ICC news October 11, 2013

Umpire's call denied to players, reveals Sutherland

42

The ICC decided against allowing teams to keep referrals that were denied on an umpire's call out of fear the game would be slowed down too much, even as it approved the introduction of a DRS "top-up" after 80 overs, the Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland has revealed. As he discussed the fall-out from the Nine Network's decision not to employ Hot Spot during this summer's Ashes series, Sutherland said the equity of umpire's call verdicts had been debated "long and hard" by the chief executive's committee at the most recent ICC meeting.

While Hot Spot's effectiveness and use has been a point of contention since the Ashes Tests in England earlier this year, the loss of referrals to tight decisions that have stayed with the umpire's original verdict created a similar level of discussion among players, spectators and administrators. Sutherland said it was still possible that such reviews would be handed back to the players, but admitted there was hesitance based on the possibility that the number of reviews may increase substantially.

"We debated umpire's call long and hard, and what was eventually decided was that they wanted to leave that pending for a little while," Sutherland said. "We agreed to the top-up after 80 overs. That will come back on the agenda, and it's not a bad idea. The ICC assessment is that if you don't lose a review for umpire's call, you will increase the number of referrals by at least double, and that will change the game. Everyone likes the idea of the referral being really valuable, and you need to think really carefully about using it, because it all comes back to the howler."

Sutherland denied that CA needed to step in to the stand-off between Nine and Hot Spot's ringmaster Warren Brennan, and rejected the notion that Australian cricket's governing body did not provide financial support in the way of other nations. He said that CA's rights fees factored in the broadcast costs of Nine, whereas other nations paid for production in-house and then charged at higher odds for the rights themselves. "Indirectly we're paying for it," he said.

"The first use of Hot Spot was all about broadcast enhancement. And in Australia that's been something Nine have sponsored and dealt with and had discussions with Warren Brennan and his company in the past, they've had arrangements that they've used successfully. We've never been involved with those discussions and never needed to be. That continues to be a commercial negotiation between those two.

"I've spoken with [Nine chief] David Gyngell about it, I know and understand from Nine's viewpoint they're not walking away from that and see it as an ongoing discussion. They certainly have concerns about Hot Spot in various ways, both commercially and in an operational capacity, and it's something they will work through. They've been able to sort it out in the past, so let's see if they can sort it out. This is still six weeks out from the series, it's not a unique circumstance where Nine and Hot Spot have had discussions about broadcast enhancements."

Debates about DRS have ranged from whether the system should be used at all to which technology is most reliable and which system makes the best use of it. Sutherland saw a tension around the issue of how much accuracy should be demanded from technology that will always have a certain margin of error, no matter how small.

"The biggest problem is what is your satisfaction level about imperfection," he said. "We can all say 'we know it's not perfect', but someone's acceptance of imperfect might be here and another's is 99.9%. That area of grey in between those two extremes is where this system gets into trouble. Not saying this is true, but as an example, do you accept the fact that if 80% of the time a nick will show on Hot Spot, but you know that 20% of the time it won't - do you accept that or not?"

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • popcorn on October 16, 2013, 6:08 GMT

    Snicko is a MUST in the absence of Hot Spot.

  • David_Bofinger on October 14, 2013, 1:08 GMT

    Hawk eye is notionally good to about 5mm, but the safety margin used is IIRC half the size of a ball - about 110-115 mm. That seems a lot. Perhaps we should trust it a little more than we do?

  • ScottStevo on October 13, 2013, 20:16 GMT

    @JG2704, I disagree, the varying degrees of how wrong the umpires get it make no difference to the end result, so whether it's slightly wrong, or completely and utterly, ridiculously wrong, it's still wrong. @souravkr, I don't see how umpires reviewing every decision makes better use of the reviews as players would urge umpires to check every slight incident. The no ball is an odd one as the 3rd umpire needs to step in every delivery, or not at all. It's unfair on bowlers who are in a rhythm hitting their mark only to find out they've been no-balling all the while once a wicket is taken.

  • souravkr on October 13, 2013, 6:33 GMT

    @ScottStevo- At least it ensures the time used up is utilized properly. You won't have batsmen reviewing clear edges in the hope that Hot Spot won't catch it, and howlers not being corrected because the team has no reviews left. And the TV Umpire should always remain in the game, and not be called to check a decision. If its not a no-ball, can't the TV Umpire just relay this back to the on-field Umpire then and there, without having a "Umpire Review"? As i said, 'Smart' umpiring is all that's needed.

  • geoffboyc on October 12, 2013, 19:45 GMT

    Authorities are stuck between a rock and a hard place here; they are trying both to preserve onfield umpire's integrity and get all the decisions right. Why not go the whole hog; either give the decision making back to the two umpires out there and accept any mistakes without argument (MY PREFERENCE), or hand the decision making to the man in the pavilion watching on the TV whenever there's a doubt? Umpire's call is a fudge between the two.

  • JG2704 on October 12, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    @dejfrith on (October 12, 2013, 10:40 GMT) So what you are saying is that those upstairs should be the only ones deciding on reviews? The problem with that is that I reckon those upstairs would be so worried about not reviewing something which should have been reversed that they'd review everything and delay the game even more which is surely what those in charge are trying to get away from? Or they could go the other way and miss something which should have been reversed. I have always been in favour of the players being in charge of reviews. They have a limited number of reviews anyway and no team can say "You looked at this one for them but not this one for us" which could happen if another official is in charge of it all So I think players having reviews limits any possible dissent too as they are in charge of what is looked at.

  • JG2704 on October 12, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    @SC13159 on (October 12, 2013, 8:00 GMT) Fair enough but I could still see issues there

    @ScottStevo on (October 11, 2013, 15:29 GMT) I'd say there's a difference between an incorrect decision and a bad decision/howler. If you look at the last Ashes series , the Broad decision could not be described as anything but a howler but there were those which fall into the incorrect decision category but not howler.

    Brad Haddin's dismissal in the final inns of the 1st test was technically incorrect but you could never say it was a howler - the umpire missing such a thin edge. Even the review seemed to lack conviction

  • JG2704 on October 12, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    @mikewright on (October 11, 2013, 11:41 GMT) Sorry but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say that the fielding side should lose a review for umpires call on LBWs (as it is not a howler) when the ball is clipping the stumps but you say they should NOT lose a review for an LBW where the ball clips the inside edge. That is not a howler either and at least with the ball clipping the stumps it is technically out and out if the umpire gives it. If the ball clips the bat before hitting the pad it is technically (LBW) not out. Sorry but that is really bizarre logic.

    PS Also , umpires may be certain in their minds about LBW's and still get it wrong.

  • dejfrith on October 12, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    It's been obvious to me ever since 1983, in Sydney, when John Dyson was reprieved in the first over when run out by a yard and then batted on for five hours (effectively costing England the Ashes), that the all-seeing eye upstairs must be brought in to establish the truth. Never did I envisage that the players in the field would be involved. They shouldn't be. Big Brother(s) off the field can order a freeze on play while they establish the truth of an incident/appeal. There will be delays - as there are now - but these delays will not lack tension. This way the restricted (and unfair) number of referral requests won't be a problem, and the precious truth will prevail every time. Keep the players out of it. Let's give the ICC a limit of a further five years to see the blinking obvious.

  • ScottStevo on October 12, 2013, 9:42 GMT

    @souravkr, the major issue you'll have if the umpire's are given DRS, then they'll review almost every decision. Have a look at run outs, so few are decided on the spot by the umpire's - why? Well, it's much easier to use slo mo video than real time. An to exaggerage my point, you need only look at the ridiculous amount of times in recent test series where almost half a team's wickets are being looked at for no balls after the event. I somewhat agree with your viewpoint in that umpires have always been utilised to make all the decisions and we should all play by the umpire's rulings, in keeping with the traditional spirit of the game, however, in all honesty, the way in which umpire's are hung out to dry when errors are made, they'd have no choice but to review every decision and the game would be much worse for it.

  • popcorn on October 16, 2013, 6:08 GMT

    Snicko is a MUST in the absence of Hot Spot.

  • David_Bofinger on October 14, 2013, 1:08 GMT

    Hawk eye is notionally good to about 5mm, but the safety margin used is IIRC half the size of a ball - about 110-115 mm. That seems a lot. Perhaps we should trust it a little more than we do?

  • ScottStevo on October 13, 2013, 20:16 GMT

    @JG2704, I disagree, the varying degrees of how wrong the umpires get it make no difference to the end result, so whether it's slightly wrong, or completely and utterly, ridiculously wrong, it's still wrong. @souravkr, I don't see how umpires reviewing every decision makes better use of the reviews as players would urge umpires to check every slight incident. The no ball is an odd one as the 3rd umpire needs to step in every delivery, or not at all. It's unfair on bowlers who are in a rhythm hitting their mark only to find out they've been no-balling all the while once a wicket is taken.

  • souravkr on October 13, 2013, 6:33 GMT

    @ScottStevo- At least it ensures the time used up is utilized properly. You won't have batsmen reviewing clear edges in the hope that Hot Spot won't catch it, and howlers not being corrected because the team has no reviews left. And the TV Umpire should always remain in the game, and not be called to check a decision. If its not a no-ball, can't the TV Umpire just relay this back to the on-field Umpire then and there, without having a "Umpire Review"? As i said, 'Smart' umpiring is all that's needed.

  • geoffboyc on October 12, 2013, 19:45 GMT

    Authorities are stuck between a rock and a hard place here; they are trying both to preserve onfield umpire's integrity and get all the decisions right. Why not go the whole hog; either give the decision making back to the two umpires out there and accept any mistakes without argument (MY PREFERENCE), or hand the decision making to the man in the pavilion watching on the TV whenever there's a doubt? Umpire's call is a fudge between the two.

  • JG2704 on October 12, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    @dejfrith on (October 12, 2013, 10:40 GMT) So what you are saying is that those upstairs should be the only ones deciding on reviews? The problem with that is that I reckon those upstairs would be so worried about not reviewing something which should have been reversed that they'd review everything and delay the game even more which is surely what those in charge are trying to get away from? Or they could go the other way and miss something which should have been reversed. I have always been in favour of the players being in charge of reviews. They have a limited number of reviews anyway and no team can say "You looked at this one for them but not this one for us" which could happen if another official is in charge of it all So I think players having reviews limits any possible dissent too as they are in charge of what is looked at.

  • JG2704 on October 12, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    @SC13159 on (October 12, 2013, 8:00 GMT) Fair enough but I could still see issues there

    @ScottStevo on (October 11, 2013, 15:29 GMT) I'd say there's a difference between an incorrect decision and a bad decision/howler. If you look at the last Ashes series , the Broad decision could not be described as anything but a howler but there were those which fall into the incorrect decision category but not howler.

    Brad Haddin's dismissal in the final inns of the 1st test was technically incorrect but you could never say it was a howler - the umpire missing such a thin edge. Even the review seemed to lack conviction

  • JG2704 on October 12, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    @mikewright on (October 11, 2013, 11:41 GMT) Sorry but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say that the fielding side should lose a review for umpires call on LBWs (as it is not a howler) when the ball is clipping the stumps but you say they should NOT lose a review for an LBW where the ball clips the inside edge. That is not a howler either and at least with the ball clipping the stumps it is technically out and out if the umpire gives it. If the ball clips the bat before hitting the pad it is technically (LBW) not out. Sorry but that is really bizarre logic.

    PS Also , umpires may be certain in their minds about LBW's and still get it wrong.

  • dejfrith on October 12, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    It's been obvious to me ever since 1983, in Sydney, when John Dyson was reprieved in the first over when run out by a yard and then batted on for five hours (effectively costing England the Ashes), that the all-seeing eye upstairs must be brought in to establish the truth. Never did I envisage that the players in the field would be involved. They shouldn't be. Big Brother(s) off the field can order a freeze on play while they establish the truth of an incident/appeal. There will be delays - as there are now - but these delays will not lack tension. This way the restricted (and unfair) number of referral requests won't be a problem, and the precious truth will prevail every time. Keep the players out of it. Let's give the ICC a limit of a further five years to see the blinking obvious.

  • ScottStevo on October 12, 2013, 9:42 GMT

    @souravkr, the major issue you'll have if the umpire's are given DRS, then they'll review almost every decision. Have a look at run outs, so few are decided on the spot by the umpire's - why? Well, it's much easier to use slo mo video than real time. An to exaggerage my point, you need only look at the ridiculous amount of times in recent test series where almost half a team's wickets are being looked at for no balls after the event. I somewhat agree with your viewpoint in that umpires have always been utilised to make all the decisions and we should all play by the umpire's rulings, in keeping with the traditional spirit of the game, however, in all honesty, the way in which umpire's are hung out to dry when errors are made, they'd have no choice but to review every decision and the game would be much worse for it.

  • ladycricfan on October 12, 2013, 8:00 GMT

    @JG2704, after watching one or two slow mo replays,if the third umpire finds that any on field decision is wrong he can intervene and correct it. On field umpire has only one look at real time play to make his decision. Third umpire has the advantage of slow mo replays. Whatever third umpire decides the players have to accept it. He will never miss the one like broad's nick. Any closer ones he might spot or miss. It doesn't matter. Just accept his decision.

  • souravkr on October 12, 2013, 5:50 GMT

    Why even give the captains any leeway at all? Smart umpiring is all that's needed. A howler should be detected by the TV umpire immediately and relayed back to the on-field umpires. On field umpires should consult the TV umpire if they are not completely sure about the decision. No need for the DRS and the time-wasting and controversies about it.

  • on October 12, 2013, 3:52 GMT

    Big mistake using snicko as a revue tool, Snicko cant tell the difference of bat which creaks or player dragging a spike or hitting the ground with the bat, on top of that snicko graphic is overlayed manually with the sound, thus errors are going to happen as the IT "expert" can get things wrong or misslead with In accurassy

  • KSPillai on October 12, 2013, 1:14 GMT

    1. Use DRS to determine if ball is pitching outside leg stump. Should be mandatory for all LBW decisions. Doesn't take time as replays are not needed. The biggest howler is out.

    2. Determine point of impact if the player is not offering a shot. Umpire can decide if the player is offering a shot. Question is, is playing a shot reviewable? If so it must be a team's review.

    3. Snicko - today there are microphones that can pick up the tiniest sound. The issue is in the processing of the signal.

    Sound is defined by amplitude and frequency. Let the software filter the sound if amplitude is less than a preset threshold level. Remember we are trying to eliminate howlers.

    The range of frequencies generated by ball hitting bat and brushing the pads should be different. This can be used to decide separate them. Use this only if the amplitude is above threshold. Unless it's clearly bat, filter out the sound.

    Once these systems are working we can think of predictive technologies.

    KS Pillai

  • fireballer on October 11, 2013, 23:14 GMT

    Why complicate things with umpire's call.IF IT'S hitting the stumps you should be out. Should not matter if it's 50% of the ball or less. Umpire's call only complicate things even more.

  • timbojimbo23 on October 11, 2013, 20:23 GMT

    They need to enforce a strict time limit on using a review. If its a howler, then you know immediately and thus should have to make the decision straight away. If you need a discussion of multiple players to decide whether to use it, it obviously wasn't a bad decision in the first place.

