I'm not talking about endless chances to review, I'm only talking about those reviews that constitute to what's called as an "umpire's call" , which is when the final decision remains with the onfield umpire. That is, in case of close calls. Like in the Trott example I gave, had the onfield umpire given Trott out lbw, the decision would've stayed with the onfield umpire because hawkeye showed the ball hitting the stumps. So in such cases losing 1 review out of a total 2 in an innings, is a huge deal. To make myself clear I mean those instances where a team loses a review to appeal an lbw for instance, when the hawkeye shows less-than-half of the ball just flicking either off/leg stump or just clipping the bails and the onfield umpire gives not out. In such cases if the team wishes to review , the appealing team should not lose this particular review as the call will remain with the onfield umpire.
I can give you several more examples of such decisions if you wish, in either favor, both out/not out.
Re: Re: Dear_Demons
by taklu on Jun 27, 2012 05:36 PM
haha , yes if bail doesn't come off it's n.o. but you're talking about the rarest of the rare cases. such incidents have indeed happened where the bail failed to come off , but its a rarity. And in such cases the umpires will immediately walk across to check the stumps to see if everything is alright and the bail is not stuck or anything.
moreover, in order for the review system to be effective, in my opinion they should rethink the number of 'valid' appeals. they shouldn't chalk off a team's review in case of a review being 'umpire's call' ...that's being harsh and its uncalled for.
a classic example is in england-windies 1st test, windies lost a review on trott saved by drs being 'umpire's call' even as the ball was flicking the stumps. two overs later, having unfairly lost the review, windies didn't appeal yet another decision against trott when he was caught behind, but both hot spot and snicko showed he had nicked the ball.
by taklu on Jun 27, 2012 01:53 PM
so even with technology there, the windies were hesitant to appeal a genuine caught behind against trott later. trott was twice lucky. yet another case comes to light of umpiring bias, the windies supporters have long been upset by Erasmus being present in their matches , in second test erasmus took an eternity being a third ump. to give swann out even after hotspot showed a clear nick. what is the doubt in your mind sir?? , and it ended with swann shaking his head as he went back to pavilion even when he was rightly given out, needless to say swann wasn't fined for his behavior.
The lanka-pak series doesn't have DRS , didn't have in ODIs, now doesn't have in tests. i was surprised to not see in odi's and thought it would be in tests, but its not, clearly its due to the cost of technology to do away with drs completely this series, even as there were a few decisions that could've been overturned by drs.
It is good that BCCI has rejected the compulsory use of DRS. It is a ploy by white countries to siphon off money by the way of very high charges for the use of Hot spot camera etc. Can anybody tell what the patent/ equipment holders charge for the use of these equipment which will be used for DRS. Just because BCCI is rich White controlled ICC are finding ways and means to take away as much money as possible from Indians. hvn kumar
by taklu on Jun 27, 2012 01:38 PM
the technology is indeed expensive, not all boards can afford it, lanka opted for partial/exchange drs for their series against eng, when they opted against expensive hot spot tech.
Re: Re: BCCI IS LIKE AN IDIOT
by xvcxvxvv vxvxvxvx on Jun 27, 2012 12:43 PM
If DRS was in place 10 years ago..Sachin would have retired with 5000 runs under his belt. He's Lucky and should do pao Puja to BCCI!
Re: Re: Re: Re: BCCI IS LIKE AN IDIOT
by xvcxvxvv vxvxvxvx on Jun 27, 2012 07:49 PM
You Below IQ...wrong decisions? How many LB's have bowlers not got against him because the umpires are reluctant to take it since he's sachin? Too Many! So what stops Indian cricket from DRS? Because in a test match the whole team would be out within 100 runs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: BCCI IS LIKE AN IDIOT
by xvcxvxvv vxvxvxvx on Jun 27, 2012 12:53 PM
That same very day he agrees to DRS he would retire! I never thought he was much of a match winner. Technique and what nt are all good..if you cannot contribute in vital matches, what's the point? We have tons of Ranji players who can score centuries against Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh!