Umpire review system to be trialled in Sri Lanka-India Tests

The ICC's umpire review system

Apprently it was to be tried out in Eng-SA test series but the two boards didn't reach an understanding over this and hence it'll first be tried in Ind-SL test series starting 23-Jul.

Hawk-Eye for ball tracking purposes only (not for predicting the potential future trajectory of the ball)

What does this mean? Will Hawkeye be used just to know where the ball pitched ; or the whole thing that we see on TV, ie, if it'd have hit the stumps, missed the leg-stump/off-stump, gone over the stumps, hit the top of the stumps etc?

Plus will the batsman in the middle be able to take the call for the appeal or will the captain sitting in the dressing room will have the authority on which decision to challenge and which to accept?

Hawkeye will be used upto the point of impact.

Good move btw.

Only if the 3rd umpires have the balls to alter decisions made by the onfield umps.

That was the sticking point when it was trialled in domestic cricket here, they had this rule that it had to be a 'clear' mistake.

Now looking at the replays of appeals i'd have changed the decision on some but they were not 'clear' howlers by the onfield umpire.

The players gave up appealing in the end because they knew what the outcome would be

Poor umpires doing this series luckily know there are only allowed to be 3 appeals?

Otherwise jeez, you'd be bowling 20 overs in a day!!!!

Not sure I believe Hawkeye should be used. A small shift in the camera position changes the line etc.. I believe??

holcs wrote:Poor umpires doing this series luckily know there are only allowed to be 3 appeals?

Otherwise jeez, you'd be bowling 20 overs in a day!!!!

Not sure I believe Hawkeye should be used. A small shift in the camera position changes the line etc.. I believe??

The posted article says nothing about a limit on the number of appeals. If they don't have a limit, then holcs is right, it'll become a farkin boring appeal-against-the-decision-athon.

Can someone clarify if it is open slather in the trial or is there a limit to how often the umpires can be challenged (or am I not reading the article correctly?)?

Basically, that referral shit is boo-hockey anyway. Take the Aussies versus the ICC World XI - there were three mistakes from the third umpire which made me livid. Video evidence, clarity and he still got it wrong. Well, it didn't make me livid, the game was meaningless.

Brass Monkey wrote:Basically, that referral shit is boo-hockey anyway. Take the Aussies versus the ICC World XI - there were three mistakes from the third umpire which made me livid. Video evidence, clarity and he still got it wrong. Well, it didn't make me livid, the game was meaningless.

Aye Dan, it was interminably boring waiting the 5 minutes or so that it was taking to make the referred-decision based on Hawkeye and whatever other technology during the World XI game. If they are gonna go this way, there must be a limit on the number of appeals against the umpires decision. I think three per side per day would work, but even then it could waste upwards of 30 minutes.

I do agree with limitations, if that's the way they're going to go. But you know there'll be whinging when someone wants a fourth appeal that's crucial.

I always understood it was only to be 3 appeals per innings that we not upheld.

If there is no limit, then it'll get blinking ridiculous. The over-appealing at the moment is terrible from a fair number of players and side, two of the worst sides for it IMO would be trialling this system, it seriously would get dull!

Should be 3 appeals with an appeal knocked off if it's not upheld.

That way it prevents abuse and players will not appeal knowing they're actually out

holcs wrote:I always understood it was only to be 3 appeals per innings that we not upheld.

If there is no limit, then it'll get blinking ridiculous. The over-appealing at the moment is terrible from a fair number of players and side, two of the worst sides for it IMO would be trialling this system, it seriously would get dull!

Totally agree holcs, but the article says nothing about a limit on appeals, merely the conditions that appeals can be made under and the things that will be considered. As I said, surely to fark, it won't be open slather unlimited "let's go to the box"?

JKLever wrote:Should be 3 appeals with an appeal knocked off if it's not upheld.

That way it prevents abuse and players will not appeal knowing they're actually out

That's pretty rational. I'd agree with that.

skully wrote:

holcs wrote:I always understood it was only to be 3 appeals per innings that we not upheld.

If there is no limit, then it'll get blinking ridiculous. The over-appealing at the moment is terrible from a fair number of players and side, two of the worst sides for it IMO would be trialling this system, it seriously would get dull!

Totally agree holcs, but the article says nothing about a limit on appeals, merely the conditions that appeals can be made under and the things that will be considered. As I said, surely to fark, it won't be open slather unlimited "let's go to the box"?

This is the ICC here, we know full well they ain't that clever!!