  • JG2704 on October 11, 2013, 19:45 GMT

    IMO the reviews being replenished after 80 overs is a poor idea for reasons already mentioned on here. However I also think it's poor that a team loses a review when an LBW dec is technically out and personally think the side should not lose a review for such instances even if they don't get the wicket from it. One idea to eliminate the possibility of endless reviews is you're allowed 2 Umpires Call reviews on top of the normal reviews.So if you appeal for anything which is definitely not out you lose that review period but if you lose out on an umpire's call review you lose a separate review and it doesn't eat into your main reviews.If you limit it to 2 UC reviews per team the team cant review everything because you will lose the right to review after 2. Also you may get teams getting overambitious with it - thinking it will at least be an UC - and it turns out to be missing. If its a time wasting issue then there are other ways to speed up the game before looking at the DRS

  • JG2704 on October 11, 2013, 19:37 GMT

    @PureTom on (October 11, 2013, 6:45 GMT) There is actually quite a high number of umpires call LBWs which go against the fielding side and where they lose a review. I do however agree with your theories re having your reviews topped up after 80 overs. It means that a side can use reviews as a time wasting measure in the last 10 overs of the inns , knowing they'll have them replenished after 80 overs

    @SC13159 on (October 11, 2013, 12:56 GMT) Re "Give the task of correcting the howlers to the third umpires. System will be simpler that way " Problem is there are too many grey areas on what a howler is and if a 3rd umpire does not correct what is seen by some as a howler then it will cause even more controversy. At least with the review system as it is , it is purely down to the teams re deciding what to review etc

  • on October 11, 2013, 18:12 GMT

    Personally, I'd like to see teams lose a review if they have a successful review that would have been umpires call, UDRS is supposed to be for the howlers.

  • Cubitt on October 11, 2013, 17:10 GMT

    They wouldn't waste time and review a lot more if they regained an 'umpires call' if they only had 1 review to begin with...

  • brittop on October 11, 2013, 16:20 GMT

    I think this is the correct decision. Teams don't review for fear of umpire's call. If they don't lose a review for umpire's call, they'll be reviewing far more LBWs, and slowing the game down even more.

  • ScottStevo on October 11, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    How absurd is this term "howler"? Seriously grating. The main reason DRS was introduced was to eradicate bad decisions, ie, any decision which is incorrect is a bad decision, so they're all howlers! It may have been introduced to elimiate those decision that are completely woeful where the umpire must've been asleep, however, that's not how it's been utilised on the field, and never will be. So those ignorant to the fact that teams will use DRS more "tactically" than to eliminate terrible decisions are deluded! Thus, regardless of why it was introduced, the ICC needs to ensure that it implementats DRS and is fair and most of all consistent. Where umpire's call comes into play consistency goes flying out the window - and that's the real disappointment of DRS. Two reviews is enough and simply eliminate upmire's call. If it's hitting the stumps, you're out, none of this 49% of the ball is smashing leg stump to pieces isn't out for one side and out the other based on the initial decision.

  • Green_and_Gold on October 11, 2013, 15:06 GMT

    @ mikewright - The point of DRS should be to get the decision correct which results in less howlers. The team using DRS is asking for the use of technology to check that the decision made is the correct one - umpires call indicates that the technology is unable to either support or overturn the decision thus the review is wasted. I would think that the technology should result in either 'out' or 'not out' decisions thus eliminating umpires call all together. Plus this system removes the first 2 howlers from the umpire and gives them to the captains. If they blow them in the first over (lets say on reasonable calls) then the rest of the innings will be suspectable to howlers as before DRS was introduced. The current system needs changing as its not working.

  • geedubnz on October 11, 2013, 14:49 GMT

    The point of DRS is to eliminate umpiring howlers. It is not to second guess close decisions. Awarding "umpires call" reviews back to the players reinforces the latter behaviour which is not the intention. End of.

  • Selassie-I on October 11, 2013, 13:25 GMT

    Nice move from CA there, essentially releasing a statement saying "pfft, noting to do with us mate".

    Although ultimately in my view, it's in or out, hitting or not, simple. The whole 'umpires call' situation is a farce in the first place.

  • venkatesh018 on October 11, 2013, 13:01 GMT

    Typical ICC rubbish. What if there are more reviews if the teams don't lose reviews based on "Umpire's Call" ? It is a minor price to pay for getting the decision correct every time. I expect more ridicule for DRS because of this Head-in-the-sand approach of the ICC !

  • Green_and_Gold on October 11, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    As a fan of cricket i am finding myself being more and more frustrated by the development of DRS. I enjoyed cricket before DRS and at the same time I hated it when a wrong decision was made against my team - i lived with it though and in some ways it was an exciting part of the game. I also support technology and its role in the game. I like the idea of better decisions being made and think it adds value to the game. I understand that there are challenges when implementing a new process however i am frustrated with the way those challenges have been met. There has been no progress with DRS in the last few years. India wont use it at all (they should if only to make sure the developments relate to their playing conditions), the tech is not standard (use hot spot in one series but not another) and worst of all - there is too mush focus on the process (how many referrals) rather than what it is there for - getting better results / stopping howlers.

  • ladycricfan on October 11, 2013, 12:56 GMT

    Channel 9 is helping ICC to weed out intrusive technology from DRS. Hotspot is out. Next out will be hawkeye. Then DRS will only use slow motion replays with stump mic. To remove howlers players don't even need to get involved. Third umpire just has to intervene when he spots a howler after one or two replays.

    Howlers need to be removed. The tradition that players should accept umpires' decision should be restored. Give the task of correcting the howlers to the third umpires. System will be simpler that way.

  • 200ondebut on October 11, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    Well -- this just goes to show the stupidity of those running the game. We are talking about LBW's, given not out, but replays show it was technically out. But because of some arbitrary decision to protect the sensitivity of umpires feelings, it is still not out. Not sure why a fielding side should lose a review because of this. There is generally 7 hours of play a day (i know it should be six but things are always slow) - so adding an extra 10 mins is hardly going to detract from the spectators enjoyment. Indeed, in test cricket it is one of those events that gets spectators to concentrate again. They need to realize that they are running the game for the spectator - the paying punter without whom there would be no money for the international game and therefore probably not game - and not for themselves, the players or officials. Solution - get rid of umpires call.

  • EdGreen on October 11, 2013, 12:15 GMT

    As usual the ICC is wrong - keep umpires calls and no top ups would be both faster and fairer.

  • TheUltimateTruth on October 11, 2013, 11:54 GMT

    DRS was brought in to eliminate howlers. Umpire's call are not howlers. So, the players have to ask themselves "is this a howler?" before asking for a review. By not giving the review back to the players on an umpire's call decision the players are correctly being penalized for using the DRS too loosely.

  • mikewright on October 11, 2013, 11:44 GMT

    @puretom. Have you watched a test match since the review system came in? "Umpires call" reviews are extremely common!! I would suggest that as many as 1 in 2 reviewed LBWs come down to umpires call.

  • mikewright on October 11, 2013, 11:41 GMT

    All of the people demanding that failed "umpire's call" reviews do not result in the loss of that review. What your are essentially saying, is that by the players refusing to use the system for its intended purpose (eliminating howlers), they should eventually be allowed to get it changed. What absolute nonsense.

    Umpires need to remember they shouldl only give LBWs if they are certain beyond reasonable doubt. Reviews should be reduced to one and captains should remember the purpose of the system in the first place.

    In fact, I'd only make one change to the actual rule. Where fielding team appeals an LBW and there is an inside edge, they should not lose that review. Inside edge onto pad are very difficult to see for the fielding team and their existince/non-existence are the primary cause for howlers - so should be what the system really concentrates on.

  • on October 11, 2013, 11:28 GMT

    a Umpires call has to be technically out to be umpires call why should bowlers lose a review for something that is technically out?

  • geoffboyc on October 11, 2013, 11:22 GMT

    Best way of speeding up the game is to let the TV boys keep viewers amused with all the techno entertainment and let umpires make the decisions, accepting they are human and might make some mistakes- a system that used to work fine with all its imperfections.

  • Joji_ on October 11, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    So what Sutherland is saying here regarding the costs that while negotiating for the rights with Channel Nine CA considered the cost to broadcast. They must have then considered these 250k dollars as potential costs back then. Since now Channel Nine is not paying for the HotSpot camera will they be allowed to pocket these costs or will it be transferred to CA?

  • CrICkeeet on October 11, 2013, 10:16 GMT

    DRS has taught me many things.. Umpires' call wont reduce DRS chance? Mayb within a few days DRS invented smthng lyk UMPIRES' "Missed Call" where umpire is half sure :) :) :)

  • on October 11, 2013, 8:24 GMT

    Funny stuff here. Why not just get rid of the umpires call altogether. Make it in or out, one way or the other, umpires call is ridiculous and just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

    If Sutherland thinks CA is paying for Hot Spot indirectly, then why is he not kicking up a fuss about its non use? You might want to think these things out a little better, James.

  • bigopinions3000listentome on October 11, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    PureTom, How often do you watch cricket nowadays? Losing a referral when the DRS process ends in 'umpire's call' drives so many mad because (other than being unjust, as we agree)... how often it occurs! I watch way too much cricket and am amazed how often it occurs. I'd prefer them to keep their referrals on "umpires call' and forget about the 'top up'.

  • Nutcutlet on October 11, 2013, 7:56 GMT

    The 'back-to-zero' board-wipe of reviews after 80 overs is a risible method of preserving what is left of their umpires' dignity. In effect, the posturing of the ICC by denying the merit of preserving "umpire's call" reviews is admitted by this innovation. Never admit you were wrong, just overlay it with something that you thought of, believing that you are smarter than the informed fan! No, ICC, you aren't smarter & the covering of your back is obvious to all. Must try harder! (BTW, the game will still be held up by an increase in the number of reviews - so that isn't any genuine argument.)

  • tamperbay on October 11, 2013, 7:41 GMT

    Umpire's call verdicts WILL be given back to the players... eventually. I just makes sense. It may just take the law makers a while to realise that.

    When a team reviews a decision and it turns out that the umpire was clearly right in his original decision, then sure, that means it was a speculative and unnecessary review, and a waste of everyone's time, and the team should lose one of their allotted reviews. But when a batsman is given not out and the ball would have knocked leg stump out of the ground (but the middle of the ball is just outside the middle of leg stump by 2mm), then it could easily be argued that it is an unfair decision in the first place, and it is surely unfair that the fielding team loses one of their reviews over it.

  • PureTom on October 11, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    I'd love to know what assesment would make the number of reviews double. An "umpires call" review is an incredibly slim margin, so for it to happen is actually quite rare. The idea of losing a review when the system doesn't know the answer is just plain unfair. It's like playing "20 Questions" and losing a question every time your opponent answers "Maybe". The top up after 80 overs is a mistake. A good idea implement badly. Rather have a cool down on a review. After a review is used it becomes "live" again after a certain number of overs have passed. By wiping the slate clean at 80 overs you are encouraging teams to "use up" their reviews before they get given new ones. The potential also exists for reviews to be used as a time wasting tactic at the end of day one if a team knows they will be given 2 more at the end of the days play.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • PureTom on October 11, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    I'd love to know what assesment would make the number of reviews double. An "umpires call" review is an incredibly slim margin, so for it to happen is actually quite rare. The idea of losing a review when the system doesn't know the answer is just plain unfair. It's like playing "20 Questions" and losing a question every time your opponent answers "Maybe". The top up after 80 overs is a mistake. A good idea implement badly. Rather have a cool down on a review. After a review is used it becomes "live" again after a certain number of overs have passed. By wiping the slate clean at 80 overs you are encouraging teams to "use up" their reviews before they get given new ones. The potential also exists for reviews to be used as a time wasting tactic at the end of day one if a team knows they will be given 2 more at the end of the days play.

  • tamperbay on October 11, 2013, 7:41 GMT

    Umpire's call verdicts WILL be given back to the players... eventually. I just makes sense. It may just take the law makers a while to realise that.

    When a team reviews a decision and it turns out that the umpire was clearly right in his original decision, then sure, that means it was a speculative and unnecessary review, and a waste of everyone's time, and the team should lose one of their allotted reviews. But when a batsman is given not out and the ball would have knocked leg stump out of the ground (but the middle of the ball is just outside the middle of leg stump by 2mm), then it could easily be argued that it is an unfair decision in the first place, and it is surely unfair that the fielding team loses one of their reviews over it.

  • Nutcutlet on October 11, 2013, 7:56 GMT

    The 'back-to-zero' board-wipe of reviews after 80 overs is a risible method of preserving what is left of their umpires' dignity. In effect, the posturing of the ICC by denying the merit of preserving "umpire's call" reviews is admitted by this innovation. Never admit you were wrong, just overlay it with something that you thought of, believing that you are smarter than the informed fan! No, ICC, you aren't smarter & the covering of your back is obvious to all. Must try harder! (BTW, the game will still be held up by an increase in the number of reviews - so that isn't any genuine argument.)

  • bigopinions3000listentome on October 11, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    PureTom, How often do you watch cricket nowadays? Losing a referral when the DRS process ends in 'umpire's call' drives so many mad because (other than being unjust, as we agree)... how often it occurs! I watch way too much cricket and am amazed how often it occurs. I'd prefer them to keep their referrals on "umpires call' and forget about the 'top up'.

  • on October 11, 2013, 8:24 GMT

    Funny stuff here. Why not just get rid of the umpires call altogether. Make it in or out, one way or the other, umpires call is ridiculous and just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

    If Sutherland thinks CA is paying for Hot Spot indirectly, then why is he not kicking up a fuss about its non use? You might want to think these things out a little better, James.

  • CrICkeeet on October 11, 2013, 10:16 GMT

    DRS has taught me many things.. Umpires' call wont reduce DRS chance? Mayb within a few days DRS invented smthng lyk UMPIRES' "Missed Call" where umpire is half sure :) :) :)

  • Joji_ on October 11, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    So what Sutherland is saying here regarding the costs that while negotiating for the rights with Channel Nine CA considered the cost to broadcast. They must have then considered these 250k dollars as potential costs back then. Since now Channel Nine is not paying for the HotSpot camera will they be allowed to pocket these costs or will it be transferred to CA?

  • geoffboyc on October 11, 2013, 11:22 GMT

    Best way of speeding up the game is to let the TV boys keep viewers amused with all the techno entertainment and let umpires make the decisions, accepting they are human and might make some mistakes- a system that used to work fine with all its imperfections.

  • on October 11, 2013, 11:28 GMT

    a Umpires call has to be technically out to be umpires call why should bowlers lose a review for something that is technically out?

  • mikewright on October 11, 2013, 11:41 GMT

    All of the people demanding that failed "umpire's call" reviews do not result in the loss of that review. What your are essentially saying, is that by the players refusing to use the system for its intended purpose (eliminating howlers), they should eventually be allowed to get it changed. What absolute nonsense.

    Umpires need to remember they shouldl only give LBWs if they are certain beyond reasonable doubt. Reviews should be reduced to one and captains should remember the purpose of the system in the first place.

    In fact, I'd only make one change to the actual rule. Where fielding team appeals an LBW and there is an inside edge, they should not lose that review. Inside edge onto pad are very difficult to see for the fielding team and their existince/non-existence are the primary cause for howlers - so should be what the system really concentrates on.