29 December 2009

Overturning borderline referrals

It worked in England's favour today, but I can't say I felt comfortable with the way that both Smith and de Villiers were given out LBW today. The video replay showed that the ball would have just clipped the stumps on both occassions, so effectively the bowler is given the benefit of the doubt rather than the batsman. The reason they were given out was that the on field umpire had already given the decision and as he couldn't be proved definitely wrong, the decision stood.

Had the on field umpire given those decisions not out, and England referred them, they would have had to be given not out after video replays, as clipping the stumps is not enough to say conclusively that a not out decision would have been wrong.

Two alternative decisions for the very same ball based on the on-field umpire's original decision seems entirely flawed to me and it demonstrates that the ultimate goal has to be no "referrals" - just a review of all close decisions using the technology available, with the umpire holding up play if necessary.


GROV said...

I watched this passage of play and I have to say that the referral system bothers me, especially as I am an umpire these days!

I believe that, as I think I have stated before,the system is flawed as it is the umpire and not the players who should make the referral. Both the Laws of Cricket and The Spirit of the Game state that the umpire's decision is to be respected. The current system is at odds with this principle and cannot help those of us at club level.

Also, if technology is to be used, the third umpire should have all available tools at his disposal i.e. the snickometer and hotspot, assuming that they are as accurate as hawkeye?

Incidentally, if the ball is proved to be clipping the top of the stump it is out! I thought that both decisions were a lot more clear-cut than hawkeye suggested so perhaps I do not have total faith in it!

Jez said...

I'm a bit torn. On the one hand i do like the fact that we stick with the on-field umpire's decision in the case when the ball is clipping the stumps. We do need to continue to support them or end up just being umpired by Hawk-eye. On the other hand i agree with Grov, it does seem a bit ridiculous when Hawk-eye says the ball is hitting the stumps for it to then be given not out. Overall i am quite liking the system as it is. Once hot spot and snicko become readily available, that will improve it further.

Aussie Dave said...

If the umpires have the ability to review all close decisions we will end up seeing them review all but the most frivolous appeals and we'll end up getting only 70 overs bowled in a day. Just look at some of the run-outs that get referred when the batsman is in (or out) by metres.

Ed said...

There's quite a long gap between each ball so any poor appeals will be ruled out without needing to hold up play - they normally get several replays in between balls on tv. For the close ones, a small hold up is a necessary downside of more accurate decisions. That's how I see it anyway!!

Anonymous said...

Amiable dispatch and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you as your information.

Anonymous said...

Opulently I assent to but I think the collection should secure more info then it has.