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.
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.
Firstly, a degree of judgement is involved in non-LBW decisions as well. This is because umpires and DRS do not always perceive the fact of what actually happened (eg.borderline runouts, stumpings and catches).These are cases of epistemic uncertainty over factual statements. The point here is that in LBW cases there is epistemic uncertainty as well, except they are about counterfactual statements. there is epistemic uncertainty over.
Second, ultimately the point here is to get consistency in how DRS is used to treat epistemic uncertainty and mistakes in assessing the factual and counterfactual statements.One way is that DRS (like a high court) is the final authoritative decision maker. With its threshold of doubt, DRS would then provide determinate answers to what actually happened in game no matter whether we are deciding with factual decision making or counterfactual decision making. The point would that DRS provides a final decision whatever that decision is. The second way is that DRS is only one part of the "Umpiring system" in a game.This means it can defer to other parts of the system when it faces a degree of epistemic uncertainty.
My point is currently cricket is not going consistently in either way. In borderline runouts, stumpings and catches is no umpires call or soft signal in many such cases.IN such cases DRS is used in the first way from above. In LBW it is used in the second way.
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.
Its not adding or reducing ambiguity. All its asking is, is there conclusive evidence to contradict the decision. And if the ball-tracker estimates that somewhere between 0 an 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps, this is not considered sufficient evidence. This is a fairly standard way of making the margin for boundary calls explicit.
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.
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.
Other forms of dismissal do not involve judgment. They involve factual questions about events which occur.
Firstly, a degree of judgement is involved in non-LBW decisions as well. This is because umpires and DRS do not always perceive the fact of what actually happened (eg.borderline runouts, stumpings and catches).These are cases of epistemic uncertainty over factual statements. The point here is that in LBW cases there is epistemic uncertainty as well, except they are about counterfactual statements. there is epistemic uncertainty over.
Second, ultimately the point here is to get consistency in how DRS is used to treat epistemic uncertainty and mistakes in assessing the factual and counterfactual statements.One way is that DRS (like a high court) is the final authoritative decision maker. With its threshold of doubt, DRS would then provide determinate answers to what actually happened in game no matter whether we are deciding with factual decision making or counterfactual decision making. The point would that DRS provides a final decision whatever that decision is. The second way is that DRS is only one part of the "Umpiring system" in a game.This means it can defer to other parts of the system when it faces a degree of epistemic uncertainty.
My point is currently cricket is not going consistently in either way. In borderline runouts, stumpings and catches is no umpires call or soft signal in many such cases.IN such cases DRS is used in the first way from above. In LBW it is used in the second way.
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.
Its not adding or reducing ambiguity. All its asking is, is there conclusive evidence to contradict the decision. And if the ball-tracker estimates that somewhere between 0 an 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps, this is not considered sufficient evidence. This is a fairly standard way of making the margin for boundary calls explicit.
There's no way to avoid this.