Cricket Umpiring

[Bold Seagull]

I'm 100% with Botham on his crusade that they appealing side should NOT lose an appeal if the hawkeye comes up Umpire's Call..

You appeal for LBW. The umpire gives it not out. You review, because you think it was hitting. If Hawkeye says UC, the not out decision remains, and the fielding side lose that appeal even though they were RIGHT.

Completely unjust.

I disagree a bit on this for what the referral system is supposed to be which is the elimination of the obvious or shocking mistake. Not a review every time a captain really needs a wicket and fancies querying any marginal decision. This way the game is still kept very much in the hands of the umpires.

If you review a not out for LBW, and less than half the ball is hitting the stumps, then it is a marginal call, the umpire was right, and the fielding side were wrong for reviewing a marginal call. The fielding side aren't proved right that it's hitting, they're proved wrong in challenging a good decision. They should only be reviewing a decision if they are really confident the umpire has got it completely wrong and that ball was hitting those stumps full on.

Start giving reviews back and they'll be reviewing everything and it will no longer be a system to check the shocking decision, it will be a system that replaces the on field umpire.

 

[Martlet]

Big fat this. I don't even agree with the whole "umpires call" thing. The technology is there to assist the umpire on close calls and prove if the call should have been out or not out. If the umpire calls an LBW appeal as not out, and it is referred by the fielding side, I cannot understand why, when hawkeye shows the ball was going to clip the stumps, the not out decisions stands. The technology has just proved it would have hit the stumps, so give it out.

By the same system, if the umpire had called it out and batsman had reviewed it, the "out" decision would still have stood. Get rid of "umpires call" all together, and either give it out or not out.

It's because the system isn't perfect and there's a margin of error built in - hence a ball which hawkeye shows as clipping could either be a full-on hit, or could be missing altogether. Hence, the fairest outcome in that event is to go with the original call, whether in or out, as seen by the umpire at the time.

Botham and others fail to understand that predictive systems are fallible (unlike in tennis, where the ball actually goes in or out) and therefore they should only overrule an on-field decision if it's palpably clear that the decision was wrong.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I

It's because the system isn't perfect and there's a margin of error built in - hence a ball which hawkeye shows as clipping could either be a full-on hit, or could be missing altogether. Hence, the fairest outcome in that event is to go with the original call, whether in or out, as seen by the umpire at the time.

Botham and others fail to understand that predictive systems are fallible (unlike in tennis, where the ball actually goes in or out) and therefore they should only overrule an on-field decision if it's palpably clear that the decision was wrong.

I don't think that is Botham's point - it's certainly not mine. I agree with the concept of umpire's call, both because of possible margin for error in the system, and also because I agree with the 'benefit of doubt' to the batsman. I just think that in such cases, the appealing side should not lose the review.