I know there is a lot of cricket lovers out there.
I know DRS is not everyones cup of tea,however, i think its a fantastic innovation - something that football could well do with looking at TBH.
Anyway, there was an incident in South Africa v Pakistan test today that opened up a 'loophole' in the way DRS works.
Scenario...
Kallis is given out caught to Ajmal.
Kallis refers it thinking that the umpire gave him out caught (it came direct off the pad too).
Hawyeye shows that he didnt hit it,and therefore decision is to be reversed, however, the replay also shows that it would have been Umpires Call (ie less than half the ball was clipping leg stump) for LBW and gave Kallis out LBW.
The loophole here is that the Ump has given him out caught and yet even though its Umpires call for LBW - there was no Umpires call for LBW in the first place.!
For all you non cricket lovers out there, please dont come on saying ' errrr, crickets boring !!!!' - it just shows the density of oneself.! Dont denigrate - be constructive ! Or at least go out and find out the rules of cricket - probably the best sport in the world.
0
Comments
Blatters legacy to football ! (oh, sorry, forgot about the magnificent deicison about refs behind the goal).
If the system says "umpires call" and he didn't originally give the batsman out for LBW, then that decision doesn't get changed. If the system had said "out lbw" then it becomes interesting. LBW has to be appealed for. So if the bowling side haven't appealed then it doesn't matter what DRS says. If they go up for the catch, and it's reviewed, then the only decision that really should come back is caught out, or not caught out.
It's down to the on-field umpire to get the bowling side to clarify what they are appealing for. There's nothing to stop them saying both, i.e. if he's hit it we've caught him, if he hasn't then he's plum.
At the end of the day DRS is about getting accurate decisions. No player is going to be hard done by if they're given out LBW when they are plum LBW, no matter what the on-field appeals or calls were.
All artificial interference in sport is wrong.
If the appeal was for a catch, there was no catch as the ball came from the pad. Presumably the umpire gave Kallis out as he (the umpire) thought that Kallis had touched the ball with his bat. Therefore (to my mind) lbw becomes irrelevant .... UNLESS the original appeal from Ajmal was for lbw. Are 'we' sure that the umpire gave Kallis out caught, in that case m'lud see my opinion above, or is it possible the umpire gave Kallis out lbw ? Does an appeal from the fielding side have to be for a specific reason ? .. When Kallis asked for a review the umpire should ask the replay umpire (in my opinion) to check for a specific reason for or against dismissal, the umpire should ask 'did he touch it' or 'was that lbw' .. as in RFU when the referee asks for 'any reason why I cannot award a try', or he may ask 'was a try scored'. If the reason asked for proves to be incorrect, in this case Kallis appealed against a catch, there was no catch, then (to my mind) hawkeye 'spotting' an lbw should be irrelevant. As I say, it depends on the remit/leeway given to the replay umpire. As you say Mr President, an interesting conundrum
Suppose could end up with Umpire saying that he's out either LBW or Caught - take your pick, and leave it up to the TMO !
In essence the appealing team are simply asking if the batsman is out or not, and DRS gives us a fuller way to answer that question.
Technically a batsman can't be given out without an appeal (as per the rules of the game), but will walk when it's obvious (bowled, simple catch, run out by a distance, etc.).
The whole point is that it corrects most of the glaring errors and it has encouraged umpires to give LBWs. Most especially in cases where a batsman pads up up a ball that has pitched/hit outside the line of off-stump. In the past batsmen would shove their pad across with the bat tucked in behind the pad and would be deemed to be not out as they were allegedly playing at the ball. Currently most umpires will let a batsman get away with doing that once or twice, but if they push their luck they are often on their way - a batsman can review the decision but if it's hitting he's on his way. Consequently it is encouraging batsmen to use their bats when playing defensively and has brought back the art of off-spin bowling as the balance between bat and ball is now more equal.
;-)
Just before C4 lost the contract to cover Test cricket in 2002, Dermot Reeve did a brilliant piece on how the images are fallible, not least because the cameras used aren't flush on the ground, but raised slightly on stands etc - this alters the perception of things like grounded catches which may look not out, but actually are. The same can be said of the trajectory of marginal lbw decisions. Can't find the actual piece to camera, but this Mark Nicholas piece from then is quite good:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/india/3032659/ICC-take-a-step-too-far.html
Regarding the catches, the camera tends to foreshorten the image making it appear as though the ball has touched the turf before the fielder catches it. Those sort of catches are not necessarily the in the remit of the UDRS as the umpire can request that the third umpire has a butchers at it, he doesn't have to wait until either team requests a review.
Regarding Hawkeye accuracy at predicting the path, that is acknowledged within the DRM system, hence any marginal calls being "Umpires Call", i.e. Hawkeye can't be certain, within it's margin or error, that the ball would just hit or just miss and therefore defers to the on-field umpires opinion.
Mark Nicholas's article is interesting, but that was ten years ago, and i think you will find that improvements have obviously been made since then. Its acknowledged that the 3d image on a 2d medium is inconclusive, and most skippers have come to the conclusion not to waste DRS reviews in this way - however, it was proved in the India test series that DRS is FAR more reliable than Umpires decisions in relation to LBW's.Hotspot, line calls etc. I think almost evryone now acknoeledges this (except the BCCI of course, but i think thats a different agenda).
http://www.capetownmagazine.com/events/South-Africa-VS-Pakistan-Cricket-Test-Series/2013-02-15/11_37_54911_121
I've not seen this case yet (will try and catch highlights later) but generally i'm not sure if the umpire actually says how a players is out - usually the just raise a finger. In this case Kallis should have thought where he was in relation to the stumps in case he was being given "out" by lbw - just becuase the fielders went up for a ctach, teh umpire may have thought differently.........obviusly the 3rd umpire did, and if Kallis was legitimately out, then he's out !!!!
Kallis was given out by the Umpire Caught. It was the TMO that gave him out LBW when it found he hadnt hit the ball.
The rukes (as proved later) say that the TMO can overall the on-field Umpire and give someone out for a decision other than the original one - however, the rules also state that in this case, the default is for the batsman to have been given NOT OUT by the onfield Umpire - therefore 'Umpires Call' would have meant that Kallis should have been given not out.
Hope this clarifies matters !!
Try to watch the highlights - it will explain it better than i am !!