Remove this Banner Ad

Review Idea

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginnieboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

G

Ginnieboy

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2022
Posts
2,057
Reaction score
1,981
AFL Club
Collingwood
I like the current system but I feel players are burning reviews on the off chance they get a reprieve, especially top order batsmen, no one wants to see an absolute howler given out in a test match because inconsiderate batsmen have burned all team reviews, so my idea is giving every player 1 review per annum, a personal review if you like, burn it and you only have yourself to blame, this would help markedly in removing howlers, bowlers could be given the same review, thoughts? Umpires call would reinstate the review.
 
Ginnieboy said:
I like the current system but I feel players are burning reviews on the off chance they get a reprieve, especially top order batsmen, no one wants to see an absolute howler given out in a test match because inconsiderate batsmen have burned all team reviews, so my idea is giving every player 1 review per annum, a personal review if you like, burn it and you only have yourself to blame, this would help markedly in removing howlers, bowlers could be given the same review, thoughts? Umpires call would reinstate the review.
Click to expand...

They need to go back to two neutral umpires and two reviews.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

After the Green dismissal I think be done with player reviews. If the umpire thinks it's close enough to review they can just call for it. Same as a run out or stumping.

I don't like the idea of a team burning all their reviews and being rewarded with the umpires call advantage (as per Cam Green). Also, the idea is to remove the howler but if a team has no reviews left it leaves the game open to a howler.

Decide if it's black or white (hitting or missing/in line or outside) or if using 'umpires call'/margin of error situation i'd like to see it favour the batsman as benefit of the doubt.
 
If you hand it to the umpires then it would just turn into them sending every tiny appeal upstairs like with stumpings and run outs in fear of being wrong.

3 + keeping the review on umpire's call is too many and defeats the purpose of the system as every close LBW gets thrown upstairs rather than it being used for the howler. It's either 3 + you lose the review umpire's call or not or 2 and keep on umpire's call.
 
I’m not entirely a fan of the current system but I am utterly staggered by how menstrual not only fans, but supposed ‘professional’ media outlets have been over the Cameron Green decision.

Every summer without fail, visiting players get themselves stuck on the crease against Australian quicks and get dismissed leg before and they review and almost invariably the ball will be taking the top sliver of the bails.

And no one cares. There are no fox sports articles or conspiracy theories among the host panel.

Reading about the Green dismissal you’d swear blind it was caught by a fielder sitting in the second tier of the grandstand and given out
 
PhatBoy said:
I’m not entirely a fan of the current system but I am utterly staggered by how menstrual not only fans, but supposed ‘professional’ media outlets have been over the Cameron Green decision.

Every summer without fail, visiting players get themselves stuck on the crease against Australian quicks and get dismissed leg before and they review and almost invariably the ball will be taking the top sliver of the bails.

And no one cares. There are no fox sports articles or conspiracy theories among the host panel.

Reading about the Green dismissal you’d swear blind it was caught by a fielder sitting in the second tier of the grandstand and given out
Click to expand...
Ball showed it was clipping the stumps (barely) so fair enough that it’s out.

The issue it raised for me is the fact that it was given umpires call. I’m not sure if it truly was the umpires call or that he was influenced by India having burnt their reviews (we will never know). But if that was the case then the odds were swung into the bowlers favour.

That’s why I want it either out or not out (no umpires call considered) or take the reviews out of the players hands and offer some benefit of doubt to the batsman.

On a separate issue, the stumping loophole is ridiculous.
 
Trojan90 said:
Ball showed it was clipping the stumps (barely) so fair enough that it’s out.

The issue it raised for me is the fact that it was given umpires call. I’m not sure if it truly was the umpires call or that he was influenced by India having burnt their reviews (we will never know). But if that was the case then the odds were swung into the bowlers favour.

That’s why I want it either out or not out (no umpires call considered) or take the reviews out of the players hands and offer some benefit of doubt to the batsman.

On a separate issue, the stumping loophole is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I’m certain I’ll be accused of an anti Australian agenda but in first look I thought green was in a lot of trouble and even a few people in the match thread who I assume actually like australia said it was gone before the review.

I get why they have the umpires call and I am ok with it because it allows for the margin for error that the Hawkeye developers have spoken about. I’d be happier if they just looked at where it pitched and where it made impact, though

Agree about the stumping garbage
 
PhatBoy said:
I’m certain I’ll be accused of an anti Australian agenda but in first look I thought green was in a lot of trouble and even a few people in the match thread who I assume actually like australia said it was gone before the review.

I get why they have the umpires call and I am ok with it because it allows for the margin for error that the Hawkeye developers have spoken about. I’d be happier if they just looked at where it pitched and where it made impact, though

Agree about the stumping garbage
Click to expand...
A tense moment in the game and wearing Australian glasses, so my thoughts were most likely biased but I thought not out live.

In the end we collapsed straight after so didn’t really cost much and we won anyway. So I can look rationally now.

I’m happy enough with the current system but the batsman in me would like some benefit of doubt to batsmen. But this is clearly a personal issue.

The problem I had with Greens dismissal was the thought that the ‘umpires call’ was influenced by India having no reviews. This defeats the purpose of umpires call and gave any margin for error to the bowlers. Effectively rewarding the team who burnt all their reviews.

We don’t know what the on field call would have been if India had a chance to review. But with the pressure of the situation and human nature, it’s reasonable to suspect the possibility the umpire was influenced.
 
copthat said:
If you hand it to the umpires then it would just turn into them sending every tiny appeal upstairs like with stumpings and run outs in fear of being wrong.
Click to expand...
Why is that a bad thing? Cricket is a long game already. A few extra minutes here and there to eliminate (or close to anyway) shitty umpiring is a great trade.

Pair that with getting rid of umpires call and we'd have fair games decided by the skill and tactics of the players only. Any errors in the prediction will either be consistent for all deliveries and both teams (e.g. a calibration error) or truly random and not influenced by human emotions (uncertainty error).

Or to put it another way - does anyone ever complain that stumping and run out decisions are always correct? I certainly haven't seen anyone saying "yeah, the system is ok but man I wish we would see players given out when they've just made their ground or given not out when they're an inch short sometimes."
 

Remove this Banner Ad

PhatBoy said:
I’m certain I’ll be accused of an anti Australian agenda but in first look I thought green was in a lot of trouble and even a few people in the match thread who I assume actually like australia said it was gone before the review.

I get why they have the umpires call and I am ok with it because it allows for the margin for error that the Hawkeye developers have spoken about. I’d be happier if they just looked at where it pitched and where it made impact, though

Agree about the stumping garbage
Click to expand...
Live I honestly thought it was not out. The ball was moving and you could see way too much of the stumps, was surprised that it was even clipping.

The review system is of course flawed but it is still so much better than not having it at all.
 
Funny thing is commentators bang on all time about how umpires call is rubbish and that its either hitting stumps or its not then they turn around and say greens "unlucky" because it was hitting the stumps and he was given out.
 
Trojan90 said:
A tense moment in the game and wearing Australian glasses, so my thoughts were most likely biased but I thought not out live.

In the end we collapsed straight after so didn’t really cost much and we won anyway. So I can look rationally now.

I’m happy enough with the current system but the batsman in me would like some benefit of doubt to batsmen. But this is clearly a personal issue.

The problem I had with Greens dismissal was the thought that the ‘umpires call’ was influenced by India having no reviews. This defeats the purpose of umpires call and gave any margin for error to the bowlers. Effectively rewarding the team who burnt all their reviews.

We don’t know what the on field call would have been if India had a chance to review. But with the pressure of the situation and human nature, it’s reasonable to suspect the possibility the umpire was influenced.
Click to expand...

Umpires have enough to think about when making an LBW call I don't believe for one moment that Joel Wilson thought ''India don't have a review left, Australia do, so I'll give Green out and he can challenge it''.
 
99 Problems said:
Does every not out decision also get reviewed before the next ball, or is it just batters getting a massive advantage?
Click to expand...

Every decision. The 3rd umpire stays switched on in the box, reviews every decision and reverses any wrong decision.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Three reviews are way too many. Are they expecting 3 "howlers" every innings? If so, then they aren't appointing the right umpires. And this retaining a review because it's umpire's call is rubbish. If they review and lose the review, then that's it. It's evolved from something that could benefit the game into a farce.

I really liked Ian Chappell's comment years ago when Joe Root was trying to decide whether to review an LBW or not. Root was shaking his head, touching his bat as he walked down the wicket to see what the non-striker thought. Chappell said, "Well, if he knows he hit it, just review it, why does he need to discuss it with his batting mate?" I liked the comment because these instant board meetings drive me nuts.

If it's a true "Howler", players know straight away. They don't need 15 seconds to discuss it.
 
Get rid of umpires call. It’s either hitting or it’s not factoring in the margin of error. Teams either retain or lose the review depending on if it’s successful.
 
I think the system is working ok as it is, an overhaul isn't really needed.

3 feels about right to me, maybe 3 and even if you get the first one right it drops to 2, then after that you keep them for a correct/umpires call would be the only change I'd think about.
 
PhatBoy said:
I’m certain I’ll be accused of an anti Australian agenda but in first look I thought green was in a lot of trouble and even a few people in the match thread who I assume actually like australia said it was gone before the review.

I get why they have the umpires call and I am ok with it because it allows for the margin for error that the Hawkeye developers have spoken about. I’d be happier if they just looked at where it pitched and where it made impact, though

Agree about the stumping garbage
Click to expand...
Umpire got it right plain and simple, I think what many suspected was the umpire gave it because India were out of reviews, we will never know but I can see it happening even if Australia were the bowlers, the human element comes into it, I think the ICC have to grade umpire performance and publish them after every test, that ‘May’ solve the problem some what if there is one.

As for LBWs in Australia, I think umpiring in India would be much easier as their pretty much judging the direction of the ball without worrying about height, you get hit hit above the knee roll in Australia chances are it’s going over.
 
010203 said:
Umpires have enough to think about when making an LBW call I don't believe for one moment that Joel Wilson thought ''India don't have a review left, Australia do, so I'll give Green out and he can challenge it''.
Click to expand...
Imagine if he gave it not out and India had no reviews, he wouldn’t be all that popular in India now would he? End of the day he got it right though, but let’s not kid ourselves, it wasn’t a great decision considering umpires have to err in favour of the batsmen by law.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Jim Prideaux
    • Like
Ashes 25/26 in review
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
MisterMarcus
MisterMarcus

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom