Review Idea

[Ginnieboy]

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.

I love it when an opposition batsman talks to his partner, at least you know there was no bat involved.

 

[Ginnieboy]

I remember Ian Chappell saying teams should only get one so they only use it on howlers, I 100% disagree with that and I don’t disagree with much the great man says, I think the review system has brought an exciting new element into the game, and let’s face it they don’t take long and it’s not like they happen every 5 overs, why not give every batsman 1 review (and only one) and bowlers 2 reviews? Bowlers decide what reviews they take not the captain.

Shit umpiring cost us an away Ashes series not too long ago.

As for the stumping reviews they should be for stumping only.

 

[caveman72]

I think the reviews bring a new element into the game, 2 isn’t enough IMO.

Imagine if it was unlimited Marnus would be reveiwing after every delivery even after its been hit out of the ground