ICC cricket committee meeting May 21, 2010

ICC backs umpire reviews for 2011 World Cup

Cricinfo staff
38

The ICC Cricket Committee, after its annual meeting at Lord's, has recommended that the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) be implemented in the 2011 Word Cup in the subcontinent and introduced "as soon as possible" in all Test series. The committee, chaired by former West Indies captain Clive Lloyd, also decided to revisit laws that were pitted against the fielding side: it said the practice of the non-striker backing up while the ball was being delivered should be discouraged, as should batsmen changing their grip before the bowler entered his delivery stride.

The most significant decision concerned the UDRS, whose implementation since its introduction in July 2008 has been inconsistent in terms of series where it has been used. Now, though, the ICC committee has called for it to be introduced "as soon as possible" in all Test series. It has also recommended that the system be used throughout next year's World Cup in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, with the same limit of two referrals per innings as in Tests.

That would, however, be subject to agreement with ICC's broadcaster partners ESPN Star Sports, who would have to bear the cost of implementing the system. The committee also recommended introduction of a minimum standard of technology, such as ball tracking technology, including in the third umpire room, and annual reviews of technology and equipment.

The system has received mixed reviews from players and umpires. It landed in controversy during the Johannesburg Test between England and South Africa in January 2010, when a caught behind appeal was turned down by the third umpire Daryl Harper. In a bid to eliminate any inconsistency, the ICC decided it had to meet with all broadcasting companies in a bid to standardise the use of technology, and hosted a workshop earlier in the year.

David Morgan, the outgoing ICC president, had said that day-night Test matches were a possibility in the near future with India and Australia as potential hosts. The ICC, while examining ways in which these games would be played out, stated the matter required further discussion.

The ICC also agreed to examine the law that permitted non-strikers to back up too far while the ball was being delivered, giving them an unfair advantage in an attempt to complete a run. "ICC Cricket Committee agreed that batsmen trying to steal ground when the bowler is running in to bowl should be discouraged. They will look at regulations that require a batsman to remain in his crease until the bowler's front foot lands."

With regards to the switch-hit, the ICC said that a bowler reserved the right not to bowl if he saw the batsman change his grip before entering his delivery stride. "Should the bowler see a batsman change his grip or stance prior to the delivery stride the bowler can decide not to bowl the ball." The switch-hit had been given an all clear by the MCC - the guardian of the laws of cricket- in 2008.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Arem on May 23, 2010, 16:17 GMT

    Agree with the decision about the change of grip and run up. This in fact amounts to a batter going from being right handed to left handed or vice versa. If a bowler needs to declare his style of delivery before hand, then so should the batter. In any case what would happen if a (right handed) batter changes his grip and misses and the ball pitching out side the line his leg stump, hits his pad in line with the stumps - would the batter be given out by the umpire?

  • boris6491 on May 23, 2010, 2:40 GMT

    The UDRS system needs to be shored up and made consistent. There are still many flaws in the system which I think are unfair. For instance, if a decision is too close to call, is referred and is given not out and the benefit of the doubt given to the batsman, the fielding side should not have a review deducted from their available tally. As for the switch hit, I honestly cannot fathom what bowlers have against it. As far as I am concerned, it is a prime opportunity to get a batsman out trying to swing wrong handed, there is every chance of a mishit! The UDRS system needs to be used for all test playing nations whereupon they can all conclude whether or not it adds something worthwhile.

  • Moggy1 on May 23, 2010, 2:22 GMT

    I agree that the UDRS should be used so long as the technology is consistent in all countries. As I doubt this will happen overnight, it should be agreed in principle but not implemented until all countries can be provided with the technology and this should be the responsibility of the ICC, not a commercial broadcaster. As for the backing up law, making the non-striker remain in his crease until the bowler releases the ball will surely cause problems for the umpire. At present, he is watching the bowler's feet to make sure he is not overstepping in his delivery stride, is he supposed to be watching out of the corner of his eye to make sure the batsman is not infringing at the same time? You can't focus on two places at once. And what is the penalty if the batsman does move out of his crease? Restore the bowler's right to run him out if he does move and this threat should stop an unfair advantage being taken unless he wishes to risk losing his wicket.

  • Alexk400 on May 22, 2010, 16:50 GMT

    i do believe we need to restrict the Third umpire decisions. Kind of make it easy for him to make decision with few laws.

    We do not want him to waver and fear the local country media. Instead he should rely on rules. Rules should give him security make correct consistent decision.

