Red Devil wrote:http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2014-15/content/current/story/812343.html
wonderfully well put by Dhoni - that is exactly the problem with DRS at the moment. The umpires call nonsense should be scrapped, either you are out or you are not out, it is stupid to say it was not out because the ump already said not out, but it would have been out if the ump had said out. India do have most of the 50-50's going against them, so Dhoni and BCCI should be demanding more objectivity in the DRS.
I am very very happy to see that ind are taking this stance, hopefully we can get DRS working properly and have it used in all the games.
Red Devil wrote:I disagree
If you're going to use DRS for lbw's then I believe that you go with the technology. To say that the decision is out if it was given out by the ump, but that the decision would be not out for the same delivery if it was given not out feels wrong. I don't see how anyone can really argue with that because it ensures as much consistency and fair treatment as possible.
rich1uk wrote:what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive
GarlicJam wrote:rich1uk wrote:what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive
This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.
Trim the tolerance.
DiligentDefence wrote:GarlicJam wrote:rich1uk wrote:what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive
This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.
Trim the tolerance.
Agree with this.
hopeforthebest wrote:DiligentDefence wrote:GarlicJam wrote:rich1uk wrote:what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive
This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.
Trim the tolerance.
Agree with this.
The third umpire blundered as only more than half the ball is the tolerance. So that third umpire needs reeducating.
rich1uk wrote:hopeforthebest wrote:DiligentDefence wrote:GarlicJam wrote:rich1uk wrote:what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive
This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.
Trim the tolerance.
Agree with this.
The third umpire blundered as only more than half the ball is the tolerance. So that third umpire needs reeducating.
the third umpire didn't blunder , he doesn't make the judgement on how much of the ball is hitting , that's programmed into the software
hopeforthebest wrote:
If the TV replay showed 3/4 of the ball hitting the stump then the software must have also shown that to third umpire.
rich1uk wrote:hopeforthebest wrote:
If the TV replay showed 3/4 of the ball hitting the stump then the software must have also shown that to third umpire.
the software is programmed to the agreed tolerances , if the software says "umpires call" do you really think the 3rd umpire is going to say "ah well I thought it was only 48% of the ball that was hitting not 51% so i'll over-rule
the 3rd umpire just goes with whatever the software says
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests