The most ridiculous thing about reviews in cricket and challenges in tennis is that only 3 are allowed.
Why?
Make them unlimited
Printable View
The most ridiculous thing about reviews in cricket and challenges in tennis is that only 3 are allowed.
Why?
Make them unlimited
You could only have unlimited if there was a punishment for frivolously using them. Otherwise, they would use them all the time.
Watson. :lol:
Arthur woz right.
It's harsh t lose a review though when its a close decision.
For example I've seen a batsmen been given not out lbw by an on field umpire, been reviewed and it shows ball just hitting leg stump but the on field umpire decision stands thus a review is lost when technically the ball was going to hit the stumps so should be out
For a man who complains tests are too slow, you are arguing to slow them down even further with unlimited reviewsQuote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
I'd agree with that, if it's umpires call, you don't lose the review
Review takes a matter of seconds and if it eradicates wrong decisions then what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie the optimist
The reason they do is because HawkEye is not 100% accurate, so if it does clip the stumps when it was originally given out then actually it might have fallen in to the margin of error where HawkEye is actually incorrect but cannot be proven otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
McGrath's idea of if more than half of it clips it, you shouldn't lose you review makes sense.
Watson got this completely wrong though, it was missing by a fair away.
It doesn't take seconds. The last test proved thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
:haha:
What a brilliant wicket.
Rank full toss. :bow:
It wasn't even lbw.
Rogers. :doh:
Althugh that's Watson's fault for being a berk.