    Especially on LBW and caught behind. Those are most challenged. In third umpire rule he has to see more than half the ball hitting the stump. if it is then it has to be OUT. it does not matter who appeals. if it is outside that then it is NOT OUT it does not matter who appeals.

    We should worry about correct decision not protect field umpires mistakes. At present system is there to protect field umpires more than getting correct decision.

    Wrong. Laws should be written to get more consistent correct decision.

  • tfjones1978 on May 22, 2010, 13:34 GMT

    DOUBLE SIDED BATSMEN I believe any batsmen wishing to switch-hit should be required to inform the Umpire (whom informs the bowler) before his innings starts (ie: Once he gets to the crease) that he intends to switch-hit during his innings. Any bowler should then be allowed to bowl on either side of the batsmen, as the batsmen is counted as both a Left and a Right handed batsmen. Thus, whilst a double sided batsmen can hit either side of the crease (normal or switch-hit) the bowler can also bowl outside of either off-stump and leg-stump to the standard distance outside of off-stump.

  • GoldenAsif on May 22, 2010, 13:01 GMT

    I have mixed feelings about UDRS not least because same technology is not available everywhere at the moment. The camera angles etc. used in Australia (Aus-SA series) were far superior to the ones the third umpire had access to in South Africa (South Africa-England series). They need to standardize the system so that everyone benefits equallyfrom it.

  • Kaaaaaaash on May 22, 2010, 9:37 GMT

    well this system has so many crictical problems. 1) You cant judge and compare the bounce of the pitch. for example if you playing a match in WACA then you cant compare that with Kolkatta or Galle. 2) There is alwaz be a breez element of the LBW decession. No one actually raising the hand against that factor. 3) half the ball pitch out side the leg stump means no LBW and that attitude actually not good for the beauty of cricket. with the little more imandments that rule should be apply but with the changes. not like as we shows in these days

  • Gupta.Ankur on May 22, 2010, 8:55 GMT

    I don't think its fair to make it mandatory to have UDRS............the two teams participating must have the option of choosing it.

    Even this article has pointed few roadblocks in its full time implementation and also the ICC must get better umpires than introducing such a "bail-out" for their in-consistent umpires.

  • Pale_African on May 22, 2010, 7:41 GMT

    Another thing that I think is unfair is if a batsman dives in and makes his ground, and the bat bounces up off the ground, he is given out if the wicket is broken. Then why not check every batsman who runs in to make sure he has some part of his person in contact with the ground at all times. We could have the silly situation where the wicket is broken with the batsman behind the return creaase, but running and in the air. According to the ppresent rule he would be out. That is against the spirit of the game.

  • zub_333 on May 22, 2010, 7:18 GMT

    well i agree that ICC is doing good for the betterment of the cricket..... but they should also take steps that they should be equal opportunities for bowlers and batsman

  • Arem on May 23, 2010, 16:17 GMT

    Agree with the decision about the change of grip and run up. This in fact amounts to a batter going from being right handed to left handed or vice versa. If a bowler needs to declare his style of delivery before hand, then so should the batter. In any case what would happen if a (right handed) batter changes his grip and misses and the ball pitching out side the line his leg stump, hits his pad in line with the stumps - would the batter be given out by the umpire?

  • boris6491 on May 23, 2010, 2:40 GMT

    The UDRS system needs to be shored up and made consistent. There are still many flaws in the system which I think are unfair. For instance, if a decision is too close to call, is referred and is given not out and the benefit of the doubt given to the batsman, the fielding side should not have a review deducted from their available tally. As for the switch hit, I honestly cannot fathom what bowlers have against it. As far as I am concerned, it is a prime opportunity to get a batsman out trying to swing wrong handed, there is every chance of a mishit! The UDRS system needs to be used for all test playing nations whereupon they can all conclude whether or not it adds something worthwhile.

  • Moggy1 on May 23, 2010, 2:22 GMT

    I agree that the UDRS should be used so long as the technology is consistent in all countries. As I doubt this will happen overnight, it should be agreed in principle but not implemented until all countries can be provided with the technology and this should be the responsibility of the ICC, not a commercial broadcaster. As for the backing up law, making the non-striker remain in his crease until the bowler releases the ball will surely cause problems for the umpire. At present, he is watching the bowler's feet to make sure he is not overstepping in his delivery stride, is he supposed to be watching out of the corner of his eye to make sure the batsman is not infringing at the same time? You can't focus on two places at once. And what is the penalty if the batsman does move out of his crease? Restore the bowler's right to run him out if he does move and this threat should stop an unfair advantage being taken unless he wishes to risk losing his wicket.

  • Alexk400 on May 22, 2010, 16:50 GMT

    i do believe we need to restrict the Third umpire decisions. Kind of make it easy for him to make decision with few laws.

    We do not want him to waver and fear the local country media. Instead he should rely on rules. Rules should give him security make correct consistent decision.

    Especially on LBW and caught behind. Those are most challenged. In third umpire rule he has to see more than half the ball hitting the stump. if it is then it has to be OUT. it does not matter who appeals. if it is outside that then it is NOT OUT it does not matter who appeals.

    We should worry about correct decision not protect field umpires mistakes. At present system is there to protect field umpires more than getting correct decision.

    Wrong. Laws should be written to get more consistent correct decision.

  • tfjones1978 on May 22, 2010, 13:34 GMT

    DOUBLE SIDED BATSMEN I believe any batsmen wishing to switch-hit should be required to inform the Umpire (whom informs the bowler) before his innings starts (ie: Once he gets to the crease) that he intends to switch-hit during his innings. Any bowler should then be allowed to bowl on either side of the batsmen, as the batsmen is counted as both a Left and a Right handed batsmen. Thus, whilst a double sided batsmen can hit either side of the crease (normal or switch-hit) the bowler can also bowl outside of either off-stump and leg-stump to the standard distance outside of off-stump.

  • GoldenAsif on May 22, 2010, 13:01 GMT

    I have mixed feelings about UDRS not least because same technology is not available everywhere at the moment. The camera angles etc. used in Australia (Aus-SA series) were far superior to the ones the third umpire had access to in South Africa (South Africa-England series). They need to standardize the system so that everyone benefits equallyfrom it.

  • Kaaaaaaash on May 22, 2010, 9:37 GMT

    well this system has so many crictical problems. 1) You cant judge and compare the bounce of the pitch. for example if you playing a match in WACA then you cant compare that with Kolkatta or Galle. 2) There is alwaz be a breez element of the LBW decession. No one actually raising the hand against that factor. 3) half the ball pitch out side the leg stump means no LBW and that attitude actually not good for the beauty of cricket. with the little more imandments that rule should be apply but with the changes. not like as we shows in these days

  • Gupta.Ankur on May 22, 2010, 8:55 GMT

    I don't think its fair to make it mandatory to have UDRS............the two teams participating must have the option of choosing it.

    Even this article has pointed few roadblocks in its full time implementation and also the ICC must get better umpires than introducing such a "bail-out" for their in-consistent umpires.

  • Pale_African on May 22, 2010, 7:41 GMT

    Another thing that I think is unfair is if a batsman dives in and makes his ground, and the bat bounces up off the ground, he is given out if the wicket is broken. Then why not check every batsman who runs in to make sure he has some part of his person in contact with the ground at all times. We could have the silly situation where the wicket is broken with the batsman behind the return creaase, but running and in the air. According to the ppresent rule he would be out. That is against the spirit of the game.

  • zub_333 on May 22, 2010, 7:18 GMT

    well i agree that ICC is doing good for the betterment of the cricket..... but they should also take steps that they should be equal opportunities for bowlers and batsman

  • popcorn on May 22, 2010, 7:13 GMT

    I am not in favour of players questioning the umpire by using the URDS.I prefer to place the responsibility on the Umpires by providing them ALL the tools necessary to make a correct decision.Which means,as many times as are necessary,not restricted to two per innings, if the umpire has a doubt about a nick or an lbw - bat,glove,thighpad,armguard,sound,he should refer to the third umpire - just as he does for EVERY run out decision.This will ensure that the Umpires are more vigilant, and do not need correction by the player.The restriction of two referrals per innings has no basis - no one can predict how many doubtful decisions there will be in an innings.If after providing ALL the tools necessary for an umpire to make a correct decision, he gets it wrong time and again, he should be removed from the Panel and go back to learning the basics. Hawk-eye is not a true judge of lbws because it only takes trajectory of the ball - it does not factor in movement off the pitch.Hotspot is true.

  • on May 22, 2010, 6:58 GMT

    Compulsary use of the UDRS system is a good idea. If the UDRS system had been available and in place, India may have won each of the last three test series they played in Australia.

    Without the UDRS system, Bangladesh suffered in the recent test series against England. Teams from the Indian Subcontinent tend to be unlucky with umpiring decisions. UDRS may restore the balance.

