Review system should be wide open

[Adrian Shelton]

Thought of this y/day after that LBW got knocked back. Why cant the 3rd umpy just hit the red light for something like that?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Because the ball was going over the top of the stumps.

 

[Adrian Shelton]

Pontings? that wasnt goin over

 

[Marklar_33]

Pontings? that wasnt goin over

Hawkeye, which is shit, had it clipping the bails...benefit of the doubt seems fair

 

[stmookeyj]

I can see a problem with this, especially with the umpires always lacking action on "waterboys". If this system was in the Ashes, then if there was a dodgy decision late in the first test on that last day who's to say that they'll challenge to stall for time (a good 2 minutes at least), then send out the water douche. IMO it should be 1 and only 1 per innings.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Pontings? that wasnt goin over

Don't confuse the two. The one they called for a review was going over. The one they SHOULD have called for wasn't. I can understand the intention of the system, but in practice it's a shambles.

Why? Because batsmen never think they are out (e.g. Gayle, Chanderpaul), and bowlers always think it's out (e.g. Siddle). Captain are relying upon bowlers' opinions which is fraught with danger.

We are just going to continue watching meaningless challenges simply because they have 2 to play with.

The ridiculous part is they say it's all in the name of getting it right, but it's not. It's a system to support the umpire.

For example, Johnson's dismissal yesterday. He didn't nick the ball but weas given out. He challenged, but because there was "inconclusive evidence", he was given out. The point was there was also nothing to suggest he actually hit it.

Had he been given not out and the fielding team appealled for a review, he would have been given not out for the same reason.

So it has nothing to do with getting the decision correct, and everything to do with not making umpires look silly.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

If it was wide open we'd see more idiot calls like the one we just witnessed, slowing the game down more. The players need to learn when & when not to use the option. Serves them right if they waste another one then cop a shocking call that should be challenged but can't be.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Don't confuse the two. The one they called for a review was going over. The one they SHOULD have called for wasn't. I can understand the intention of the system, but in practice it's a shambles.

Why? Because batsmen never think they are out (e.g. Gayle, Chanderpaul), and bowlers always think it's out (e.g. Siddle). Captain are relying upon bowlers' opinions which is fraught with danger.

We are just going to continue watching meaningless challenges simply because they have 2 to play with.

The ridiculous part is they say it's all in the name of getting it right, but it's not. It's a system to support the umpire.

For example, Johnson's dismissal yesterday. He didn't nick the ball but weas given out. He challenged, but because there was "inconclusive evidence", he was given out. The point was there was also nothing to suggest he actually hit it.

Had he been given not out and the fielding team appealled for a review, he would have been given not out for the same reason.

So it has nothing to do with getting the decision correct, and everything to do with not making umpires look silly.

My opinion is Johnson nicked it.

Regardless of that, the decision should be left to the umpire, like it is with run outs. If he is unsure he should refer, if he is sure, he doesn't. The players deciding when makes it a farce and the only allowing two is even worse.

 

[DIG]

Keep 2 challenges per innings but for every say, 6 wrong challenges by a team, they don't get to make any in the next test match.

This would slow down the number of flippant appeals.

 

[jpdixon]

For example, Johnson's dismissal yesterday. He didn't nick the ball but weas given out. He challenged, but because there was "inconclusive evidence", he was given out. The point was there was also nothing to suggest he actually hit it.

Except whatever made the umpire give it out in the first place. You've got to be joking if you think the cameras pick up everything.