ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 / News

World Cup 2011

ICC issues revised guidelines for 2.5m rule

ESPNcricinfo staff

March 7, 2011

Comments: 127 | Text size: A | A

The altered 2.5metre rule came into application during an lbw appeal against Alex Cusack, India v Ireland, Group B, World Cup 2011, Bangalore, March 6, 2011
When the ball has struck the pad more than 2.5m from the stumps, Hawk Eye's prediction is not 100% accurate © Getty Images

The ICC has come up with a revised set of guidelines for the way the 2.5m rule in the UDRS will be interpreted that says umpires must also consider the distance between the ball pitching and point of impact. On Sunday, they announced a tweak in the guidelines, allowing on-field umpires to reverse not-out decisions if the replays showed part of the ball to be hitting middle stump, even if the batsman was hit more than 2.5m away. They have now issued a full release about the guidelines umpires will use in the World Cup.

When a not-out lbw decision is reviewed, and the replay shows the ball has made impact more than 2.5m away from the wickets, the umpires also have to consider another factor: the distance the ball has travelled between pitching and hitting the pad. If that distance is less than 40cm, and the ball still has to travel more than 2.5m to reach the stumps, then, it has been decided, any not-out decision given by the on-field umpire will remain not out.

It has also been decided that if the batsman is more than 3.5m down the wicket, then again not-out decisions will not be overturned. The only scenario in which an lbw decision will be reversed in favour of the bowler if the batsman is more than 2.5m away from the wicket is if the distance is less than 3.5m and the distance between pitching and point of impact is more than 40cm. In that case, some part of the ball must be hitting middle stump, and the whole ball must be hitting the stumps below the bails.

That was the case when Yuvraj Singh reviewed a decision against Alex Cusack in Sunday's tie between India and Ireland, which is why umpire Rod Tucker reversed his decision. The 2.5m rule was not being used in the same way at the start of the tournament, which is why Billy Bowden refused to change his not-out call when Ian Bell had been hit more than 2.5m down the pitch against India, even though Hawk Eye was showing the ball to be hitting middle and leg.

In essence, the new guidelines will allow umpires to reverse decisions where the batsman is plumb and there is no doubt the ball would have hit the stumps, even if the impact is far down the wicket. The reason the 40cm distance is important is because Hawk Eye needs to monitor the ball's movement for some distance after it has pitched in order to determine where it would have gone after hitting the pad. If a batsman is struck very soon after the ball has bounced, then the accuracy of the prediction as to where the ball would have moved afterwards is not as high.

In cases where the original decision is out, the 2.5m or 40cm distances do not come into play, as in that situation Hawk Eye must show the ball to be completely missing the stumps in order for the umpire to reverse his decision.

The 2.5m rule has been under scrutiny in the tournament so far, but the ICC hopes these guidelines will clear up any confusion and will allow for the rule to be interpreted uniformly by all the umpires during the World Cup. ICC general manager Dave Richardson said the UDRS had allowed for a very high percentage of correct decisions in the World Cup so far, and clarified that the 2.5m rule had not been changed, but they had just put together some guidelines so it could be used consistently. "This is not a change in rules as some people have suggested but a broad guideline which we hope will bring a consistency to the decision making," he said.


Comments: 127 
. Your ESPN name '' will be used to display your comments. Please click here to edit this.
Comments have now been closed for this article

Posted by Paul on (March 10, 2011, 19:01 GMT)

A further issure with LBW referrals: If the ball is shown to be just flicking leg stump, or just 1/5 of the ball intersecting in line with the stumps, the batsman should be given 'not out' - whatever the on-field decision - because no human eye, umpire or fielder, could accurately say 'That hit 1/5th in line!' & the batsman should have the benefit of the doubt. I would say that, for a batsman to be given LBW with technology, at least the centre of the ball should be shown to be hitting the stumps, & most (maybe 75%), if not ALL, of the ball should be shown to have pitched in line (on the leg-side) or intersected in line.

