Drs

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

ProfessionalMackem

Striker
I thought it was there to overturn glaring mistakes by the onfiled umpire?

Just saw Younis Khan been given out caught behind when they were reviewing an lbw. Khan got a slight nick on his pads.

Has this ever happened before?
 


First I've seen like this.

An even more bizarre one was Chris Gayle (I think) out bowled and reviewed it on the advice of the non-striker who said it might be a no-ball. He was right and given not-out. Umpires usually double-check this now anyway.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
I thought it was there to overturn glaring mistakes by the onfiled umpire?

Just saw Younis Khan been given out caught behind when they were reviewing an lbw. Khan got a slight nick on his pads.

Has this ever happened before?
Click to expand...

Are you sure they were reviewing the LBW? They could well have been reviewing the appeal for a catch. Looking for an inside edge or knick off the bat.

Besides, iirc, in these types of situations (is it LBW or a catch) the umpire should ask the players what they are appealing for.
 
The Lambton Worm said:
Are you sure they were reviewing the LBW? They could well have been reviewing the appeal for a catch. Looking for an inside edge or knick off the bat.

Besides, iirc, in these types of situations (is it LBW or a catch) the umpire should ask the players what they are appealing for.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they appealed for an LBW, the nick was so so fine, no way they could have appealed for catch behind when it was a galring LBW. It looks like Billy Bowden took it upon himself to rewrite the rules of DRS.

There have been loads of dodgy DRS decisions in this series most them of going against the visitors.

p.s. I agree with you that before the umpire goes upstairs he asks the captain what he's appealing for.

Aidan11 said:
First I've seen like this.

An even more bizarre one was Chris Gayle (I think) out bowled and reviewed it on the advice of the non-striker who said it might be a no-ball. He was right and given not-out. Umpires usually double-check this now anyway.
Click to expand...

I guess Khan was out in the strictest sense of the rules. It just feels like this decision was going against the spirit of the game and the reasons DRS was brought in the 1st place. That and I liked to see the Saffers toiling in the field after a good 5th wicket partnership of 200odd.
 
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem said:
Pretty sure they appealed for an LBW, the nick was so so fine, no way they could have appealed for catch behind when it was a galring LBW. It looks like Billy Bowden took it upon himself to rewrite the rules of DRS.

There have been loads of dodgy DRS decisions in this series most them of going against the visitors.

p.s. I agree with you that before the umpire goes upstairs he asks the captain what he's appealing for.



I guess Khan was out in the strictest sense of the rules. It just feels like this decision was going against the spirit of the game and the reasons DRS was brought in the 1st place. That and I liked to see the Saffers toiling in the field after a good 5th wicket partnership of 200odd.
Click to expand...

I thought one of the rules of DRS was that the third umpire could look at any way the batsman was out, I may be wrong, but I'm sure I remember this coming up a while back when there was a review for a catch behind that might have also been LBW so the third umpire looked for both.
 
I was watching the Test Match yesterday and had missed the incident but they had a graphic on the screen with the laws of DRS up. It stated that the 3rd umpire CAN give the batsman out if he feels he has been dismissed by a mode of dismissal the fielding team haven't appealed for.

I don't see any problem with that. As Aidan says, if you're out then you can't really complain.
 
It happened to kallis the next day. He was given out caught but referred it as he didn't hit it, which of course he didn't however he was given out lbw as the ball was flicking the stumps. Same for both sides great piece of equipment IMO always adds to the game.
 
eddyfinn said:
It happened to kallis the next day. He was given out caught but referred it as he didn't hit it, which of course he didn't however he was given out lbw as the ball was flicking the stumps. Same for both sides great piece of equipment IMO always adds to the game.
Click to expand...

Just seen that didn't they say 3 rd umpire was wrong and have apologised
 
eddyfinn said:
Haven't heard that but imo still got the right decision
Click to expand...

The reason they apologised is cause the umpire gave Kallis out caught. Kallis reviewed and didn't hit it, so the 3rd umpire looked at the lbw, but because Hawkeye said the ball was just nicking the stumps it was the umpires call. But technically it should only have been out if the umpire gave him out lbw, which he didn't.
 
Jaeger said:
The reason they apologised is cause the umpire gave Kallis out caught. Kallis reviewed and didn't hit it, so the 3rd umpire looked at the lbw, but because Hawkeye said the ball was just nicking the stumps it was the umpires call. But technically it should only have been out if the umpire gave him out lbw, which he didn't.
Click to expand...

Correct
 
brandon said:
I was watching the Test Match yesterday and had missed the incident but they had a graphic on the screen with the laws of DRS up. It stated that the 3rd umpire CAN give the batsman out if he feels he has been dismissed by a mode of dismissal the fielding team haven't appealed for.

I don't see any problem with that. As Aidan says, if you're out then you can't really complain.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Its just that DRS was brought in to stop the really bad decisions. Its now looks like its been used for the very marginal, which is a slippery slope imo.

The Khan LBW/caught behind was a correct one in the end, its just in normal play, the saffers wouldnt have even thought to appeal for the catch as it was such a small nick. IMO you shouldnt be given out caught or lbw if the bowling team dont appeal for it.
 
Jaeger said:
The reason they apologised is cause the umpire gave Kallis out caught. Kallis reviewed and didn't hit it, so the 3rd umpire looked at the lbw, but because Hawkeye said the ball was just nicking the stumps it was the umpires call. But technically it should only have been out if the umpire gave him out lbw, which he didn't.
Click to expand...

Aye, that's my take on it too. Because the umpire never made a call on the LBW, he shouldn't have been given out 'umpires call'
 
If they are out in another way, that decision automatically starts at not out until proven to be out. But as it was umpires call it should have even not out
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
p.s. I agree with you that before the umpire goes upstairs he asks the captain what he's appealing for.
Click to expand...
brandon said:
I was watching the Test Match yesterday and had missed the incident but they had a graphic on the screen with the laws of DRS up. It stated that the 3rd umpire CAN give the batsman out if he feels he has been dismissed by a mode of dismissal the fielding team haven't appealed for.
Click to expand...
The laws of cricket state that an appeal covers every mode of dismissal, you don't have to appeal for a catch or for an lbw etc, juts appeal, so the umpire can't ask what they are asking for. Technically they have appealed for everything.

Charlie Chimp said:
The Khan LBW/caught behind was a correct one in the end, its just in normal play, the saffers wouldnt have even thought to appeal for the catch as it was such a small nick. IMO you shouldnt be given out caught or lbw if the bowling team dont appeal for it.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, I reckon they all appeal if there is the sound of wind as the ball passes the bat. It is extremely rare that they would miss an obvious nick. And yes, the law says you shouldn't be given out if there is no appeal, even for bowled. Which didn't help me in a school match when the opposition's umpire gave me out lbw when even the bowler didn't appeal, never mind anybody else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top