Reviews in Cricket: TBC or Not

[sid_19840]

We've all had a decent look at how the review system works during the India V SriLanka series that's been going on.

What are your opinions on the review system?

IMO, the review system first needs to be tried in lower levels. It clearly did not work very well in the recent series. Far too much time was wasted on the reviews and the umpires were made to look like dummies at times. It seems to spoil the flow of the game. The only plus point which I could think of (after a lot of thought) was that it gave bowlers a slightly better chance in a batsman oriented game.

 

[Insomniac]

I'd like to beg to differ.

Without the review system, the better team on show (Sri Lanka) would not have won.

If there was no review system, Sri Lanka would be getting the hard end of the stick on each and every appeal, and it would probably have led them to lose the series.

With this review system, the correct decision was made nearly 95% of the time, which is what we want. I do not believe overs were lost due to the review system, but I am all for adding an extra half hour to each day's play in order to get the correct decisions.

While a decision is being made, all the players can just have a quick drink

Win-win situation for all.

 

[India2011]

I think that the idea is sound, bu tthe executiuon is shabby. Steps must be taken.

First of all, hot spot should be used.

Secondly, the third umpire should have the full hawkeye at his disposal.

Thirdly, the rule that a decision cannot be overturned unless there is conclusive proof against the umpire's word hasn't been enforced. It's not about giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman - it's about giving the benefit of the doubt to the umpire's decision, and that hasn't been done enough.

If those steps are taken, I don't see why the review system will not succeed.

 

[Cricketman]

The review should come immediately. They shouldn't wait five minutes and then make the 'T'.

The third umpire should only have like five minutes to make the decision.

 

[Insomniac]

I think that the idea is sound, bu tthe executiuon is shabby. Steps must be taken.

First of all, hot spot should be used.

Secondly, the third umpire should have the full hawkeye at his disposal.

Thirdly, the rule that a decision cannot be overturned unless there is conclusive proof against the umpire's word hasn't been enforced. It's not about giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman - it's about giving the benefit of the doubt to the umpire's decision, and that hasn't been done enough.

If those steps are taken, I don't see why the review system will not succeed.

Wrong on number 2.

The predictability of hawk-eye is still not 100%

At close, maybe 80-85%, and thats not good enough.

I liked how they did it, where only FACTS were used as far as hawkeye was concerned.

Also, the umpire has at most taken 3 full minutes to make his decision, as I remember Ten Sports were keeping track of it.

 

[shravi]

This is what I think. When there is an appeal, the third umpire should immediately begin to check whether it is out, irrespective of whether a review has been called for this. In doing this, a lot of time is conserved.

 

[lightbulb]

The review system ensures the right winner emerges, simple fact.

 

[Insomniac]

The review system ensures the right winner emerges, simple fact.

Exactly, which is what we want.

The right winner WOULD NOT have emerged out of this test series had the review system not been in place.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Ian Chappell made a few good points about the flaws of this. What if a few selfish batsmen or bowlers use it up? Then you could use up all your unsuccesful reviews, and have an absolute howler against you and do nothing about it. Maybe 1 review per batsman and 2 for each bowler? Or unlimited reviews? Or even allow them to consult their skipper or coach before using a review.

Another point from Cricinfo is about the time this takes. It takes quite a while to check each review, and it all adds up. So something must be done about this. Either extend the playing hours in a day, reduce the breaks, or something drastic like make Tests 6 day affairs and not 5 days.

 

[Insomniac]

Ian Chappell made a few good points about the flaws of this. What if a few selfish batsmen or bowlers use it up? Then you could use up all your unsuccesful reviews, and have an absolute howler against you and do nothing about it. Maybe 1 review per batsman and 2 for each bowler? Or unlimited reviews? Or even allow them to consult their skipper or coach before using a review.

Another point from Cricinfo is about the time this takes. It takes quite a while to check each review, and it all adds up. So something must be done about this. Either extend the playing hours in a day, reduce the breaks, or something drastic like make Tests 6 day affairs and not 5 days.

Bowlers cannot ask for a review, only captains can (for the bowlers)

As far as batsmen are concerned, thats the captain's problem.

If there is a problem with a player who keeps using the appeals, drop him.

Simple as that, he's part of the team, its his job to work in the interest of the team.

If he can't do that, he deserves to be dropped, and fined under against the spirit of the game or some other law

 

[Pak_cricketer]

To be honest it kinda takes some of the fun out of cricket. I mean, it's all part of the game, right?

 

[lightbulb]

Ian Chappell made a few good points about the flaws of this. What if a few selfish batsmen or bowlers use it up? Then you could use up all your unsuccesful reviews, and have an absolute howler against you and do nothing about it. Maybe 1 review per batsman and 2 for each bowler? Or unlimited reviews? Or even allow them to consult their skipper or coach before using a review.

Another point from Cricinfo is about the time this takes. It takes quite a while to check each review, and it all adds up. So something must be done about this. Either extend the playing hours in a day, reduce the breaks, or something drastic like make Tests 6 day affairs and not 5 days.

Reviews can't take that long, besides these days, in England anyway, the weather is good enough to play on till late so just increasethe day's length. And if there is bad light and the reviewshave made us lose a few overs, they're always added on to the next day, they did it in County Cricket last year and it didn't have any drastic time affects.

 

[nightprowler10]

I'm still 50/50 on their use. I can easily see where this is incredibly handy, but its a bit annoying at times and seems like a waste of time. Completely agree with the following post.

Wrong on number 2.

The predictability of hawk-eye is still not 100%

At close, maybe 80-85%, and thats not good enough.

I liked how they did it, where only FACTS were used as far as hawkeye was concerned.

 

[India2011]

^ You're right, zMario, hawkeye isn't perfect, but the ICC should invest in refining it to make it more fool-proof, and if it gets to the point where at least 95% of the decisions are right of LBW, it should be used. It makes for less time, and possibly more accuracy.

 

[JD10]

should bring Referals like the F/P Trophy