To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Cookies may be used for personalisation of ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Posted by 
Batsmen – bounders and cads!
yes…its pity…
bowlers wont get away with lbw’s where balls pitches clearly outside leg stumps…and teams claiming half vollys as catches and get away with it coz they appeal good…
where we can spend endless time to see whether foot of a fielder was tucking the boundary rope…but wont spare a moment for a decision which can potentially alter the course of a match or a career…
how pity…
I’m all for a review system of sorts, but the system used in the Sri Lanka – India series (which I’m guessing will be the same one used against the Windies) has its problems.
Notably, the original umpire has to decide whether or not to overturn his original decision based on the review umpire’s opinion.
Why not just have a text vote and be done with it? Or an online poll, Jrod-style: “Is Pietersen (a) Out; (b) Not Out (c) an uncaring mercenary; (d) the next American Idol?”.
LOL @ Webster,
I think the referral system is a good one, although I was against it for ages, the biggest issue in the whole thing is how long a team takes before its sent for review.
In the SL IND series ppl took ages to decide to go for a review. Like Mahela would check with his bowler and keeper and take about 2 mins before calling for it. There is a loop hole in there. I hope its fixed for this Eng WI series otherwise it just leads to trouble.
The 3rd it self wont make any decisions , he will jst help the onfield dude make up his mind.
Maybe ICCs way of trying to retain the human element.
Benefit of the doubt has to go to the on-field umpire’s original decision NOT the batsman. If that happens, all is well with the world, poverty ends and world peace begins.
Think they ought to go the Lalit Modi way and whoever can stump up the most cash gets the decision
I think the benefit of the doubt should go AGAINST the person seeking to rely on the referral (whether batsman or bowler).
We think the benefit of the doubt should go alongside the person referring the referral to the original decision by the on and off-field umpires, in cases where the referred decision has been made and rejected by the appealing captain in agreement with all umpires and the batsman.
Damith, I reckon the time aspect will even itself out — after all, teams nowadays have to stick to fairly strict over rates.
In the SL-Ind series, Mahela just seemed to use the system better. Could this be one where the role of the captain becomes even more important?
Mahinda
I am not so sure, Sometimes Mahela spent a really long time before he called for the replay, Which I dint really think was appropriate. Sometimes even after the ball was dead.
I thought they were going to refine that rule or something. Not sure what happened to it.
And yes Mahela definitely was better at using the review system to our advantage. I think we led the overturned decisions by a long way.
I think the system works but it needs to be tweaked in certain areas.