Message Board Archives
Review of the review system
jk2s
2008-08-04 15:13:22
Article
What tweaks can be made?
More than 15 minutes were lost in a morning session which had been extended by half an hour to make up for the lost overs on the first day. The review system exists to undo obvious wrongs, but it's clear that teams will ask for reviews simply because they have a few pending, as was evident from the Kumble instance, and in some cases because bowlers always think that they have got their man. In the first Test, Harbhajan Singh asked for one after the ball had pitched about half a foot outside the leg stump.
In all, 24 unsuccessful reviews are allowed in a Test. (The total number of reviews can, of course, be much higher.) And in the event of all of these being reviewed, and granting three to five minutes per review, anything between 90 minutes to two hours of play can be lost. That's between 20 to 30 overs. Can Test cricket afford to slow itself down even further?
Maybe in addition to the numerical limit of 3 unsuccessful reviews, there can be penalty runs for unsuccessful reviews...add 5 runs for each unsuccessful review by the bowling team and deduct 5 runs from the batsman if he asks for a review and the decision is not overturned...This could lead to interesting situation where a batsman "loses" his half century or century...or it could make negative scores possible
prasad
2008-08-04 15:17:33
BCCI shud ask icc to charge 500,000$ per review....then bcci may have its way in this system....when will this bcci whining stop....
Pacy
2008-08-05 01:59:07
In reply to jk2s
That is a very very wrong approach Jk2s.
Yes there would be time delays, true. But the correction should be on the timelines and not runs.
Even if the time spent per review is 3 mins for and it takes 72 mins over the priod of test (20 Overs approx)it just comes to around 4 overs per day...
Cant Test cricket afford 4 overs a day to make it much more meaningful?
jk2s
2008-08-05 03:06:59
In reply to Pacy
Thanks for your response.
The numerical bound of 24 is just the number of unsuccessful reviews. There can be more than that depending on the number of successful reviews.
If say it was evenly divided between successful and unsuccessful reviews and there were 48 reviews per Test, at 3 mins per review that would be 144 minutes (~35 overs).
The main reason I suggested that the correction on runs was to avoid teams using meaningless "reviews" simply because they have them available, example the Kumble lbw in the 2nd innings of the India-SL Test.
70.5 Mendis to Kumble, OUT, Kumble asks for the review for the lbw decision. It looked dead plumb. It landed on the middle and off line and skidded towards the middle stump line. Again, Kumble had pressed that front foot too far across, tried to bring his bat around the pad but by then the ball had hit its target - the front pad and would have taken out the middle stump. Looks out. Decision still pending, though and here it comes - OUT
A Kumble lbw b Mendis 2 (9m 8b 0x4 0x6) SR: 25.00
By also having a cost in terms of runs, then teams will have to use their reviews when they feel they have a decent chance of the decision being overturned, and not simply because they have it available. If we assume that Test umpires are relatively competent then there should limit the number of over-turnable decisions and fielders/batsmen will only use a review when they think that it is possible it can be overturned.
For example, in the NFL if a review is unsuccessful then teams lose a time-out
Once per game, each head coach may also call a timeout and challenge the ruling on the previous play before the next play starts. A coach must have at least one timeout remaining in order to challenge (teams receive three timeouts per half). If the challenge is successful and the on-field ruling is overturned, the team keeps its timeout. If not, the team loses its timeout. In either event, the head coach may not challenge again during the game.
Pacy
2008-08-05 05:11:50
In reply to jk2s
I can understand where you come from but when we bring Runs into the picture many teams would not want to use this option and the entire objective can be defeated.
This is a process just in and had shown that it has more good than evil... BUt will evolve with time.
Just like how Stumping reveiws and Runout Reviews have become part of the game this would soon become part of the game... Just give it a year to evolve.
jk2s
2008-08-05 13:12:41
In reply to Pacy
I agree that his process is a good first step and is a lot better than the current system of no reviews.
I'm just thinking of what tweaks can be made to ensure that teams do not take advantage of this system. Maybe you can start the penalty runs after the 1st unsuccessful review, and then increase the number of penalty runs after each unsuccessful review.
Or limiting the number of unsuccessful reviews to 2 per innings might be another way to proceed...that lowers it to at most 16 unsuccessful reviews per Test match...
I'd also rotate the umpires as well every session the 2 on-field umpires and the 1 tv-umpire.
Do you have any other suggestions for tweaks that can be made to the current review system.
bcl277
2008-08-05 14:06:53
In reply to jk2s
Do you have any other suggestions for tweaks that can be made to the current review system
I have reviewed your review of the review system and, based on my review, your review of the review system looks OK.
django
2008-08-06 09:47:50
In reply to jk2s
The numerical bound of 24 is just the number of unsuccessful reviews. There can be more than that depending on the number of successful reviews.
That should be a pretty small amount, given that the ICC reckons umpires get 90% of the decisions right.
Anyways, the only tweak that can be put as of now is a time limit on the third umpire's decision I think.
OZGOD
2008-08-06 10:35:39
Bring on the review system I reckon. They should also allow the use of hawkeye, snicko and hotspot. At least they will be consistent towards both teams, even if the decisions might not be accurate.
django
2008-08-06 10:42:17
In reply to OZGOD
That is rubbish. Hot-spot is perfect I think, but snicko and HawkEye are inaccurate enough not to be used. You would want to go to technology only if it is 100% accurate. Despite HawkEye being consistent, if it is inaccurate, using it would actually mean re-writing the game's laws, sort of.
jk2s
2008-08-06 11:35:16
In reply to django
You would want to go to technology only if it is 100% accurate.
Why such a high standard for technology.
The umpires are definitely not 100% accurate.
Wouldnt technology be an improvement once its accuracy is better than the umpires. Let's say the umpires are 90% accurate but technology is 99% accurate. I'd be in favor of technology then.
If say technology was 91% accurate and umpires are 90% accurate then it may not be worth the effort..
django
2008-08-06 11:50:05
In reply to jk2s
The problem I see is this - technology can be mroe accurate, a LOT more admittedly, than on-field umpires. But it is still inaccurate (mainly HawkEye) enough to cause problems with maybe a handful of scenarios. Now, couple that with its consistency, and now we have a HUGE problem on our hands - of technology being consistently inaccurate !!
And cricket would then just boil down to technicians working with their laptops and bowlers simultaneously to exploit these handful of weaknesses. And once technology inaccurately gives these out (or not-out) on a consistent basis, we would end up playing cricket with a completely different set of laws, wouldn't we?
jk2s
2008-08-07 10:10:02
In reply to django
But how likely is this.
For example international bowlers today should all know how to bowl "correctly", but how many of them manage to pitch the ball exactly where they want all the time.
It sounds like the scenario you are describing is some edge case which exists but can be neglected in my opinion. My counter argument is that if the bowler was so good to be able to exploit these edge cases then surely he'd be able to more "normal wicket-taking" deliveries all the time which would be even more likely to get the batsman out, for example continually pitching in the "corridor of uncertainty"
In any event the decision is being made by the 3rd umpire as well with help from technology. Surely the umpire would notice that bowler is exploiting a weakness of the system in the unlikely that happens multiple times.
Wally-1
2008-08-07 10:16:59
the rules should change to one review per session for each team.
jk2s
2008-08-07 11:11:22
In reply to Wally-1
Would that be one unsuccessful review allowed per session per team.
That could mean even more unsuccessful reviews (3x5x2 = 30) than the current system which has a maximum of 24 unsuccessful reviews.
Wally-1
2008-08-07 11:57:07
In reply to jk2s
one review, successful or not
