The review system.

I must admit when I viewed the lbw shout live, I thought the ball was missing leg.  Stokes confirms this and said the ball hit both pads, and was going down the leg side before hitting the front pad.  The ball then deflected on to the back pad, thus rendering the technology in error.  I will have another look!

if let umpires check everything they will check everything to the point of idiocy. already send run outs upstairs when the batsman is yards out. enough time and overs lost in a day already through reviews and general messing about

I remember all of the noise after the World Cup play off in 2009 when Ireland lost out to France following a handball by Thierry Henry.
A very interesting opinion on the rights and wrongs of the controversial incident was given by none other than Roy Keane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMHwCbbG6WY

Harsh, brutal, but ultimately a realistic assessment.

Similar to New Zealand in the World Cup final, you will not hear the Australians crying about the umpires decision.

They dropped a difficult catch, they blew their final review on a highly speculative LBW that the bowler must have known pitched outside leg, Lyon fumbled a run out opportunity.

All of this happened before the ball from Lyon struck Stokes on the pads.

Their players succumbed to the pressure of operating in the cauldron like atmosphere, possibly the umpire also made an error.
That is sport.

Possibly the review system does require to be reassessed, but let's not allow that debate to take anything away from the drama that we were treated to yesterday.

For what it's worth, Lyon's ball did appear to be heading down legside, DRS had it hitting.
Hopefully the boffins are reviewing it this morning to assess whether the system was correct or not.

Umpires call rule is plainly wrong.  It you are out you are out and if you are did you are not.  At least you don’t lose a review anymore if you lose a decision through it

There was an interesting piece presented by Simon Hughes on Sky a few years back regarding how DRS makes the stumps higher and wider.
Just found an article that he wrote way back in 2012 on the subject, it is a bit out of date, but still an interesting read.

The wicket in the umpire’s interpretation – backed up by Hawk-Eye – has become higher and wider. In other words 30.5 inches high (instead of 28) and 14 inches wide instead of nine (an extra cricket ball’s width on either side). It has increased the bowler’s potential target area by a remarkable 70 per cent (much to the chagrin of many a retired bowler: 30 per cent of Swann’s test wickets are lbw; the corresponding figure for Derek Underwood, a phenomenally accurate spinner who took 297 Test wickets in the 1970s, is eight per cent). This ‘expansion’ of the wicket is the biggest change in any of the game’s fundamental properties since the third stump was introduced in 1775.

Before Hawk-Eye, the time-honoured method was to assess where a batsman’s foot was when struck – and if it was a fair way down the pitch (as Broad’s was) or on the line of leg stump (as with Pietersen), the umpire would generally give him the benefit of the doubt (though there is no such advice in the laws of the game).

We bowlers often thought more lbws were out than were given and Hawk-Eye backed us up when we first introduced it on Channel 4 in 2001. We were amazed at how many deliveries were projected to be hitting the stumps line-wise.

On the low-bouncing pitches of the subcontinent this scientific evidence is hugely influential. Because the Hawk-Eye projection has only got to show the ball clipping the stumps to support an lbw decision, umpires think “out” more often than not. Batsmen who think it is their divine right to be spared lbw unless they are struck on the ankle plumb in front are now being summarily dismissed at the merest whiff of an lbw shout. It is quite a wake-up call.

It has also had a knock-on effect. Bowlers are getting closer to the stumps and trying to bowl more wicket to wicket and to get the ball past the inside, rather than outside, edge of the bat. Batsmen, brought up to play with bat and pad close together, are now anxious to keep their pad out of the way. Several England batsmen were bowled playing too far inside the line – trying to avoid being hit on the pad.

A thorough scientific analysis of Hawk-Eye is in progress to assess its accuracy (the MCC conducted an assessment in 2009 and declared Hawk-Eye accurate to 2.5mm). It may be decided that, in future, at least half the ball should be predicted to hit the stumps to guarantee an lbw decision. In the meantime, expect to see batsmen playing straighter than before, keeping their legs out of the way or skipping down the pitch.

Nobody has addressed the core point in the argument , viz the "rugby" system where every out or not out decision can be subject to review by match officials sitting in the stands with all the available technology .

In rugby the decisions which affect the result are not driven by the opposing teams , but by officialdom without any subjective input by the teams .

So if Joe Root "catches " a ball and puts his finger up ( as he did) the decision is taken in the cold light of day by the match officials in the stands , who are not subject to any emotional input emanating from the field of play .

There is still the possibility that technology can get it wrong , but the blame then departs from any individual involved , and it is better to be able to blame the "machine" rather than a person who may have to live with an incorrect decision for the rest of their lives ( The Ashes are important to a huge number of people ).

I hate the way ICC works. As I have already mentioned before, there is no one in the game checking for no balls. I don't understand why teams don't object to that.

Some of the criticism the review system gets is because people don't understand it. It is intended to give the teams a lifeline if an umpire gets it horribly wrong. This being competitive sport teams try to squeeze all the juice out of it and hence review hairline cases, for which it wasn't originally intended. The debate about if its hitting its out and if not then not out is of no use because the system isn't built for that. The system is built to protect the on field umpire and to make sure that the decision he took in real time gets the most weightage. You will need to bring in a completely new system, like the rugby one, to change the umpires call and similar stuff. For now the system will err in the favor of the umpire. If you are going to use the system by reviewing a call that the umpire clearly had correct, and even an idiot could see was correct, you have no right to complain about the howler that the ump gets wrong. It was for the howler that the review was intended, not for a ball pitching miles outside leg. Aus paid the price for questioning the umpire when he was clearly correct. Right or wrong, that is what the system is supposed to do.

There does seem to be a bend in the extrapolated path but I think that comes from Lyon being an off spinner? I don't see any problem with Hawkeyes detection of where the ball landed and hit the front pad. The extrapolation is basically down to the operator sitting in the tech van. This has been clarified by many before. The operator has made many mistakes in the last but this doesn't seem to be a mistake from him and his part is completely correct. The extrapolation Is a bit dodgy.

Joel Wilson could easily have given it out knowing England would of course review.

I'm pleased he chose not to.

Kelly, the game still has to flow. In Rugby, try decisions can take an age and still be wrong. Interpretation is still subjective (see VAR) and prone to error.

Wilson's was not a howler. There was doubt because it hit both pads which I believe he saw. If it just hit the back pad he would have given it. By hitting the front pad he felt the ball was not straightening.

Warner and Harris dropped Stokes, Oz burnt a review and Lyon's botched run out attempt was quite simply staggering.

Injera-I really hope umpires don't start (or are influenced by) making decisions based on teams having reviews left-

especially where umpires call is still an option for the LBW decisions as this obviously has implications for the final

decision

There's something that all you "if it hits it's out" proponents don't seem to appreciate about "umpire's call".
When the animation shows the ball hitting the stumps it is simply a graphical representation of a cone of probable paths that might have been taken by a ball bouncing many times off the estimated point on the pitch with the roughly measured speed and direction,
condensed into a single easy to visualise "ball" - when half of this "ball" appears to hit the stumps what it's really saying is that statistically the accuracy of the prediction is at the exact point where half the time it hits and half the time it misses. When less than half of the "ball" graphic is shown to hit then the odds are slightly in favour of it not having hit, so the evidence is not strong enough to reverse the umpire's judgement if he judged it not out but is also not strong enough to reverse the judgement if he judged it out as there was still a good chance it hit. When the ball is instead shown to narrowly miss this includes the chances that it sometimes hits, but the evidence is now strong enough in favour of it missing that an "out" decision could be overturned.

And that is my theowy wot it is (that it is).

Well surely the idea is that human judgement backed up by technology ought to be better than either alone.

sewter lives again 26 Aug 19 17:07 Joined: 04 Oct 01 | Topic/replies: 5,013 | Blogger: sewter lives again's blog
Injera-I really hope umpires don't start (or are influenced by) making decisions based on teams having reviews left-

especially where umpires call is still an option for the LBW decisions as this obviously has implications for the final

decision



Why not, especially if late in the game like that?

It would have ensured the correct decision. After all that is the whole point of having a decision review system to ensure correct decisions are made.

ICC has a very non serious attitude to umpiring though. I don't see anything changing.

Every ball should be looked at by technology. There aren't that many in a game that are controversial.

I have no idea when technology is looking at things if they do so in the order given on screen. I.e. was it a fair ball, was the bat involved, was it pitching outside leg, or whatever order they do it. Technology can surely do all these things in parallel and there would be virtually no delay. No need to report back to the umpire unless it was out/not out or whatever.

I suppose I am forgetting the results of the technology are interpreted by humans. Or at least I think I am.

Get a still pic of the delivery and look at the angle it as bowled from.
Follow the natural line and it's going miles down leg.
It would have needed to turn a lot to reach Hawkeye's destination.
I'd like to see the Hawkeye raw data and put a protractor on it re degrees of angle of spin.

As far as I'm concerned if it just hits the outside of the stumps, and would remove the bails, then it's out. There's been a few recently when the bails haven't been removed for some reason.

Nobody should get the benefit of the doubt.

Juce you can argue all you want on that one and even of you were correct it wouldn't detract from what I'm saying. How many decisions have been overturned in this series?

The umpire's call gives the standing umpires undeserved influence.

If Hawkeye shows it clipping and has been given out, it stays out. If given not out and reviewed it stays not out. That's plain daft.

Perhaps all 'clippage' should be not out.

Paine's misuse of the review plus Lyon's howler ensured the miraculous outcome was confirmed.


Long live fallibility.