More details about the REVIEW system?

Question

Will the new review concept encourage umpires to be more brave in their decisions? (especially in judging lbw decisions) In other words will they give OUT batsmen on occasions where they wouldnt have done so earlier...ex.lbw appeals with the batsmen struck in line but with a good stride forward:P

And how many reviews are allowed for a team in a test match? Is it 3 unsuccessful reviews per innings? Then why o why dont batsmen use their reviews when they know the reviews will be wasted if they dont use em? Ex. SL are x*x for 8 wickets...and they gt two more reviews to go...Kumble to Mendis...Wrapped on the pads! Howzaaat? Given! and Mendis walks back to the pavillion...hmm why didnt he jst try a review 4 the sake of it being there...even if he loses SL will still have another left 4 the last batsman!?! I can understand players conserving reviews...but shouldnt they utilize them when opportunities present themselves?

Answer 1

the new review system encourage over confident umpires to be more brave in their decisions and give more dictatorial authority.

And they can discriminate or favour any team they want now.

its getting worse

Answer 2

The umpires have been passing the buck to the 3rd umpire with the present ICC Rules so I don't think they'll take on the responsibility of  a decision with any Review system if they can avoid it.

The principles come from Tennis, where it works very well. But, and it is a big BUT, in Tennis it is 3 unsuccessful challenges for each player, the ball is never out of plain sight of the judges and Hawkeye never has to predict the path of the ball. That is not the case in cricket. The umpires often cannot see the ball although they think they can and, believe it or not, the umpires often don't bother to be looking where they should. (Check out Monty Panesar's No Balling at Edgbaston.)

More, lbw is often controversial because the umpires don't make a decision (they cannot refer it to the 3rd umpire) and it depends upon prediction - which is not permitted in the current Review.

If the purpose of the Review is be fair to the players under the Rules, then it should be freely available for all decisions. If that can't be done then there should be a number of unsuccessful challenges (3 say) allowed for each batsman/bowler/fielder.  

Answer 3

this leads to most umpires cheet very cheeply like venkat

very little money needed

Answer 4

Three unsuccessful reviews for each team while batting & bowling in each innings.

I'll proffer some changes to the review system

1) A team should have only 3 unsuccessful reviews in each innings, not seperately for batting & bowling.

or

2) Only the batting side should be given the option of review. The bowling team already reserve the right to appeal (and the batting team can't). And the umpire takes the desicion. That should be final.

Forget about Mendis's options. Umpire took the liberty to give Dilshan out, which he asked for a review and was overturned. But when we took a closer look, the ball was not going to hit the stumps. I think the umpire took his chance, and thought the batsman will ask for review if he feels the decision is wrong.

Answer 5

yes, its good system, atleast it does makes a difference to a test match at crucial stages, when umpires makes a mistake, some people nick the ball and umpire rules them not out , in this case it will be very helpful for the fielding skipper to get the right result !

hope it helps,

best regards!

Answer 6

i think review system was exploited to its limit by both teams.  seems like there are 3 reviews for batting side each inning, and 3 reviews for bowling side each inning, so total of 12 reviews for each side in a test.  i think dats a bit too much.  it should be 3 reviews batting and bowling together in an innings, this will stop unnecessary reviews.  

.

but yea review system does make the decisions of match refrees easier.  i don't know how they feel tho, after their decision is changed.  and i don't like the lbw rule of impact inside, what if the ball was massively turning but the impact was inside, on field umpire is better suited to that than the third umpire.

Answer 7

it makes umpire is waste

Answer 8

You bring up an interesting point there. I think the umpires will start to make more brave decisions that they normally wouldn't do if the system wasn't there. Which questions whether 3 chances should be reduced to two, because players are also starting to use them, not because they believe the umpire gave a bad decision but because there could be the slightest of chances that it is in fact out. Which isn't really the purpose of the review system. The system was braught in to stop BAD decisions becoming the headline of the game.

I think the review system should be reviewed, and so does this article. This talks about the system, advantages and disadvantages.

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine...