This question of mine is closed as duplicate,as I already edited the question stating the difference between linked question and mine,the people who cast to close may not have seen my explanation or else they didn't understand the difference b/w the questions.In the linked question either question or answer didn't specify the exact thing what I asked though both questions related to DRS system in CRICKET they differ slightly. So I am hereby requesting to please check the difference and please reopen my question.
I think the question should be re-opened. While the answer is tangentially related to the answer in the other question, the questions are very different and focus on very different things. There's no reason not to have the two questions separately.
The linked question asks why, in a specific example of a review, sometimes the review appears to show that the player should be out (contrary to the umpire's call), but the review does not overturn the umpire. Philip's answer is clear, but it is also specific to this particular kind of play and review; while the information in that answer is effectively the same as for any other kind of review, nonetheless it is (appropriately, given the question) specific to this particular kind of review. Information in the comments is not relevant to this discussion, as in Stack Exchange comments are not considered part of an answer nor are they permanent.
The question we are discussing asks what "Umpire's Call" in general means. This is more general than the linked question and is a very clear, concise question. It will not be immediately obvious (both because of the poorer quality of the linked question and because of the specificity of the question's text) that it is a duplicate to future readers.
If the questions were reversed, I would agree to closing the linked question in lieu of the question we are discussing - and if the desire is to have only one question open, I suggest we do that. This question has a good, simple answer to the issue.
I think the question should remain closed - they're both actually dealing with the same thing, namely that the DRS requires conclusive evidence to overturn a call. hims056 had already commented to this effect on my accepted answer to the duplicate, and I've just edited my answer to include the words "umpire's call" explicitly.