Posted by Paul on (March 10, 2011, 18:53 GMT)

Point 1:UDRS is a wonderful necessity,because cricket has become an 'un-sport', where players appeal not just for what they genuinely think is out,but also for what they think an umpire might ERRANTLY GIVE out ('catches' that they know haven't been hit, LBWs that have, etc).This poor example by role models & heroes filters down to lower levels of the game,& tarnishes it.UDRS should gradually eradicate this. Point 2:UDRS was NOT designed to enable bowlers to get more borderline LBW decisions,but to stop people being given out caught when they haven't hit it,& LBW when they have,or when the ball's clearly not hitting the stumps.With catches,edges,the 'keeper KNOWS; the batsman KNOWS.With an LBW,no-one can say "That definitely hit with 1/5 of the ball in line/would've hit 1/5 of the leg stump." The batsman is losing the benefit of the doubt, that's wrong.I'd suggest (a)a not-out LBW shouldn't be allowed to be referred, or(b)that a team must have/use 2 referrals to do so.

Posted by Dummy4 on (March 10, 2011, 18:07 GMT)

Technology is great, perfection takes adjustment. Think of your pc you are using, it was once the size of your entire room or more ... now it's sitting at your home and who would argue it didn't happen in one day ?

Posted by vijay on (March 9, 2011, 13:14 GMT)

ICC is screwing up the game. Technology should be allowed only for run-outs and stumpings, and for checking no-balls. When everyone accepts that no technology can ever be 100% than why not accept the fact that even with umpires also it is the same-no umpire will ever be 100% accurate, players/officials need to accept this fact and let the game continue as it was before.

Posted by Dummy4 on (March 9, 2011, 11:13 GMT)

Umpire decision should be final , Why you need umpires in cricket if technology can handle the same.

Leave it to umpires and ignore replays and halk-eyes. umpires too have good good eyes.

Else take away umpires from the ground and let the technology give the decisions.

Posted by Dummy4 on (March 9, 2011, 9:36 GMT)

if it is for the betterment of the game and if it makes the game more exiting and impartial why not use technology.i am preplexed by the way bcci has handled the issue.why is it that only india has problems with the udrs.if this was in vouge in 2007 india would have won the series in australia 2-0.it's amusing why bcci is dead against this rule. why such a big issue is made of the ian bell lbw decision.would the bcci reacted in the same way in this case if the beneficiary instead of ian bell were a certain sachin tendulkar.

Posted by Dummy4 on (March 9, 2011, 6:21 GMT)

In that case Ian Bell should be given out aganist India,providing India`s chance to win.But,that didn`t happen,finally had a tie

Posted by Dummy4 on (March 9, 2011, 5:47 GMT)

This is really good now for the rules are being refined and thus making sense for the cause its being used. We will see the better side of this DRS and coupled with the tense moments of the game, its going to make cricket and the skills employed even better by the players. Cheers to this new sensible and sensitive caption

Posted by Vipul on (March 9, 2011, 5:00 GMT)

This 2.5cm rule has been very complicated and there is no way umpires can judge accurately and players will put it to DRS most of the time.My openion is if the ball is straight to the wicket out should be given regrdless of distance.This will not complicate the game and will not waste time.

Posted by Apyboutit on (March 9, 2011, 3:27 GMT)

It looks like "the role of UDRS is to only eleminate any obvious mistakes made by the umpires". It can/will/is not intended to perfect decision making. So, why have UDRS? UDRS only helps to technically back umpire's wrong'uns! Our frustrations against a wrong decision will continue to remain. Only, umpires will be able to sleep better now in spite of a wrong decision! It will all be conveninetly blamed on the technology and the rules!!!! Feel sorry for cricket. I feel sorry for the scribes too! The probable impact of a seemingly small Human Error, on the outcome of a game, is One (HUGE) less thing to write about in cricket now!

Email Feedback Print
ESPNcricinfo staffClose
News | Features Last 3 days
  • No stories yet
News | Features Last 3 days
  • No stories yet

World Cup Videos