Reviews and Hawkeye - good or bad for cricket?
Discussion
The reviews system was introduced, it has been said, to eliminate the 'howlers' - really bad decisions which unfairly gift wickets to fielding sides or gift lives to batsmen.
You know the type - when the ball pitches outside leg stump or gets an inside edge and a batsmen is given out LBW, or edges behind where it hits anything other than the bat. Or where the ball turns out of the rough and turns all the way to slip - and a batsman is given out. These are the things the review system was introduced to eliminate
BUT, it has now become part of the slow bowlers armoury. The amount of LBWs now being given on the strength of the review system is really noticeable.
I'm not sure if that is a bad thing, per se - after all, if you have a bat, bloody use it!
But some of the borderline LBWs where hawkeye shows a ball just clipping a bail or leg stump seem to me to be no longer in the realm of 'correcting howlers'.
If it is so 'good for the game' why limit a side to 2 reviews? Just review every decision where there is any element of doubt.
You know the type - when the ball pitches outside leg stump or gets an inside edge and a batsmen is given out LBW, or edges behind where it hits anything other than the bat. Or where the ball turns out of the rough and turns all the way to slip - and a batsman is given out. These are the things the review system was introduced to eliminate
BUT, it has now become part of the slow bowlers armoury. The amount of LBWs now being given on the strength of the review system is really noticeable.
I'm not sure if that is a bad thing, per se - after all, if you have a bat, bloody use it!
But some of the borderline LBWs where hawkeye shows a ball just clipping a bail or leg stump seem to me to be no longer in the realm of 'correcting howlers'.
If it is so 'good for the game' why limit a side to 2 reviews? Just review every decision where there is any element of doubt.
I'd say it has been a positive thing in general.
It was always going to be used tactically, I am a little dissapointed that batsman (say ones clsing in on a century) in the world cup, have automatically challenged to see if they can "get lucky" that is poor in my view, but inevitable.
I think the two reviews is precisely to stop the spinners (imagine warne with this system) from appealing every ball that the batsman misses.
Overall I reckon it has turned out alright, although it does give the lie to the teams claiming umpires are hopeless, by and large I can't remember too many howlers.
It was always going to be used tactically, I am a little dissapointed that batsman (say ones clsing in on a century) in the world cup, have automatically challenged to see if they can "get lucky" that is poor in my view, but inevitable.
I think the two reviews is precisely to stop the spinners (imagine warne with this system) from appealing every ball that the batsman misses.
Overall I reckon it has turned out alright, although it does give the lie to the teams claiming umpires are hopeless, by and large I can't remember too many howlers.
I'd say it's generally been a good thing and whilst it may be good for spinners all it's done is mean that they are getting wickets they always should have. Lets not forget that technology has been massively in favour of the batsmen for the last twenty years with cricket bats now being much more powerful than those of even ten years ago (largely due to the handle construction). If you asked any current batsmen if he had a choice between having to use a bat with 20 yr old technology and no reviews or use a modern bat and have reviews they would all take the latter. Vaughan said he had one of Atherton's old bats and reckoned his bat was worth 4 runs on his career average which is a bloody massive difference.
I also think it's made batsmen play more positively against spinners as they are much more vulnerable to the lbw....which is good for the game.
I also think it's made batsmen play more positively against spinners as they are much more vulnerable to the lbw....which is good for the game.
I feel that the DRS system is a good idea but is flawwed.
I like the teams can review a decision say that the batsman has been caught behind but hasnt hit the ball they can call it and see that he hasn't hit it which is a good idea.
Sometimes though when there is "not sufficeint evidence" or "only 49% of the ball is hitting legstump" and is given not out, it does annoy me.
I feel also that teams just gamble on a decision and as an umpire whne you know it's out they must get pretty pissed off.
I like the teams can review a decision say that the batsman has been caught behind but hasnt hit the ball they can call it and see that he hasn't hit it which is a good idea.
Sometimes though when there is "not sufficeint evidence" or "only 49% of the ball is hitting legstump" and is given not out, it does annoy me.
I feel also that teams just gamble on a decision and as an umpire whne you know it's out they must get pretty pissed off.
It's a good thing but I'm not sure I trust hawk eye fully. For example there are too many balls which hit the knee roll of a batsman's pads (and he's taken a decent stride forward) yet hawk eye will still project the ball clipping the top of off.
This whole 'umpires call' thing seems a bit flawed too. If the authorities are telling us that hawk eye is accurate then why is a ball which is clipping either top or leg stump given not out (if the original call is not out). Yet this very same decision would go against the batting side had the umpire originally given it out.
I'd rather they just use hawk eye for looking at where the ball pitches and leave the rest to the on field umpire.
And I know we have it all in test matches but there is no snicko or hotspot at the world cup which is a bit silly. Incidentally hot spot could not be used as the technology used within it needs a military export license which wasn't granted to India or Sri Lanka.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/06022011/28/hot-spot...
This whole 'umpires call' thing seems a bit flawed too. If the authorities are telling us that hawk eye is accurate then why is a ball which is clipping either top or leg stump given not out (if the original call is not out). Yet this very same decision would go against the batting side had the umpire originally given it out.
I'd rather they just use hawk eye for looking at where the ball pitches and leave the rest to the on field umpire.
And I know we have it all in test matches but there is no snicko or hotspot at the world cup which is a bit silly. Incidentally hot spot could not be used as the technology used within it needs a military export license which wasn't granted to India or Sri Lanka.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/06022011/28/hot-spot...
The basic problem with many sports` use of technology is that of deciding how far to go with it. This tied with the fact that the technology will never filter down to the grass roots of any sport makes for a right old conundrum.
In crickets case, full use of tech would reduce onfield umpires to hat and coat racks. The "benefit of the doubt" decisions are removed and the game becomes clinical and IMO the worse for it.
I think that sport should be governed by the same set of rules at all levels and if technology is used by the elite that cannot happen. The current abuse of the review system simply reinforces my view.
In crickets case, full use of tech would reduce onfield umpires to hat and coat racks. The "benefit of the doubt" decisions are removed and the game becomes clinical and IMO the worse for it.
I think that sport should be governed by the same set of rules at all levels and if technology is used by the elite that cannot happen. The current abuse of the review system simply reinforces my view.
What is peculiar is that the system is different depending on whether the umpire gives it out or not out - the 'on field call'.
If the ball is 'clipping the stumps' and you are given out - you are out. if given not out and the ball is clipping the stumps, you are safe.
Doesn't make sense - either it is clipping and out or clipping and not out - the on field decision should have nothing to do with it.
If the ball is 'clipping the stumps' and you are given out - you are out. if given not out and the ball is clipping the stumps, you are safe.
Doesn't make sense - either it is clipping and out or clipping and not out - the on field decision should have nothing to do with it.
johnfm said:
What is peculiar is that the system is different depending on whether the umpire gives it out or not out - the 'on field call'.
If the ball is 'clipping the stumps' and you are given out - you are out. if given not out and the ball is clipping the stumps, you are safe.
Doesn't make sense - either it is clipping and out or clipping and not out - the on field decision should have nothing to do with it.
The umpire is supposed to give "benefit of the doubt" to the batsman. Therefore if he calls it not out and the ball is not hitting the stumps full ball, he can be considered to have been given the benefit doubt to the batter. If however the ball is hitting full on the stumps then it is a mistake and he can reverse. If the ball is 'clipping the stumps' and you are given out - you are out. if given not out and the ball is clipping the stumps, you are safe.
Doesn't make sense - either it is clipping and out or clipping and not out - the on field decision should have nothing to do with it.
johnfm said:
obob said:
Definitely good, because 
s like Ponting don't walk even if they've got more edge than U2.
Who does walk?s like Ponting don't walk even if they've got more edge than U2.Why would you?
Your career and livelihood depends on performance - and in games with no review system, umpires regularly make huge mistakes.
obob said:
johnfm said:
obob said:
Definitely good, because s like Ponting don't walk even if they've got more edge than U2.
Who does walk?s like Ponting don't walk even if they've got more edge than U2.Why would you?
Your career and livelihood depends on performance - and in games with no review system, umpires regularly make huge mistakes.
No, thought not.
johnfm said:
obob said:
johnfm said:
obob said:
Definitely good, because s like Ponting don't walk even if they've got more edge than U2.
Who does walk?s like Ponting don't walk even if they've got more edge than U2.Why would you?
Your career and livelihood depends on performance - and in games with no review system, umpires regularly make huge mistakes.
No, thought not.
johnfm said:
obob said:
Definitely good, because s like Ponting don't walk even if they've got more edge than U2.
Who does walk?s like Ponting don't walk even if they've got more edge than U2.Why would you?
Your career and livelihood depends on performance - and in games with no review system, umpires regularly make huge mistakes.
How can we 'take his word for it' when Ponting has shown he's less than honest when it comes to edging, in fact today's was not even an edge but he hit it, and then not walking.
Fine don't walk but then don't lecture us on the 'spirit of cricket' and such crap.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff