it right. Sure there are going to be mistakes, but it’s all part of sport.

 

[Captainron]

With DRS I think that the need for neutral umpires is gone.
Missing out on some of the best officials because their countries are playing is outdated now

 

[HomerJSimpson]

With DRS I think that the need for neutral umpires is gone.
Missing out on some of the best officials because their countries are playing is outdated now

Interesting point. No-one seemed to mind the likes of Shepherd and Bird umpiring in those Ashes series of yesteryear

 

[Don Barzini]

Here’s a question....

When the third umpire is reviewing a decision, the first thing they do is check the bowler’s front foot to see if it’s a fair delivery or not. Whenever I’ve been watching, it always has been.

Obviously they have to check. But have many reviews been overturned on the basis that it was a no ball that the on-field umpire missed the first time round?!

Or....has a batsman ever successfully reviewed purely on the basis that he suspected a no ball had been bowled?!

 

[fundy]

Theres been a few over turned where it has been a no ball yes.

Dont think so on point 2, though youd like the non striker to be keeping an eye on it