  • Hoggy_1989 on May 22, 2010, 6:46 GMT

    I think the other thing that should be looked at with the UDRS, is neutrality of the 3rd umpire as well. If the field umpires have to be neutral in nationality to give decisions, then the same should apply to the 3rd umpire as well...regardless of the fact that the technology is there to help them. Other than that, these changes to the game (switch hitting and backing up) should be good for the game. Not entirely sold on the idea of day/night Test matches yet...they need to find a ball that works. The pink balls trials in Australia didn't work, because the ball stopped swinging after 6 or 7 overs, and was difficult to see square of the wicket. Some other solution needs to be found for the day/night Test matches to work...

  • cricnar on May 22, 2010, 6:41 GMT

    Excellent. Thats what you get when you put sensible guys at the top. Keep the politicians out of cricket please.

  • Rihat on May 22, 2010, 6:00 GMT

    Also the run out law should be changed. The fact whether the bat or foot is grounded or lifted within the crease is irrelevant. It should be not out.

  • Nameez on May 22, 2010, 5:26 GMT

    ICC is doing a good job by making cricket more realistic and giving its fans more enetertainment, another important thing to be mentioned is the referral system which is really a good one, cos it reduces the luck factor!!! Overall ICC doing great!!!

  • on May 22, 2010, 3:47 GMT

    I think the UDRS system is helpful, infact it is good for Test Matches, any how there are many decisions taken right or wrong but then this would be useful atleast in sum cases.

  • on May 22, 2010, 3:46 GMT

    Yes UDRS system is helpful, infact it is good for Test Matches, any how there are many decisions taken right or wrong but then this would be useful atleast in sum cases. and also test maches is one basment is importent if one basment is set this mack will go to the win way. Thanks Sir Mr. Murgon

  • on May 22, 2010, 3:42 GMT

    Yes it's nice disition thanks sir mr. murgon

  • gloves71 on May 22, 2010, 3:39 GMT

    Rushing the UDRS through is a mistake. Quite clearly, the system doesn't work properly and just bulldozing it through is not going to help international Test cricket. Under the current system with each team having a limited number of reviews, it becomes a test of the teams' ability to use their reviews wisely rather than a method of ensuring the right decision is made. If this system is rushed through now in its current form, I see the ICC having to do a U-turn several years down the line because it hasn't worked. That will set cricket back rather than ensure its progress.

  • no_second_chance_for_batsman on May 22, 2010, 3:17 GMT

    I have been waiting for UDRS for years... My reasoning is simple -- use all the technology or Don't use at all. Umpires are HUMAN and they will make mistakes...Anyone who has played cricket knows how critical a wrong decision -- to one of the best batsman in the team -- can change the whole match.

    I am very happy ICC has FINALLY taken this decision.

    Cheers, Kumar

  • on May 22, 2010, 2:23 GMT

    good decision..finally countries like sri lanka won't be at the receiving end of terrible decisions

  • midwicket5 on May 22, 2010, 0:51 GMT

    The UDRS system is only as good as the people who drive it, and the people who do are televsion companies. It is completely unfair for television companies to foot the bill for this system. It will mean the wages of all involved in the broadcast will go down while the host broadcaster tries to keep profit levels the same. As far as replays go, the position of cameras, the quality of camera operators, all come into question. More thought needs to go into having ICC UDRS accredited camera operators to give the best possible pictures for the umpires to make their decision. Quality comes at a price, and most Host Broadcasters don't really care about anything other than making a television program to make money, not being the third umpire.

  • Philip_Gnana on May 22, 2010, 0:06 GMT

    This system need not have gone this far if only the Umpires had admitted their falibility and requested the help of the third umpire. The decision then have been left with the umpires and the respect would have been restored. The bigger nations have always got away with appeals going their other way. The UDRS will give nations a level playing field. The intergrity of the players would have been restored if cricket was played in the manner it was meant to have been played. Not only should we have the technology available but have umpires who are capable to do the job. Not the likes of Daryl Harper...omg... New Malden, Surrey

  • Alexk400 on May 21, 2010, 22:45 GMT

    UDRS is good. But i do not like caught behind decisions and even LBW where ball go over stump. It does not matter who appeals, if ball fully hit the stump it should be out. Not part of the ball. Again umpire has to make his own decision. But it should be based on full ball hitting the stump not part of it based on replay.

    Caught behind is should not be based on who appeals. I do not csre crap aout umpires. I only care about correct decision. That means no value should applied to who appeals or field umpire get favourable decision from third umpire.

