There's been plenty of reflection on the review system, not least because the aussies don't seem happy with it and mistakes are STILL going uncorrected.
We had the near farcical situation of three aussies out, two reviewed and shouldn't have, while the one that should didn't. So what is the fundamental flaw in this system which should have just reassured everyone about decisions?
Firstly the decision to give two reviews per side per innings made the system "tactical". The temptation is great when a call is "close", but then you have the double edged sword of deciding not to review to preserve your reviews, or reviewing and risk losing one. If umpires can't get the call right, what chance the batsman or fielding side. England have refined their procedure for when and when not to use reviews, but still it is fundamentally flawed.
This leads to sides running out of reviews and still mistakes are then made. There is a little inconsistency in application, the umpires review run outs, stumpings, clean catches and every wicket is checked to see if it was a no ball without costing anyone a review.
Then there is the 'umpire factor' in conjuction with the way the system is applied. Whether an umpire gives a decision out or not out can be pivotal. As the hawkeye for LBWs too often gives "umpire's call" it means that is pivotal. Had a batsman been given not out then "umpire's call" stops the bowlers getting the decision and vice versa if given out and the batsman reviews it.
Isn't the point of technology to accurately decide where the ball was going? If hawkeye cannot or is made not to give a decision as to whether the ball pitched in line, hit outside off stump and was hitting or missing then frankly it shouldn't be used. Either it knows or doesn't, can tell or can't. This "umpire's call" nonsense is a smokescreen, a way of backing the umpire. I can full understand why the aussies are annoyed.
So on to the catches, these seem to now be decided by sound and spots of heat, even though some doubts are expressed by those involved with it as to its reliability. Apparently where hawkeye doesn't always make a call on hitting stumps, pitching in line etc, snick-o-meter and hotspot are given full credence in decisions, leaving batsmen fuming.
What happened to slow motion replays? We seem to have everything but, as if the naked eye wouldn't detect a very feint edge if slowed down. Perhaps replay technology is worse these days, or the clarity of picture, or eyesight is worse, because slow motion replays used to work fine, I never had any doubt that a slight nick would be picked up.
It's almost as if we're saying "technology is boss", relying on hawkeye, snick-o-meter and hotspot entirely, as if we've eliminated the 'human factor' - except "technology" is totally influenced by humans, judging sounds, spots and telling hawkeye what to cite as "umpire's call". In tennis we don't see a reply of line calls, we get a reconstruction to make an absolute call, an image that people don't dispute but might if they saw the replay in slow motion.
So those are some of the doubts about the review system, the principle of absolute evidence to overturn a decision yet setting hawkeye to "umpires call" rather than have it say hitting/missing, hitting in line/not hitting in line etc The system still covers up umpiring errors, so called "technology" is not being used fully and players can be sure they're not out, or a batsman is out, and technology says "we're sticking by the umpire because it is close and we don't wish to undermine them by making a decision contrary to it".
Is sticking by a wrong decision right simply because it wasn't an awful decision? While the review system may initially have seemed a wonderful idea and stats show it improves decisions, is its nature now destroying confidence in it and I suspect the aussies will feel like it is worth a couple of wickets an innings against them.
England will argue Agar was out, foot not clearly behind the line when stumped and should have been out. How many decisions other than that haven't gone the way of England? And I don't mean silly wasted reviews by Watson and others, I mean close calls decided by technology going England's way - and indeed decisions like the Broad wicket that wasn't that should have been.
"Umpire's call" probably flashes up in aussie nightmares, the mere fact that given the other way by said umpire being the difference between out and not out. While I feel wickets given out by sound and a hotspot alone give me grave concerns, the "umpire's call" factor and the impact it has on the game above all else has convinced me the system seriously needs a review.............................
We had the near farcical situation of three aussies out, two reviewed and shouldn't have, while the one that should didn't. So what is the fundamental flaw in this system which should have just reassured everyone about decisions?
Firstly the decision to give two reviews per side per innings made the system "tactical". The temptation is great when a call is "close", but then you have the double edged sword of deciding not to review to preserve your reviews, or reviewing and risk losing one. If umpires can't get the call right, what chance the batsman or fielding side. England have refined their procedure for when and when not to use reviews, but still it is fundamentally flawed.
This leads to sides running out of reviews and still mistakes are then made. There is a little inconsistency in application, the umpires review run outs, stumpings, clean catches and every wicket is checked to see if it was a no ball without costing anyone a review.
Then there is the 'umpire factor' in conjuction with the way the system is applied. Whether an umpire gives a decision out or not out can be pivotal. As the hawkeye for LBWs too often gives "umpire's call" it means that is pivotal. Had a batsman been given not out then "umpire's call" stops the bowlers getting the decision and vice versa if given out and the batsman reviews it.
Isn't the point of technology to accurately decide where the ball was going? If hawkeye cannot or is made not to give a decision as to whether the ball pitched in line, hit outside off stump and was hitting or missing then frankly it shouldn't be used. Either it knows or doesn't, can tell or can't. This "umpire's call" nonsense is a smokescreen, a way of backing the umpire. I can full understand why the aussies are annoyed.
So on to the catches, these seem to now be decided by sound and spots of heat, even though some doubts are expressed by those involved with it as to its reliability. Apparently where hawkeye doesn't always make a call on hitting stumps, pitching in line etc, snick-o-meter and hotspot are given full credence in decisions, leaving batsmen fuming.
What happened to slow motion replays? We seem to have everything but, as if the naked eye wouldn't detect a very feint edge if slowed down. Perhaps replay technology is worse these days, or the clarity of picture, or eyesight is worse, because slow motion replays used to work fine, I never had any doubt that a slight nick would be picked up.
It's almost as if we're saying "technology is boss", relying on hawkeye, snick-o-meter and hotspot entirely, as if we've eliminated the 'human factor' - except "technology" is totally influenced by humans, judging sounds, spots and telling hawkeye what to cite as "umpire's call". In tennis we don't see a reply of line calls, we get a reconstruction to make an absolute call, an image that people don't dispute but might if they saw the replay in slow motion.
So those are some of the doubts about the review system, the principle of absolute evidence to overturn a decision yet setting hawkeye to "umpires call" rather than have it say hitting/missing, hitting in line/not hitting in line etc The system still covers up umpiring errors, so called "technology" is not being used fully and players can be sure they're not out, or a batsman is out, and technology says "we're sticking by the umpire because it is close and we don't wish to undermine them by making a decision contrary to it".
Is sticking by a wrong decision right simply because it wasn't an awful decision? While the review system may initially have seemed a wonderful idea and stats show it improves decisions, is its nature now destroying confidence in it and I suspect the aussies will feel like it is worth a couple of wickets an innings against them.
England will argue Agar was out, foot not clearly behind the line when stumped and should have been out. How many decisions other than that haven't gone the way of England? And I don't mean silly wasted reviews by Watson and others, I mean close calls decided by technology going England's way - and indeed decisions like the Broad wicket that wasn't that should have been.
"Umpire's call" probably flashes up in aussie nightmares, the mere fact that given the other way by said umpire being the difference between out and not out. While I feel wickets given out by sound and a hotspot alone give me grave concerns, the "umpire's call" factor and the impact it has on the game above all else has convinced me the system seriously needs a review.............................