Rules question regarding DRS/Hawk-Eye (for LBW)

[SetonHallPirate]

Umpire's thinking: Bounce off-stump, contact missing, hitting stumps, appeal therefore denied.

Bowlers review:

Hawk-Eye projection: Bounce off-stump, contact in-line, umpire's call for stumps

Is the umpire allowed to overturn the call and declare the batsman "out" in this case? Put another way, is the umpire's call supposed to mean the other side has to overturn all three, or is each component allowed to stand on its own?

Thanks!

 

[ethybubs]

Apart from the fact that the first one is physically impossible, it should not be overturned but for some reason it is. I have thought the same thing in regards to a ball being hit on an LBW appeal. If the umpire thinks it was was hit and was going on to be lbw, but it wasn't hit and it is umpires call, then it should be out but for some reason it isn't so.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

I'm confused by what you're saying about the first one being physically impossible, but that may be because I didn't word my question right...(let me put this in DRS code, to make it clear)

Umpire's thinking: Red, Green, Red (therefore, appeal denied)
Hawk-Eye: Red, Red, Yellow

Result? Should the call be overturned or not, and is it overturned or not?

 

[greymatter776]

With my limited knowledge on this I think its technically out because we cant prove which way the Umpire thought.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

this is the problem. it's never been made clear if it's a whole new appeal to another umpire with access to technology or it's asking technology to review the components of the umpires decision.

this would almost be ok, but the "umpires decision" part means it can't quite be a whole new appeal because it takes into account information provided by the onfield umpires initial assessment.

it may seem like nitpicking, and I'm not going to provide examples of why this is a problem, it's simply a logical error in process that will only further expose DRS as flawed until it's sorted.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

StinkyBoHoon, just my thinking, it's a question to ask to make DRS work better, not a reason to sink DRS entirely.

The answer to DRS not working 100% of the time is to work on it so it works properly 100% of the time, not to use it 0% of the time.

 

[greymatter776]

The answer to DRS not working 100% of the time is to work on it so it works properly 100% of the time, not to use it 0% of the time.

Something BCCI should understand.They say if DRS need to be allowed then there should be permission to make unlimited appeals.But isn't it better to get justice atleast twice rather than none?

 

[MattW]

Really in situations like that, the umpire should be able to ask a direct question to the third umpire instead of it invoking DRS.

As long as the umpire makes the call as to whether it would have gone on to hit the stumps, which is the only situation where advanced technology is needed - then the umpire should be free to verify the pitch of the ball and whether it hit in line, as you only need a slow motion replay to check those things.

Hitting/missing the stumps is the only judgement call the umpire should make alone in a non-reviewed LBW, so that's the bit where it'd move over and become a review of the 'decision'. Otherwise, the pitch and where the ball hits is a fact, just like whether it's a no ball, or whether a batsman was over the line in a run out, both things that already can be checked on the replay without a review.

By splitting that out you could also have that occur in all matches with a TV replay, not just when you have DRS.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Make DRS (and third umpire stuff generally) like Video Ref in League. Give the guy a microphone and have him explain what he sees from the replays that he is using and the decision that he comes to. Hell; mike up the field umpires as well - they do that in TV County Championship games and its quite interesting to hear some of the discussions with players!