3rd Ashes Test, Headingley, Aug 22-26

[Durhamfootman]

I haven't seen the lbw shout, but awful decisions have existed for as long as the game has been played.

It's a hobby horse of mine, but the review process is for the howlers, so Australia should have still had 2 referrals remaining at that point

I know I keep banging on about it over and over and over again.... but that's why i keep doing it

It was a shocker though. Would love to hear from the Umpire as to why he did not give it.

My guess is he's rather badly decided that as the ball is drifting into the leg stump, it's not going to straighten enough to hit, but the ball is on middle/leg line, so as long as the height is right you have to assume it's hitting with a conventional off spinner.

I thought it looked out. I'd not as gone as far to say a total shocker, one of those you see once and think about reviewing but not entirely sure on. The replay then comes and you do think, oh no, he should be gone.

don't forget there were a couple of lbw appeals yesterday that both looked out but neither were given and hawkeye had them missing leg. I think one was referred by Australia. I thought they were both plumb. Maybe the umpire (was it Wilson again?) had those ball tracking decisions in the back of his mind. Hard job being an umpire

[Durhamfootman]

just seen a twaddle by Kate Cross

"Wow, what have I just witnessed? What an absolute talent that man is, that knock in those circumstances with an ashes series on the line. WOW... take a bow Jack Leach"

[GGAS]

To be fair to Wilson, I thought it looked umpire's call in real time, then like it was hitting leg in the replay.

Aussies really only have themselves to blame after using the review on the delivery that even Stevie Wonder would've said was missing leg.

Then the Lyon and Harris clangers too....

Momentum switch from here....? Here's hoping!

[yuppie]

DRS was is meant to stop howlers from happening and for those decision to stop incorrect results.

Australia regained the ashes on the final ball of Lyons over. Regardless of a dropped catch, missed run outs or wasting referrals. They took England's 10th wicket that look plumb to most neutral observers.

There is something wrong with the system if it does not stop incorrect decisions from happening. Today the wrong decision was made by the umpire, and DRS was designed to stop that. It has not. England supporters are undoubtedly happy with that, and Australian supporters will feel robbed.

What is the point of DRS if it does not produce the right result?

I'm undoubtedly a bitter Australian supporter about this, but DRS in its current form still creates the wrong outcomes and controversy. Its not fixed the problem, its only added another layer to rule making which is still ending up with a level of wrong results. The argument that Australia should not have used up their referrals does not take away from the fact that Ben Stokes should have been given out LBW, with out the help of DRS. And the impact of that one decision could have a huge impact on the result of this series.

Whats the point of using technology if when its being used that we are still having the wrong outcome?

The worse part about this is that through out this series Wilson has shown himself to be truly incompetent. Making wrong decision continually, thus making player referrals more difficult. Yet he has retained his place as an umpire in this series. The consequences of this could be huge. Today Australia regained the ashes, but for an umpire who has showed himself to be hopelessly out of his depth through out this series. DRS was meant to correct such situations, today it has not.

Rant over. I needed to vent, and I have. Please no need for reply's.

[backfootpunch]

Now that you no longer lose your review if its umpires call the system works perfectly fine

If you chose to waste your final review so callously like Australia did knowing there was no way leach was out you can only blame yourself

And I'd say the same if the teams were reversed

[yuppie]

DRS is designed to stop the wrong decisions from the umpire. Today it did not.

[GarlicJam]

I disagree, Yuppie. It was designed in the hope of stopping the howler. It is designed to give teams the ability to overturn poor decisions. Unfortunately it was poorly implemented by Paine.

[backfootpunch]

DRS is designed to stop the wrong decisions from the umpire. Today it did not.

Tim paine cost you the game not DRS

Cummins told him he didnt think it was out and he reviewed anyway

Paine seems like a nice bloke, but hes not getting any runs and is having an absolute mare with his reviews

[yuppie]

DRS is designed to stop the wrong decisions from the umpire. Today it did not.

Tim paine cost you the game not DRS

Cummins told him he didnt think it was out and he reviewed anyway

Paine seems like a nice bloke, but hes not getting any runs and is having an absolute mare with his reviews

Actually the umpire cost Australia the game. I was not involved thankfully.

We are using technology to make sure we get the right result, today the technology showed us we did not get the right result. So whats the point if using technology?

[yuppie]

I disagree, Yuppie. It was designed in the hope of stopping the howler. It is designed to give teams the ability to overturn poor decisions. Unfortunately it was poorly implemented by Paine.

So we still have howlers that can cost teams a series? So whats the point?

[backfootpunch]

You seem to be suggesting every single close decision should be reviewed

That just isnt feasible

Too little overs are bowled in a day anyway, youd end up trippling the amount of reviews and therefore the time taken on reviews

[yuppie]

You seem to be suggesting every single close decision should be reviewed

That just isnt feasible

Too little overs are bowled in a day anyway, youd end up trippling the amount of reviews and therefore the time taken on reviews

This was the final decision of the match though. This decision would decide winner and looser. There was no other batter coming in to make this a hypothetical situation.

This one decision decided who won and lost the match. This was the most important decision of the whole match and the series. This decision needed to be right. The technology showed us the answer. Middle and leg, 3rd of the way up the stumps. not even close to umpires call. So whats the point of technology if we don't get the right result?

[backfootpunch]

You keep saying that but arent saying how the system can be improved

What would you change?

you seem to be suggesting that the tech should be shelved, which would be a huge step backwards

[backfootpunch]

I'm just hoping that us winning wont stop the selectors from making much needed changes to the batting

We cant forget the 67 all out because of stokes' heroics

With how we bowled we should've won this game at a canter

Roy and buttler are as unselectable as moeen ali was

[yuppie]

How to fix it, well that's a big question.

Technology was bought in to stop howlers and to make the contest fairer. To make sure the right team wins.

Punishing teams for getting referrals wrong is not working. Just need to look earlier in this series where Australia did not refer because they were scared to loose a referral. but if they had it would have been given. It creates a lottery and still leads to wrong decisions being made. The concept that it designed to overturn howlers works if the umpires missed an edge to slip. But LBW are surely harder too gauge by the fielding team. A WK whose view could be obscured and a bowler falling away after delivery really can create a lottery when asking the question.

Surely as cricket fans we want to see the right decisions? There has to be a better way. The technology used today has not stopped the controversy we have seen this summer. England fans are happy, but NZ and Aus fans probably think the system is not working.

What that answer is im not sure. But this decision today has potentially decided the ashes, so umpires mistakes are still having a huge impact on the game. The ICC will need to find another way.

Ive had my whinge now, and thats it. seriously it is.