    You just have to give a room for third umpire and as well as field umpire. if there is a hotspot , caught behind is out. if it is not visible or no camera angle then it is not out. Sound should not be the reason for OUT. because sound can come from anywhere.

    Only field umpire make decision based on sound and visual. Third umpire is only on replay and visual and Hot spot.

    I need consisten t decision more than correct or wrong decision.

  • on_the_level on May 21, 2010, 22:35 GMT

    Let the non-striker back up all he wants - just give the bowler the right to run him out if he does so!

  • mubeenkemisaal on May 21, 2010, 22:34 GMT

    Its good for the game of cricket.All the UDRS decisions involving LBW should be implemented with hot spot technology for clear bat and pad.At times we have seen the decisions going against the favor of batsmen with slight inside edges.When we have the technology in the game we should make precise use of it..!!

  • landl47 on May 21, 2010, 22:21 GMT

    The introduction of the UDRS was inevitable, as modern TV replays almost always give the correct result and umpires, being human, sometimes make mistakes. However, the 'two reviews' system for the batting side seems illogical to me. Why not review every situation in which a batsman has been declared out? Many reviews would simply be to see whether a no-ball was bowled, and since the batsman cannot possibly know that, wickets will continue to fall to no-balls while the two reviews for the batting side rule is in place. The remaining dismissals would not take very long to review, except the occasional run out or half-volley catch. In the context of a 5-day test, the time taken would be minimal. The fielding side, however, must be held to two reviews or some over-enthusiastic appealers would be asking for reviews every over. Technology is here to stay and where it can be used, it should be. Otherwise fans will be discontented when the TV replay shows the umpire made a mistake.

  • kktharan on May 21, 2010, 20:34 GMT

    its good again implementing UDRS. it has helped for cricket to play only by the players not by the umpires. some time some teams are playing 12 or 13players(including umpires). very recently (T20 SA vs WI) it avoided by South African gentlemen. in the forth over of SA innings bosman try to fli flicked the ball to fine leg. but its got slide touch on bat. WI players has strong CONFIDENT on out but umpire given as a wide ball. but that gentlemen(bosman) walks towards the dugout regardless the umpire decision. if he did not so, it would be a umpires played game.

  • Herath-UK on May 21, 2010, 19:18 GMT

    Hopefully this time around ICC would have the bottle to enforce the ruling. Once established future tV deals could take account on such expenses.

    Rehan Herath Kent

  • venk_gen on May 21, 2010, 19:04 GMT

    Implement UDRS and measure performance of umpires as well. If umpire gets wrong several times he does not deserve the job. It is not fair to give only two chance for wrong reviews in a big innings. If the innings goes beyond 90 overs, both the teams should get another two reviews.

    Hopefully we will not have any more situations where batsmen like Tendulkar are given out wrongly and we keep looking at the replay and blaming the bad luck.

  • SatyaKrishna on May 21, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    Oh Please brig it on!!! ASAP, some players say it is a waste of time, I cant believe the reasons to avoid this from being functional! The whole result of a match is being altered by manual errors and it is totally unacceptable. Tennis has hawkeye from long back, use technology to its fullest to make justice to cricket as well.

    If this is not functional it is like banning DNA tests to prove a murder and avoiding the jail the murderer. Clive Lloyd, if you are reading this please bring this on in all forms of the game and save the players and most importantly fans from having bitter experiences with the outcome of matches like Sydney test left a billion people outraged. Any cricket fan who saw Sydney test will not forget for the rest of their lives as to what has happened over the 5 days.

    I still can't forget Rudi putting an end to an awesome innings by Kumar Sangakkara in Hobart. He could have won the match single handedly that day if it had not been for Rudi raising his damn finger!

  • on May 21, 2010, 18:11 GMT

    It depends totally on the team-management how successfully they can use the UDRS,naturally more responsibility lies on the players,especially the skipper

  • jointoo on May 21, 2010, 18:05 GMT

    The UDRS system is surely helpful,but till now it can be implemented properly.Infact in some close situations even the third umpire can't come to a decision with the technology provided to him.For example ,the third umpire is not allowed to use the facility of hawk-eye projection and in close shout sometimes it is really hard to judge whether it's going to hit the stumps. The decision taken against switch hit is quite meaningless;it's totally the batsman's talent to hit the ball powerfully after changing grip or stance.

  • RahulSharma5 on May 21, 2010, 17:41 GMT

    I think the UDRS system is helpful, infact it is good for Test Matches, any how there are many decisions taken right or wrong but then this would be useful atleast in sum cases.

  • on May 21, 2010, 17:30 GMT

    If the ICC wants to use the UDRS, why should the broadcasters bear the costs? I wouldn't be too surprised then if they say that the broadcasters should also pay the players and the officials and for their accomodation and other operating costs of the tournament. The broadcasters should simply refuse to cover the World Cup, then the ICC will have yet another egg on its face.Who wants to watch this circus anyway? We are having some or the other "World Cup" every 9 months.

  • _Rafi_ on May 21, 2010, 17:22 GMT

    UDRS should be introduce asap. Umpires like Hill and Rod tucker killed Bangladesh in their last series against engalane by making some blunders. As for maintaining cost I suggest ICC, home board and broadcaster to share equally

  • on May 21, 2010, 16:48 GMT

    good to see it come but they still need better umpires in the game.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on May 21, 2010, 16:48 GMT

    good to see it come but they still need better umpires in the game.

  • _Rafi_ on May 21, 2010, 17:22 GMT

    UDRS should be introduce asap. Umpires like Hill and Rod tucker killed Bangladesh in their last series against engalane by making some blunders. As for maintaining cost I suggest ICC, home board and broadcaster to share equally

  • on May 21, 2010, 17:30 GMT

    If the ICC wants to use the UDRS, why should the broadcasters bear the costs? I wouldn't be too surprised then if they say that the broadcasters should also pay the players and the officials and for their accomodation and other operating costs of the tournament. The broadcasters should simply refuse to cover the World Cup, then the ICC will have yet another egg on its face.Who wants to watch this circus anyway? We are having some or the other "World Cup" every 9 months.

  • RahulSharma5 on May 21, 2010, 17:41 GMT

    I think the UDRS system is helpful, infact it is good for Test Matches, any how there are many decisions taken right or wrong but then this would be useful atleast in sum cases.

  • jointoo on May 21, 2010, 18:05 GMT

    The UDRS system is surely helpful,but till now it can be implemented properly.Infact in some close situations even the third umpire can't come to a decision with the technology provided to him.For example ,the third umpire is not allowed to use the facility of hawk-eye projection and in close shout sometimes it is really hard to judge whether it's going to hit the stumps. The decision taken against switch hit is quite meaningless;it's totally the batsman's talent to hit the ball powerfully after changing grip or stance.

  • on May 21, 2010, 18:11 GMT

    It depends totally on the team-management how successfully they can use the UDRS,naturally more responsibility lies on the players,especially the skipper

  • SatyaKrishna on May 21, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    Oh Please brig it on!!! ASAP, some players say it is a waste of time, I cant believe the reasons to avoid this from being functional! The whole result of a match is being altered by manual errors and it is totally unacceptable. Tennis has hawkeye from long back, use technology to its fullest to make justice to cricket as well.

    If this is not functional it is like banning DNA tests to prove a murder and avoiding the jail the murderer. Clive Lloyd, if you are reading this please bring this on in all forms of the game and save the players and most importantly fans from having bitter experiences with the outcome of matches like Sydney test left a billion people outraged. Any cricket fan who saw Sydney test will not forget for the rest of their lives as to what has happened over the 5 days.

    I still can't forget Rudi putting an end to an awesome innings by Kumar Sangakkara in Hobart. He could have won the match single handedly that day if it had not been for Rudi raising his damn finger!

  • venk_gen on May 21, 2010, 19:04 GMT

    Implement UDRS and measure performance of umpires as well. If umpire gets wrong several times he does not deserve the job. It is not fair to give only two chance for wrong reviews in a big innings. If the innings goes beyond 90 overs, both the teams should get another two reviews.

    Hopefully we will not have any more situations where batsmen like Tendulkar are given out wrongly and we keep looking at the replay and blaming the bad luck.

  • Herath-UK on May 21, 2010, 19:18 GMT

    Hopefully this time around ICC would have the bottle to enforce the ruling. Once established future tV deals could take account on such expenses.

    Rehan Herath Kent

  • kktharan on May 21, 2010, 20:34 GMT

    its good again implementing UDRS. it has helped for cricket to play only by the players not by the umpires. some time some teams are playing 12 or 13players(including umpires). very recently (T20 SA vs WI) it avoided by South African gentlemen. in the forth over of SA innings bosman try to fli flicked the ball to fine leg. but its got slide touch on bat. WI players has strong CONFIDENT on out but umpire given as a wide ball. but that gentlemen(bosman) walks towards the dugout regardless the umpire decision. if he did not so, it would be a umpires played game.