Just think the whole affair demeans the onfield umpires and puts a huge pressure on the 3rd Umpire

Has to be said the players (well Chris Adams at least) did not like questioning the umpires decisions.

holcs wrote:Just think the whole affair demeans the onfield umpires and puts a huge pressure on the 3rd Umpire

Again I agree. But we all seem to say that in the calm light of day when we are not in the heat of battle. Come T5 of Ashes 09, with the Tests locked at 2-all and a dodgy decsion is made that turns the Test one way or the other, there'll be some serious howling from the aggrieved side.

skully wrote:

holcs wrote:Just think the whole affair demeans the onfield umpires and puts a huge pressure on the 3rd Umpire

Again I agree. But we all seem to say that in the calm light of day when we are not in the heat of battle. Come T5 of Ashes 09, with the Tests locked at 2-all and a dodgy decsion is made that turns the Test one way or the other, there'll be some serious howling from the aggrieved side.

Thats cricket isn't it?

Thats the vagueries and the variables of the game. Its about consistency and human error. Those are the basis of the game.

A batter c0cks up he's out. A bowler c0cks up it races to the boundary. Umpires mess up alot less than players, and thems the breaks IMO.

skully wrote:

holcs wrote:Just think the whole affair demeans the onfield umpires and puts a huge pressure on the 3rd Umpire

Again I agree. But we all seem to say that in the calm light of day when we are not in the heat of battle. Come T5 of Ashes 09, with the Tests locked at 2-all and a dodgy decsion is made that turns the Test one way or the other, there'll be some serious howling from the aggrieved side.

Why, I haven't seen any sooking about the 2005 Aashes.

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

holcs wrote:Just think the whole affair demeans the onfield umpires and puts a huge pressure on the 3rd Umpire

Again I agree. But we all seem to say that in the calm light of day when we are not in the heat of battle. Come T5 of Ashes 09, with the Tests locked at 2-all and a dodgy decsion is made that turns the Test one way or the other, there'll be some serious howling from the aggrieved side.

Why, I haven't seen any sooking about the 2005 Aashes.

Not from me. I did some serious sooking about the sh!t arrogant attitude of Hayden with his walking down the track and gifting his wicket until the Oval, Gilly's inability to cope with Fred, Martyn, Ponting, Clarke and Katich all doing stoopid things at various stages, and Aus constantly letting England win the big moments (which was always a strength under AB, MT and SRW). All-in-all, I was in awe of Fred/Harmy/SiJo and MPV/KP/AS.

holcs wrote:

skully wrote:

holcs wrote:Just think the whole affair demeans the onfield umpires and puts a huge pressure on the 3rd Umpire

Again I agree. But we all seem to say that in the calm light of day when we are not in the heat of battle. Come T5 of Ashes 09, with the Tests locked at 2-all and a dodgy decsion is made that turns the Test one way or the other, there'll be some serious howling from the aggrieved side.

Thats cricket isn't it?

Thats the vagueries and the variables of the game. Its about consistency and human error. Those are the basis of the game.

A batter c0cks up he's out. A bowler c0cks up it races to the boundary. Umpires mess up alot less than players, and thems the breaks IMO.

Aye, which is why I'm happy to leave things as they are with umpires. If we can accept that we don't want to waste hours getting every decision dead right, then let's play on as we are. Definitive line balls like run outs and stumpings should go to the 3rd umpire but leave it at that. Hawkeye is mostly bulltwang and snicko can't be relied upon. Less heat on umpires and more acceptance of their decisions.

I'm betting that if we analyse the dodgy decisions in the just completed WI-Aus series, they will just about even out.

skully wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

holcs wrote:Just think the whole affair demeans the onfield umpires and puts a huge pressure on the 3rd Umpire

Again I agree. But we all seem to say that in the calm light of day when we are not in the heat of battle. Come T5 of Ashes 09, with the Tests locked at 2-all and a dodgy decsion is made that turns the Test one way or the other, there'll be some serious howling from the aggrieved side.

Why, I haven't seen any sooking about the 2005 Aashes.

Not from me. I did some serious sooking about the sh!t arrogant attitude of Hayden with his walking down the track and gifting his wicket until the Oval, Gilly's inability to cope with Fred, Martyn, Ponting, Clarke and Katich all doing stoopid things at various stages, and Aus constantly letting England win the big moments (which was always a strength under AB, MT and SRW). All-in-all, I was in awe of Fred/Harmy/SiJo and MPV/KP/AS.

Was actually talking about sooking about umping decisions.

As was I taips. I personally didn't sook about any umpiring decisions. Of course I can't speak for my colleagues!!! And I distinctly remember complimenting Feltch on his master mind games over Punter.

skully wrote:As was I taips. I personally didn't sook about any umpiring decisions. Of course I can't speak for my colleagues!!! And I distinctly remember complimenting Feltch on his master mind games over Punter.

Never said you did mate, was being a bit tongue in cheek about the Kaspa furore last week.