South Africa v England 2009/10 / News
- South Africa v England home
- |
- News
- |
- Features
- |
- Photos
- |
- Audio
- |
- Fixtures
- |
- Results
- |
- Squads
- |
- Grounds
- |
- Tour Stats
- |
- Records
- |
- Download Fixtures
- |
- History
|
England in South Africa 2009-10
Reviews set for South Africa series
Cricinfo staff
November 24, 2009
|
||
|
Related Links
|
||
The ICC has confirmed that the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) will be used during South Africa's home Test series against England next month.
The use of reviews for the forthcoming series in South Africa had been uncertain because of doubts over the home board's willingness to help fund the technology, but the ICC has now confirmed that the system will be in place.
South Africa coach Mickey Arthur welcomed the use of the system. "I'm all in favour of anything which helps to reach the correct decision but, in an ideal world, that would mean having the same system in place all over the world," he said.
A review system was trialled last year, but a reluctance to cede power from the onfield officials meant that the third umpire was prevented from using all the available technology, and this fudged process led to a series of notable mishaps - not least during the first Test in Jamaica, when Ramnaresh Sarwan was reprieved by guesswork after the onfield umpire Tony Hill had given him out lbw.
On the back of this experience, England were the only ICC member to vote against the adoption of reviews, preferring a system where reviews are led by umpires and not player challenges.
Under the new arrangements each side will get a maximum of two unsuccessful challenges per innings, one less than when the system was trialled last year. The umpires will also have full use of the technology - Hawk-Eye, Hot Spot, pitch maps, stump microphones - to make their decision.
This latest version made its international debut in the first Test between New Zealand and Pakistan, and has already played a significant role, with Brendon McCullum being reprieved off the penultimate delivery of the first day's play, when umpire Simon Taufel's lbw decision was overturned.
Dave Richardson, the ICC's cricket operations manager, believes reviews can prompt players to adhere more closely to the spirit of the game. "Initially when we spoke we thought a possible indirect benefit might be that batsmen, when they do edge a ball, won't hang around and will walk anyway because they will be inevitably given out in the long run and they might be shown up as, not cheats, but certainly not playing within the spirit."
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
Click here to win Lufthansa tickets to India
Play Lufthansa Fantasy Cricket and other games!
Get your England ODI & Test replica kit
Buy now at Cricshop.com - leading online cricket store
Pre-order 2010 Wisden Cricketer's almanack
Buy now at Cricshop.com - leading online cricket store
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
ChrisH - the new review system now has 'confidence intervals' effectively built in because in an LBW at least the centre of the ball must be determined to be going on and hitting the stumps. The 'cone of uncertainty' is half a ball, which is a very conservative. Harvey - seriously, the extra couple of minutes for no more than two referrals per innings is a problem?? There are more delays than that for changes of gloves/bats. For a game that's played over 5 days to say that a couple of minutes here and there is a major issue is what is farcical. ssumm3r - bad decisions do not make the game interesting. They make it frustrating and stupid. Otherwise, how about every hour on the hour we just get the umpires to toss a coin and decide whether the receiving batsman at the time should be out or should stay. Oh, how much joy that would provide for the game of cricket! You'd love it! Who cares about the best team winning when you can decide it by chance.
Posted by ssumm3r on (November 26 2009, 09:54 AM GMT)poor field umpires, it kills joy of cricket, bad decisions are an integral part of cricket matches, they turn matches and make the game interesting.
Posted by Ed_Lamb on (November 25 2009, 21:45 PM GMT)Don't hold the bodged first attempt by the ICC against the referral system - if it's rolled out professionally it would be easily implemented with the impact on the watching public no worse than in other sports that successfully use video replays to ensure correct decisions are made. And if there is any doubt at all then the batsman gets the benefit. Surely it's vital we try to improve the accuracy of decisions - unfortunately those overseeing the game are several years later than they should have been getting the referral system successfully implemented, but better late than never.
Posted by Mahiru on (November 25 2009, 20:48 PM GMT)can anyone explain why this reviews were not implemented for India-Srilanka series?? was that because the Indians were against it??
Posted by Hooves on (November 24 2009, 21:06 PM GMT)Fudge, Rhubarb and cowpats. Leave the decision with the umpires. I think there is value in giving the third umpire all the means at our disposal to allow him to make the right decision. I think i'm right in saying that they were'nt allowed to use hawkeye as it makes a prediction which will inevitably influence his judgement. But if we are going to use technology, give the man use of all the technology possible. But i really really hate the option players are given to challenge the umpires decision. I think it throws the game of track and looses momentum. It reduces the on field umpires to an unreasonable level of pressure, as if they aren't under enough just with the big screen flashing replays away for ten minutes after they've made their judgement and it probably creates more distractions for the skippers of the two teams contesting the match. Things are generously best left simple and creating a 'court of appeal' mid game is not simplifiaction in its purest form.
Posted by Harvey on (November 24 2009, 17:33 PM GMT)As usual nobody has asked the fans what we think. The system means more delays and stoppages, and generally diminishes the cricket-watching experience. This was tried in the Caribbean when England last toured, and some of the decisions it produced were completely farcical. The majority of fans who were in the grounds absolutely hated it, and were delighted when it was announced that the system was not going to be used for The Ashes.
Posted by ChrisH on (November 24 2009, 17:24 PM GMT)How was Sarwan reprieved by guesswork? The third umpire is not allowed to use the predictive part of hawkeye (since like all predictions such as hurricane paths, there is a margin of error associated with it - however unlike other forecasts hawkeye never shows the "cone of uncertainty"). At best hawkeye's forecast showed the ball barely clipping a stump which taken with the uncertainty means that had Sarwan's leg not been in the way it could either have just barely hit the stump or missed it by centimetres. As best as I can recall, batsmen are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt