Discussion about this post

User's avatar
y sethuraman's avatar

the issue is not about decision or appeal. It is about the anomaly associated with onfield umpires action. When there is 10% chance of ball hitting the stump and if the onfield call is out how does it justify use of technology and consistency. If there is doubt then clearly say that it is not out irrespective of on field umpires decision. It solves the problem. Why add ambiguity to already ambiguous decision.

Expand full comment
Wren's avatar

The claim that removing the "Umpires Call" changes DRS from reviewing decision to reviewing appeals because it is "essentially doing away with the on-field umpire’s involvement with the LBW entirely" doesn't make any sense. After there is no "Umpires Call" when when decisions made on other forms of dismissal are reviewed. Those calling for the removal of Umpires Call are, or should be at least, calling for it to make consistent with its use in the rest of the dismissals. This means allowing DRS to make the final authoritative decision. Marginal cases in this view would be treated uniformly, under a threshold of doubt LBWs are not given no matter what the Umpire originally said.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts