Archive

Posts Tagged ‘De Villiers’

Third umpire strikes back as review system improves

December 20th, 2009
Comments Off
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Twitter] [Yahoo!]

England have suffered in their trials by video at Centurion but only tweaks are needed to ensure everyone is happy

THE CENTURION Test has been our first experience of the revised Umpire Decision Review System. My initial impression is that the changes made to something that was largely derided earlier in the year on the tour of the West Indies have improved it.

In the Caribbean, the third umpires had a shocker. This was because of the limitations of the system — partly due to poor technology, such as the wrong camera angle being supplied for use in some crucial decisions — and because of misunderstandings as to the exact role that the man in the box plays in guiding the umpires in the middle.

Those problems have now been removed. The most important change has been to allow the third umpire to use the predictive element of Hawk-Eye, whereas previously he was apparently forced to use a ruler as a primitive way of assessing the likely path of the ball in the event of a query over an lbw appeal.

This change emphatically does not mean that there is no debate. At tea yesterday, Sir Ian Botham and I got stuck into a decidedly warm discussion following the upholding of the not-out lbw verdict in favour of AB de Villiers. Hawk-Eye had shown that the delivery from Graham Onions would have clipped the leg stump pretty hard. The crucial point was that it was not within the tolerance levels prescribed by the International Cricket Council (ICC) for such incidents.

So if a review shows that the decision of the man in the middle fell within the margin of error, the orange graphic comes up “Umpire’s Call”, and the original decision stands.

This does present an anomaly. We had a situation in which the umpire had given De Villiers not out, and Hawk-Eye suggested strongly that he should have been given out. However, because of the margin of error, the third umpire could not definitively say the original verdict was wrong, so the on-field umpire’s decision stood, and England had lost their final review. That was the point Sir Ian was most indignant about: that even if one accepted the decision as laid down by the rules of the system, it seemed harsh that England had lost the review when everyone knew Read more…

Administrator England, South Africa , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,