Mcc Backs Ian Chappell's Drs Call
- Thread starter Sharkman84
- Start date
Kram81
Well-Known Member
I like how people say just get rid of the howlers but where do you draw the line on what is a 'howler'? They tried getting the 3rd umpire to change the obvious ones worked well for a while until a couple of controversial non-decisions happened and it got canned.
I don't think putting it the hands of the umpires is the answer.
The be honest I wouldn't be that fussed if they just done away with the whole things.
I don't think putting it the hands of the umpires is the answer.
The be honest I wouldn't be that fussed if they just done away with the whole things.
I've heard some people say that a similar method was trialled in Australia and it didn't work as the players stood their ground expecting a 3rd ump call every every time. The key is enabling the umpire to make their decision straight away (i.e. the make the decision onfield straight away or they immediately go upstairs). No arsing about and the best umpires will still be those that have the highest success rate with a minimum of 3rd umpire referral.
Plus any country which attempts to hound umpires out of their job or threaten to abandon tours because of umpiring except in extreme cases should be dealt to.
Plus any country which attempts to hound umpires out of their job or threaten to abandon tours because of umpiring except in extreme cases should be dealt to.
Kram81
Well-Known Member
Yeah in the BigBash and the players started taking their time to get to the pavilion once they cottoned on to having a chance of a decision getting looked at. Shame as it corrected some shockers early on.
troll3y
Active Member
(typed during the 1st Test)
Many people have been asking why the third umpire doesn't quickly step in and tell the umpire if he's made a howler. This isn't feasible because it has to be standardised for every possible scenario -- clear-cut or not. Suppose the Trott LBW shout was given not out when the Aussies had no reviews: how long are we willing to give the third umpire to precariously judge whether or not there was an edge? That particular decision was not clear-cut, and I would not expect a third umpire to make such a crucial call on such a fine-line incident after looking at just one replay. Yes, it would work if there was a massive inside edge and there was one or two inches between the ball hitting the bat and the ball hitting the bat -- one replay would be all you need, and you can resolve that error before the bowler has even reached the top of his mark. What about close calls like the Trott dismissal, though? Marais Erasmus took several replays before boldly overturning the on-field decision, and that couldn't have been done with a quick word to Aleem Dar. Is Trott just meant to stand there waiting for the third umpire to finalise the decision?
As for taking the DRS out of players' hands, I again have to disagree. In some cases, only the batter will know of an inside edge for an LBW decision, and it has been demonstrated many times that these edges get missed by the on-field umpire. The two noises almost always happen so close together, and the edge will often be a fine one, and in the heat of the moment it's no wonder that the umpire might miss it. (Incidentally, do the umpires still get earpieces wired up to the stump mics? Having worked in the broadcasting side of things, complete with having the stump mics turned up in my ears, I can tell you that this makes a world of difference. Couple with all their training and having an eagle eye on what's going on 22 yards away, the edges will be a lot easier to detect.)
I still fervently believe that the biggest thing wrong with the current DRS system is the players' approach towards it. I'm saddened by denied LBW shouts now, because the very first thing that happens that is all eyes look to the fielding team captain to see if they will review. Adam Gilchrist wrote recently that "[the] reality and finality of seeing the umpire's finger raised [or not raised] has been erased", and it's wrong that the decisions of the on-field umpires are majorly devalued. Captains and players need to change their mindsets so that the umpire is right by default unless there is overwhelming doubt. If you're give out LBW and you know you haven't hit it, don't walk down to your partner at the other end. If you bowl a decent ball that strikes the pads and give an 80% appeal, don't call a conference and discuss the decision if it's given not out. If you swing wildly at a delivery outside off and maybe heard a noise then get given out caught behind, you probably are. Batters have to understand that you don't always feel an audible edge when the ball goes past. How many times has a batter appeared shocked at a caught-behind decision, reviewed instantly, then been given out anyway because there was an evident edge? Captains and players need to start accepting that it's perfectly acceptable to still have reviews remaining at the end of the innings. Break the glass in case of emergency, not just because you can.
Many people have been asking why the third umpire doesn't quickly step in and tell the umpire if he's made a howler. This isn't feasible because it has to be standardised for every possible scenario -- clear-cut or not. Suppose the Trott LBW shout was given not out when the Aussies had no reviews: how long are we willing to give the third umpire to precariously judge whether or not there was an edge? That particular decision was not clear-cut, and I would not expect a third umpire to make such a crucial call on such a fine-line incident after looking at just one replay. Yes, it would work if there was a massive inside edge and there was one or two inches between the ball hitting the bat and the ball hitting the bat -- one replay would be all you need, and you can resolve that error before the bowler has even reached the top of his mark. What about close calls like the Trott dismissal, though? Marais Erasmus took several replays before boldly overturning the on-field decision, and that couldn't have been done with a quick word to Aleem Dar. Is Trott just meant to stand there waiting for the third umpire to finalise the decision?
As for taking the DRS out of players' hands, I again have to disagree. In some cases, only the batter will know of an inside edge for an LBW decision, and it has been demonstrated many times that these edges get missed by the on-field umpire. The two noises almost always happen so close together, and the edge will often be a fine one, and in the heat of the moment it's no wonder that the umpire might miss it. (Incidentally, do the umpires still get earpieces wired up to the stump mics? Having worked in the broadcasting side of things, complete with having the stump mics turned up in my ears, I can tell you that this makes a world of difference. Couple with all their training and having an eagle eye on what's going on 22 yards away, the edges will be a lot easier to detect.)
I still fervently believe that the biggest thing wrong with the current DRS system is the players' approach towards it. I'm saddened by denied LBW shouts now, because the very first thing that happens that is all eyes look to the fielding team captain to see if they will review. Adam Gilchrist wrote recently that "[the] reality and finality of seeing the umpire's finger raised [or not raised] has been erased", and it's wrong that the decisions of the on-field umpires are majorly devalued. Captains and players need to change their mindsets so that the umpire is right by default unless there is overwhelming doubt. If you're give out LBW and you know you haven't hit it, don't walk down to your partner at the other end. If you bowl a decent ball that strikes the pads and give an 80% appeal, don't call a conference and discuss the decision if it's given not out. If you swing wildly at a delivery outside off and maybe heard a noise then get given out caught behind, you probably are. Batters have to understand that you don't always feel an audible edge when the ball goes past. How many times has a batter appeared shocked at a caught-behind decision, reviewed instantly, then been given out anyway because there was an evident edge? Captains and players need to start accepting that it's perfectly acceptable to still have reviews remaining at the end of the innings. Break the glass in case of emergency, not just because you can.
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
I still don't see a problem with each umpire having two reviews each, per innings where they can go upstairs to the 3rd umpire when they are unsure.
I do agree with you on the player's attitude towards the umpire's decisions though.
I do agree with you on the player's attitude towards the umpire's decisions though.
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
The 3rd umpire should be allowed to step in for the "shockers" as well, if the umpire didn't go upstairs.
Even so, no system is ever going to be perfect and controversy is largely good for the game.
Even so, no system is ever going to be perfect and controversy is largely good for the game.
