Review System

Status
Not open for further replies.

My Boy Harry

Striker
I've noted that teams have performed pretty poorly as a result of the review system with a success rate of something like 20% or less. Means that overwhelmingly the umpire gets it right.

I just wonder if something similar was brought into football whether all it would prove is that the referees get it overwhelmingly right as well.
 


I've noted that teams have performed pretty poorly as a result of the review system with a success rate of something like 20% or less. Means that overwhelmingly the umpire gets it right.

I just wonder if something similar was brought into football whether all it would prove is that the referees get it overwhelmingly right as well.


You could predict the review outcome according to the referees and the teams involved. The likes of Webb, Dowd, Jones etc would be proven to make decisions that are wrong yet favour the "big" teams.
 
Daryl Harper has shown to be poor along with Asoka de Silva other than that some very decent umpiring. The system does favour the umpires so it will be pretty good although when Daryl Harper had 3 overturned in one game there its no surprise its in place
 
I think it should be reduced to one appeal, then it it would be there for just the absolute clangers, and not just a calculated gamble on an LBW which seems to happen a lot. In football it should be used in the same way, just one for the 'over the goal line' clangers etc.
 
has shown hw many borderline decisins there are. most of the time it gets reviewed the outcome seems to be 'on field call'. doesn't show the umpire got it 'right' as such. has been a couple today like that.

i think they should not limit the referrals, but penalise 5 runs for every failed review other than the on field calls.

the biggest benefit it has IMHO is stopping the felding side putting too much pressure on the umpire. I always smile when there is a massive appeal, not given out, and then they deicde not to review it. would be interesting if the same thing happened in football.
 
Mainze said:
I think it should be reduced to one appeal, then it it would be there for just the absolute clangers, and not just a calculated gamble on an LBW which seems to happen a lot. In football it should be used in the same way, just one for the 'over the goal line' clangers etc.

I agree. Also think it should be two per test match rather than per innings. Or scrapped altogether ideally.
 
Anyone noticed something in the Pakistani games?

If there are reviews left, and Afridi is bowling if it hits the pads he will appeal, and then review. He wastes at least 1 a game. The selfish git.
 
Daryl Harper has shown to be poor along with Asoka de Silva other than that some very decent umpiring. The system does favour the umpires so it will be pretty good although when Daryl Harper had 3 overturned in one game there its no surprise its in place

Both of those umpires were sent home early so it performs a sort of vetting system as well.
 
The only change I would make to it is the team challenging the decision don't lose a review if the outcome is to stick with the on field call because hawkeye is inconclusive. When the ball is shown to be just clipping the stumps, it doesn't matter what decision the umpire gives live, the review won't overturn it, suggesting that the team were right to ask for a 2nd opinion, but the benefit of the doubt stays with the on field call.

I remember one incident at Brisbane in the Ashes when Hussey was given not out LBW on the field, the review showed the ball to be clipping the stumps and England lost their last review. The very next ball he was absolutely plumb LBW, but given not out, on such moments are the course of test matches changed.

The review system was introduced to help cut out glaring mistakes from the umpires, so it's rather unfair to penalise the appealing team on such a narrow margin.
 
Aleem Dar and Simon Taufel doing the final- they haven't had a decision reversed between them; top umpires.
 
Taufel is the top boy like.

The review system is a very good addition imo.

I thought the general consensus is that Dar is the best umpire around, although those two are definitely the best two out there.
 
dangermows said:
Taufel is the top boy like.

The review system is a very good addition imo.

Agreed only criticism should they use technology to the full if it's hitting the stumps it's out no going back to the onfield umpire
 
Agreed only criticism should they use technology to the full if it's hitting the stumps it's out no going back to the onfield umpire

I used to have that view too but I think I agree with the current system now especially as the tecnology isn't 100% accurate. At least it has prevented any really dodgy decisions.
 
I used to have that view too but I think I agree with the current system now especially as the tecnology isn't 100% accurate. At least it has prevented any really dodgy decisions.

I agree with that, don't think there's anything with the way it works other than the number of referrals.

Two's fine for a test match but I think it should either be 1 in an ODI or runs penalised if wrong.

And I also feel it's unfair to lose an appeal if there is one "on-field decision". If there are two (eg hitting leg and clipping the bails) then you should still lose it, but for 1 marginal decision I'd let them keep the referral.

What if snicko picks up a nick? Anyone up for handing a referral back (but no change to the not out) if a review is later proven to be incorrect by snicko?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top