Any Questions / Suggestions for the ICC regarding the DRS review system?

If you have any suggestions or questions about the review system then add them in here and I will send them to my contacts at the ICC.

Once I receive a response from the ICC, I'll post it in here.

Nobody have any questions or suggestions for the ICC to improve this ?

I haven't seen enough of it yet but I read a no-ball was not called and review was used by Pakistan and not given out. Pakistan should not have lost a review for this as the umpire didn't signal noball and they are just going for the dismissal.
from cricinfo:

47.6 Mohammad Asif to Elliott, 1 no ball, appeal for a lbw and Pakistan opt for the review, Asif's front foot is touching the popping crease, pitches in line with the off stump and angles inwards, the ball hits him below the knee roll and in line with middle and leg, Doctrove says not out, Virtual Eye says that was hitting the stumps, when it goes upstairs the third umpire Koertzen tells Doctrove that it was an overstep, it took ages though. The line belongs to the umpire

Ideally it should not count as a challenge wasted by Pakistan because the umpire ought to have noticed the no-ball in the beginning.

I think they should just dump the system. I think bowlers are ar more risk, now umpires will not give any decisions on border line in fielding side favor, if you think its for out then go and appeal.

Why are hotspot not being used? I can understand if the ground/coverage didn't have it but it is available. Sometimes we are seeing them within 15-30 seconds in replays and it seemed in the review conditions document if available will be used. That is about the time 3rd umpire may start looking at replays so no delay reallly and he has another 30-60 seconds before he calls for hot spot.




I have only seen one review and it didn't need it but read a comment about in match thread or another thread ("Pakistan cheated by review" or something like that) the hotspot was shown next day and showed it was not out. Apparently a correct decision but it would have helped probably. Is it selective when to show it and not to show it?

another suggestion:
The 3rd umpire should make the final decision just like for run-out and flash it on the screen. Avoid the confusion as to who is giving the decision in the end

Ive seen the new, revamped review system used a few times this week.

I am sure fans and players want to see the CORRECT decision made.

But that is NOT what the review system is about. For example Mitchell Johnson v West Indies (1st test)

The umpire gave him out (thin edge caught behind), and the batsman challenged it because he didnt believe he had nicked it - and I didnt think he nicked it.

The TV umpire looked at a few replays - again, there was no obvious nick, no hotspot mark, no visible deflection or change in angle of the ball.

For me - the decision should have been OVERTURNED as NOT OUT.

But the review system is NOT looking for what might have happened - its is merely there to back up the decision the umpire out in the middle makes - even it is wrong.

So I ask - what is the point of the review system?

The 3rd umpire should have the decision given on the screen rather than relayed down to the umpire on the field. This way it adds to the excitment.

Just saw hotspot used in O'Brian LBW so ignore that

OXY - good point. Third umpire should be making the decision independent of what the on field decision was. If should not be is it conclusive enough to overturn and perhaps looking for something to support onfield decision.

Third umpire if communication is allowed (I don't know why unless umpire calls one himself and not a challege) "is this out"

Bad system, places more doubt in the minds of the umpires, they'll stay on the side of certainty and not make a decision when the review system is there.

Dump it.

No it should not be dumped. Need right 3rd umpires perhaps (They don't need to be Elite umpires) and some rules. There are 3 tests going on right now and they put 2 famous experienced umpires in this test and wasting one as third umpire. I am sure Australia or India would have liked one of them there

Please don't refer to Rudi Koertzen as elite in any capacity.

I referred to a Holding quote somwhere about the reviews and paraphrased it but I was talking about this
which was made after a bad 3rd umpire review decision, I think I got it from Eng-WI series thread here

Nah, umpires should feel more confident knowing that if they make a terrible decision it will get overturned immediately and the game continues. It's a lot easier on them than if there were no referrals and instead they just got torn apart by the media and the players after the days play.

Well Oxy's point stands. Akmal review just now. onfield Taufel gave out, review called and the hawkeye said not hitting the stump as I heard the commentator saying that. It was given out. Why??? What is it for unless the umpires think technology is not right other than try to find a way to give on field umpires' verdict. If you remember Rudi in the ICC World XI vs Australia he was against it and some times not calling for reviews and not he is the 3rd umpire.

cancel this one. people now saying hawkeye showing it hitting the leg stump.

I will be back

I love the system. It at least is getting more right than without the system. Not perfect yet, but its one test rather than call for its dismissal. Give it a year to work out kinks but I think it is fantastic. It at least covers for umpires like Doctrove.

I think the ICC should take a cue from American football where coaches are allowed to challenge umpiring decisions. The language explicitly states that in order for a call to be overturned, there must be "indisputable video evidence" that proves the call wad incorrect. In the absence of indisputable evidence, the on-field call stands.

Firstly, this helps remove howler decisions, and doesnt over-turn decisions that are harder or impossible to judge even with technology. This would remove the risk of inconsistent or biased challenges where some grey-area decisions are overturned and others are not. Another benefit is that this gives the benefit of doubt to the on-field umpires. Just as there are benefits with technology, we have to acknowledge that there are also benefits exclusive to the naked human eye.

eg in the first innings of the just concluded test, where asifs lbw was overturned, it was very disputable whether the ball struck the pads outside the line or not. As martin crowe said, even the slow motion replay did not have enough frames per second to pinpoint exactly where contact occurred. Benefit of doubt should have been given to taufel, but the dismissal was overturned)

^^ I agree. In the case of reviews, benefit of doubt should be given to the umpires, and not the batsmen.

The review system will work well in the right hands.

That is how it works now, close decisions don't get overturned. Just the ones that are obviously wrong.

Apparently no input about calling the review should come from the dressing room.

Yesterday Macintosh called for a review for LBW decision against him. But right before he called it he looked at the pavilion and commentator also said looking for a go ahead from dressing room (or something like that). At that time no replay had been shown but dressing room is probably watching the live feed and also listening to commentators. No camera was showing the dressing room to say someone signaled.

Is this allowed and should the review had been canceled?

Some of the grounds have pavilions on the side and if law is practiced players can just stand certain way instead of turning around to overcome this.

Not a complaint but clarification needed about the law if someone knows it

Whta about the Time fram set where batsman should be allowed to call for a challege, if he doesnt ask for it then its automatically denied. Just like in NFL, if next play ball is snapped, then challenge flag cant be thrown in.

Maybe after raising the finger for out given, umpire should have a ticking clock where he clicks it on and with in 90 second review has to be called for, and batman is not allowed to look for suggestions from the dressingroom.(wichis is imposible to stop).

I don't know if signals are allowed from the dressing room or not, but I don't mind players looking to the dressing room for help with reviews, as long as the player doesn't waste too much time waiting for a signal. If the object is to remove bad decisions, then this can only help

I disagree, a couple of VERY close calls were overturned in the first test.

They may say that the general strategy is to give benefit of doubt to the onfield umpire, but as opposed to a general unwritten strategy, it should be an explicit rule. something similar to NFL/college football, like: "To overturn a call on the field, there must exist indisputable video evidence. If video evidence is inconclusive, the on field call must stand".

some 50-50 decisions have been overturned in other tests as well, and this is inexcusable. Currently, the review works like a second opinion, which just adds to the clutter and confusion of close calls. It should instead work like a fail-safe or further review of the first decision, not a second decision independent of the first. A third umpire should not be reviewing the play itself, he should be reviewing the call. Currently, a third umpire looks at a replay and asks "What is the correct call here?" without even considering what the on field call is. He should be asking himself "Did the on-field umpire make the correct call?". If a decision is close and video evidence can go either way, then his opinion should be inconclusive and his job should end there. This slight shift of focus ensures third umpires don't have the leeway to exercise bias (towards one team vs another, or towards umpires vs players), and it ensures that decisions are not overturned unless the third umpire is 100% dead certain without a shadow of any doubt that the on field call is incorrect.

I think the "danger area" for LBWs is too minor a percentage of the stumps

Hardly any LBWs (balls that were clipping the off or leg step, and not just the edge) were not given because the ball didn't strike the stumps in the danger area

They should widen it a little bit I feel

There was an appeal for LBW against Farhant few minutes ago and not given out and NZ didn't take a review. The replays showed ball just clipping top of leg stump. The commentator said if NZ had taken the review it would have stayed not out and if Umpire had given it out and batsman had called for a review it would have stayed out. He said it will give umpire benefit of the doubt.

It seemed that half the ball had to be touching the stumps and 3rd umpire may not be seeing bails flying off in hawkeye replay.