6 Comments

I think sometimes ex-player - or most people actually - tend to miss the unintended outcomes of a decision. You're right, what they're arguing for is basically taking LBW decision away from the umpire, it'll be the first step towards eliminating umpires, what does it do to umpires in domestic cricket then? Would there be an incentive for a lot of them if there's no need for an umpire in international cricket.

Also - and I think you've said this before - LBW not an event that has occurred, in fact, its an estimation of an event that would never occur and would have occurred had some conditions been met like and the umpire is estimating if the ball would have hit the stumps had the event occurred. Its not black and white like caught behind where the argument is if the event occurred or not.

Expand full comment

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

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