New ICC Snick Review Rules

The bat must come in contact with 85% of the ball for a snick decision to be overturned.

Umpiring Reviews: A Confused Approach

Whatever happened to that famed benefit of the doubt? Somehow LBW gets a special treatment. For a successful overturn on an LBW decision the batsman has to be "more than out". Two points are presented in favor of this approach. The first is the famed benefit of doubt must go to the batsman. The second, a modern innovation, is that "enough" of the ball must strike the wicket to dislodge the bails. Lets look at the second one first. Never mind that no such provision exists in the laws explicitly or implicitly it is also the fact that in at least the recorded history of cricket, at least international cricket, such an application has never been made. The law is quite clear: With all other aspects of the decision in favor of the bowler the umpire must decide whether the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. Would we now ask the umpire to consider how much the ball would have turned after pitching into account when it strikes the pad before pitching? So let us dispense with that.

Now back to the benefit of the doubt. It is supposed to apply to all forms of out. In case the third umpire sees no conclusive evidence of out should he not rule a "not out"? Consider the case of an edge to the keeper. If all forms of technology have failed to conclusively show an edge is not a decision in favor of the batsman an appropriate response under the age old batsman's benefit?