The review system has revolutionised the game of cricket since its inception in late 2009, but there’s been ever-increasing opinion regarding the ‘umpire’s call’. Can it be bettered?
As it stands, each side gets two successful reviews to play with, meaning if you get your review right then you can keep it, but if it’s a wrong call then you lose it.
Simple, right?
But there’s one little factor that gets the ire of most cricket fans around the world – and it’s often a deciding factor in the majority of decisions.
Umpire’s call comes into play in LBW decisions, which make up 90 per cent of reviews, and comes into effect if less than half the ball is hitting the wicket. The issue is the aura of doubt surrounding ball tracking.
While the technology is extremely good, and does its best to read and predict the path of the ball, there is always going to be a shadow of possible error.
It can never be 100 per cent accurate, that’s just the way it is, so the system is set up to accommodate this.
But the issue here is the challenge itself.
Teams lose their challenge for an incorrect decision, including if it’s deemed umpire’s call. But if that’s a benefit of the doubt call, then why shouldn’t the challenger get the same benefit?
If it comes up as the orange umpire’s call symbol, that’s not saying that the challenge is wrong, it’s basically an ‘I don’t know’.
It says ‘umpire’s call’ because the system is too close to accurately come up with a certain result, so it’s given back to the umpire to defend their decision.
If that’s the case, then the challenging player is technically not wrong, and that means that they shouldn’t lose the challenge.
Should a team retain a challenge if it goes to umpire’s call? Or is it just bad luck?
Many are quick to point out that if the ump’s finger had have gone up, or stayed down, whatever the situation, then the final decision would have gone the other way.
So neither party can be wrong or right, it’s just the way the umpire calls it and that’s what the entire review system was brought in to oppose.
That air of disconnect between out and not out so often will cost a review, because the decision falls in that cloudy area where no one knows what’s happening.
In the same vein, traditionalists will beat up the system because it moves away from what the game has traditionally been and should be: two teams and two umpires.
The umpire’s call is what you get and people should deal with it.
The system, for lack of a better word, degrades the umpires and calls out everything they do wrong, highlighting it and putting doubt in their minds for future decisions.
It’s a tight line, but a team should be allowed to keep their review if umpire’s call comes up.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
The 50% rule should be the rule 100% of the time. Just take the LBW decision off the umpires altogether. They get it wrong so often that at the top level of the game, if they get an appeal and it could be close simply have the umpires make the square sign and send it straight back up stairs. From there if 50% of the ball is hitting then it's out. That takes out any margin of error in ball tracking, hot spot, sniko, are all there to get a definite not out. If they brought this rule in you would see teams finish innings with 2 reviews in hand. LBW has been the most contentious part of the game since the rule was a rule. 99% of reviews are over LBW, and 99% of the time a review of the umpires decision that isn't LBW related goes against the umpire (mostly when a batsman feels he hasn't knicked it). The only other time I can see a batsman reviewing it is if he stands his ground on a catch believing it may have been grassed at the same time as the catch and bowling teams would only ever review if they believe an umpire missed the edge.
Al
Guest
What, of what I said, is wrong? Why be that guy and resort to insults, rather than actually dropping some facts? "...just a visual representation of a bunch of numbers" - is clearly true. "...we don't know... how [it] weighs up ... accuracy" - I'll admit, I'm shooting from the hip here. It is simply a guess that, given the movement of a cricket ball, that the ball tracking software is based on most-likely trajectory with a degree of uncertainty. Maybe later today, in my lunch break, I'll do some research - but for now, I'm happy to admit that's a guess. "it's not black and white" - Are you seriously suggesting that the extrapolation element of the ball tracking software is 100% accurate?
Amrit
Roar Guru
Yeah nowadays innings don't even last that long, Australia gets bowled out for 85 before even playing 85 overs.
Amrit
Roar Guru
Exactly, the concept of the ball hitting 50% of the stumps to overturn a decision is absurd. By the way, I'm never a fan of the ball tracking technology though
Amrit
Roar Guru
I just think the Umpire's call should not taken out of equation when the decision is sent upstairs. The decision should be verified in every way even if the appeal is for one.
Simoc
Guest
Wrong Al. You need to study the technology. It really isn't difficult and has been trialed extensively. Most test cricketers and followers prefer the whinge to finding out because they, like so many viewers are just bone lazy. Even India understands it now and is using it. Some places have used DRS without the right cameras in the right positions and screamed foul, just like all the sofa lying bozos wanted to hear. And if you understand physics your understanding of DRS will be enhanced.
Al
Guest
What certainty does the ball tracking algorithm need to have then? What you see on the TV is just a visual representation of a bunch of numbers, and we don't know where the bar is or how the software weighs up vertical versus horizontal accuracy. The simple fact is that, certainly for LBWs, it's not black and white - so, to eliminate "umpires call", we instead give that discretion to software engineers, who might say: "We'll set it to give outs at 70% certainty, that leaves some benefit of the doubt with the batsmen."
Jacko
Guest
Get rid of Umpires call. Its either not out or out. The fans can see and judge for themselves and the major frustration is that games are still being decided by umpires decisions rather than technology. League is the same where the ref has to decide if it was try or no try and then the technology has to prove the ref wrong rather than rule on the try. Union seems to get it right more frequently with their "try, no try" question
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
Spot on. It wasn't there to make sure every decision was perfect, it was just to make sure there were no shockers missed. In my opinion, allowing 15 seconds to "discuss" whether it is worth challenging is wrong too. If you are adamant you have been "ripped off" the challenge should be instantaneous. None of this, "Uh, do you think it pitched in line? Could it have been too high?" I would also like to see it changed to one challenge per player per Test i.e. a batsman is allowed to challenge his own dismissal and a bowler is allowed to challenge their dismissals (when bowling). With perhaps one fielding Captains challenge. If you get your challenge wrong (remembering it has to be an instantaneous challenge) you have no more for the Test. If you correctly challenge, then you keep your challenge. I know a lot of people would think this would lead to more challenges but I don't think so. I think that too many challenges these days are for, "You never know". If you take away the second chance (for the entire Test) and make it an instantaneous challenge, maybe players will respect it more. it would certainly change the way some bowlers like to believe that every appeal is a certain wicket...
Al
Guest
"So neither party can be wrong or right, it’s just the way the umpire calls it and that’s what the entire review system was brought in to oppose." My understanding is that the DRS was brought in to remove the howler, the obviously incorrect decision - when a player is given out caught and they're certain they've missed the ball, or out LBW when they've edged it onto their pads. When teams choose to review a decision tactically, and it goes to 'Umpire's Call', yes - they should lose that review. I dislike the automatic renewal of reviews at the 80th over - it only encourages silly reviews.