PDA

View Full Version : Even the Review System is Biased towards certain teams


cricman
December 4, 2009, 01:14 AM
Watson to Chanderpaul, OUT, another loose forward prod from Chanders to one pitching closer to off stump, there's a noise before Haddin collects, no reaction from the umpire and we have a review. For the second time involving Chanderpaul, several replays are reviewed and again Hotspot is inconclusive. Is it bat flipping pad? Australia don't look pleased. Second time Chanders has been involved in a caught-behind review. Ponting, who asked for the review, leads the celebrations when the outcome is OUT. Hotspot didn't show anything but the review works for the Australians this time. Chanders is gone for a fighting 62. The bowling change works and a dangerous stand is snapped. This one was far less convincing that the first appeal last session. Chanders shakes his head and walks off. Crucial breakthrough from Watson.

ICC makes new fans everyday ....

Theres suppoosed to be conclusive evidence, ala NFL to overturn something. I bet if it was India, South Africa or England playing that would have been not out

Jesus87
December 4, 2009, 02:17 AM
ICC makes new fans everyday ....

Theres suppoosed to be conclusive evidence, ala NFL to overturn something. I bet if it was India, South Africa or England playing that would have been not out

The Umpire was Asad Rauf. I heard he has applied for an Australian passport, his chances are high of receiving one. He has won Ponting's heart and Ponting's dad shoshor runs the Immigration. :D

cricket_pagol
December 4, 2009, 03:18 AM
The rules for the review system needs to be clear... how can the third umpire give out without clear evidence?

In the last game Adrian barath's LBW was a poor call as well, the ball was just kissing the leg stick, so there was an element of doubt. I was it was very unfair... the review system needs to be perfected, so that it is fair for every decision and that the field umpire's initial call should not have any bearing on the third umpire's decision.

Gowza
December 4, 2009, 06:11 AM
i didn't see today's play so no idea about this wicket but the way they explained it during the first test match is that it's not supposed to change the decision of the 50/50 decisions the umpires make, it's goal is to prevent the really really bad decisions made by umpires. so basically if it is a 50/50 decision the review system is supposed to take it back to the umpires call, if it was a bad decision by the umpire then the review system is supposed to rectify the situation and make the call the correct one.

tbh, it just seems too complicated and controversial, either use the technology in full to make the right decision for every review or don't use it at all.

al Furqaan
December 4, 2009, 06:29 AM
its still better than no review and umpiring from parker-ashoka-bucknor triumverate.

Baundule
December 4, 2009, 07:26 AM
The review system should not have the clause of 'changing or not changing the onfield umpire's decision'. When something is referred for review, the on-field umpire should be ignored. If it is about justice, then it should not carry it's tail from the dubious decision of the onfield umpu.

The decision should be left to technology as much as possible. If Hawk-eye says the ball was hitting the stump and not pitching outside leg, it should be an LBW. If the snicko or hotspot says there is no edge, then it is not out, no matter what the on-field dumb decided earlier.

BD-Shardul
December 4, 2009, 08:27 AM
[বাংলা]গরিবের কোন বন্ধু নাই[/বাংলা] :(

auntu
December 4, 2009, 12:31 PM
[বাংলা]গরিবের কোন বন্ধু নাই[/বাংলা] :(
Yes, I saw this out and even before calling for review Ponting was reluctant to call. It was Watson who repeatedly asking his captain for review. I also saw Ponting making his face and shaking his head in a negative direction while talking with other sleep fielders.

Also 3 of the commentators specially Richie Benaud was expressing that as it is not conclusive even in hot spot it may be not out. As they couldn't find any conclusive deviation after the ball pass the bat.

_Rafi_
December 4, 2009, 02:07 PM
That was a purely stupid decision. Hotspot showed nothing from the bats and replays were also not conclusive them how can third umpire overturned the decision. It was also against the rule as doubtful decision should leave to the field umpire's conscience.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition

Baundule
December 4, 2009, 07:22 PM
And now I am pissed off with the commentators, as they are heavily criticizing Summy for he asked for a review. They are terming it as a priviledged review and so Summy should have not asked for it!!! For an LBW, there is almost always a doubt in the batsman's mind, especially when a ball pitching on the middle is swinging further in.

The second issue of the commentators is that Summy took a few seconds before asking for the review. Such a criticism is ridiculous, because for an LBW, the batsman will always ask for the opinion of his partner at the other end. I have seen much longer delay for a review request by the Australians.

Well, Dougy's claim of catching the last wicket took ages for the field umpires to refer it to the third umpires. As Australia has no referal left, the umpires will do it for them! On the other hand, Roach was given wrongly out caught, they did not care for asking the third umpire. The funny thing is, the commentators are supporting Bollinger's claiming the catch, when the ball clearly dropped before reaching him.

Any system is as good as the people who are implementing it. In matches involving Aus or England, the decisions should be given 100% by the technology, otherwise it will always suffer.

zainab
December 5, 2009, 11:25 AM
SL suffered badly too with the umpiring which seemed to favour India. the review system should have been implemented here. Poor Dilshan was given out both times by bad umpiring decisions.

Baundule
December 6, 2009, 02:01 AM
They have produced another BS. It was the last wicket. Roach hits the pad of Bollinger without any suspicion and the hawk-eye says the ball was going to hit the leg stump 'completely' and the review says the field dumbu's decision stands!!!! The field umpu obvioulsy said it was not out and Bollinger is still batting. WI were going get a lead of 30 runs, even after earlier Charismas of the field umpires and the review umpire. The umpires have collectively scored at least 200 runs for Aus.

And the news is Mark Benson is retiring because he is unhappy with the review system (http://www.cricinfo.com/ausvwi09/content/current/story/438322.html); he apparently got hurt, because his decisions were turned down by the review. :D

If this is true, the umpires need to be matured. They should accept the review system as a helping hand for themselves to make correct decision. Umpiring is more about giving the correct decision than culturing ego to give dumb decisions. UDRS is nothing but an extension of the third umpiring system, where the call for the review is made by the players in stead of umpires. Whereas the field umpires can call for the third umpire as many times as they want, the UDRS gives this opportunity only twice per innings for the players.

Neel Here
December 6, 2009, 02:03 AM
And the news is Mark Benson is retiring because he is unhappy with the review system;
great news !!