Should reviews be taken out of the players' hands?

[Shri]

Why don't we just let people in the support team handle it after looking at replays? Currently, the perception is that it is a players vs umpires thing and the idea makes the whole process more efficient. Someone can look at the TV replays quickly through a dedicated stump cam or something in real time and signal for a review based on analysis instead. That way, no one feels aggrieved at either the players or the umpires and the game can go on without any resentment building up, or at least directed at someone else off the field.

The whole system seems like players vs umpires at the moment and causes tension. I think looking at the dressing room for guidance during reviews is completely fair if both teams agree to it before hand and would like it if mundane things like this don't take focus away from a hard fought test match.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean if you're doing this you may as well let the third umpire decide when to review or overturn an onfield decision then no?

 

[Shri]

I mean if you're doing this you may as well let the third umpire decide when to review or overturn an onfield decision then no?

We could but if he doesn't check every damn decision, the guy will be accused of bias and ****. Better this way imo.

 

[Daemon]

I mean if you're doing this you may as well let the third umpire decide when to review or overturn an onfield decision then no?

Nah, because they'd choose to review too many and it'd keep going upstairs like it does with run outs. If he/she doesn't make the call to go review and makes the wrong decision, there'll be accusations flying all over the place. I think the idea has merit tbh, and would result in better decision making and overall more correct decisions being made, which is ultimately the goal of DRS.

Imagine being the guy assigned to do it though and you take your eye off for a sec to check your twitter..

 

[Burner]

No more players ****ing up reviews. Boohoo

 

[Shri]

No more players ****ing up reviews. Boohoo

Imagine the possibilities man. Watson could be appointed to the newly created position.

 

[Stapel]

Nah, because they'd choose to review too many and it'd keep going upstairs like it does with run outs.

It's not like matches are heavily delayed by run out reviews, are they?

 

[S.Kennedy]

Is there not too much innovation being discussed already? My head is boggled by all the reforms. Every day somebody comes up with something new, ''why don't we do this...why don't we do that?''. Depending on changes to the Laws/administration currently being discussed on here and in media circles, we could see ourselves watching a day/night (4-day) 'test championship' semi-final clash between Ireland and Afghanistan, in which a Kolpak ''batswoman cuts a wide delivery to third-woman'' before he/she is red-carded by an umpire wearing a plastic shield on arm.

 

[Red]

The idea of reviews is to remedy the terrible decision that sometimes (understandably) gets made. Like an LBW decision where the batsman knows he's hit it on to his pad, or a caught behind where he is sure he hasn't hit it with his bat.

At the moment we have a situation where if one is used incorrectly (but with the right intention), the team then suffers for the rest of that innings. Or if it isn't used early, then it is used frivolously when the team is 4/5/6 wickets down in the hope it can save the last batsman for no reason other than chance.

I don't like it as it's currently used and the system doesn't seem right for building good attitudes between teams and umpires. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I think that we need to get to the point where the third umpire reviews every dismissal, or we get rid of DRS altogether, for consistency's sake.

 

[S.Kennedy]

The only thing I would change to the present system is, the one reviewing does not lose a review if he loses out to umpire's call.

 

[TNT]

If they can make the system more reliable then it should be done. Its a bit sad when you see players having to make a decision about reviewing knowing it could cost the team. The whole idea of DRS is to get as many of the umpires decisions as possible right, why make it so hard to achieve what you set out to do. It is contrary to the vision the ICC had for DRS when you see them implement a rule to prevent the players from getting the best possible result.

 

[TNT]

I don't like it as it's currently used and the system doesn't seem right for building good attitudes between teams and umpires. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I think that we need to get to the point where the third umpire reviews every dismissal, or we get rid of DRS altogether, for consistency's sake.

You would need to apply that to all appeals, if it was dismissals only then batsmen would gain an advantage over the bowlers.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why don't we just let people in the support team handle it after looking at replays? Currently, the perception is that it is a players vs umpires thing and the idea makes the whole process more efficient. Someone can look at the TV replays quickly through a dedicated stump cam or something in real time and signal for a review based on analysis instead. That way, no one feels aggrieved at either the players or the umpires and the game can go on without any resentment building up, or at least directed at someone else off the field.

The whole system seems like players vs umpires at the moment and causes tension. I think looking at the dressing room for guidance during reviews is completely fair if both teams agree to it before hand and would like it if mundane things like this don't take focus away from a hard fought test match.

I don't think we need to make drastic changes like this just because Kohli has a reviewing IQ of 6.

 

[cnerd123]

Is there not too much innovation being discussed already? My head is boggled by all the reforms. Every day somebody comes up with something new, ''why don't we do this...why don't we do that?''. Depending on changes to the Laws/administration currently being discussed on here and in media circles, we could see ourselves watching a day/night (4-day) 'test championship' semi-final clash between Ireland and Afghanistan, in which a Kolpak ''batswoman cuts a wide delivery to third-woman'' before he/she is red-carded by an umpire wearing a plastic shield on arm.

I'd watch that tbh

 

[Burgey]

Should just leave it to nature and stuff. #centurymakerthoughts

 

[Shri]

I don't think we need to make drastic changes like this just because Kohli has a reviewing IQ of 6.

Nah, even the best of them could get it wrong once. The point is, there are alot of stupid things about the DRS like the umpire's call and whatnot, so it would be better in the long run if players were not involved with the decision at all.

 

[Burgey]

It was really bad when they left it to the umpires in that Aus v ROW series in 2005 though. They reviewed nearly every half shout in the one off test in Sydney. Can't blame the umpires for that, they're looking after their reputations I suppose. But it really did take a lot of time out of the game.

 

[honestbharani]

I am fine with the system as it is but I would like a couple of tweaks.


1. End this Umpire's Call nonsense. We have forever had the batsmen getting the benefit of the doubt, let it continue, at least it makes it unambiguous.

2. You do not lose a review if 1 or more criteria is this umpire's call or benefit of doubt to batsman.

In fact, I would just be ok if they implemented 2 alone tbh. But then again, it might be unfair on teams like England who seem to have worked out how to use DRS better than most other teams and have found a group of guys they can go to for such calls.

 

[Daemon]

Just get rid of ump's call completely imo. If any part of the ball hits the stumps, it's out. Middle of the ball is in line, out. Plain and simple.

It's ridiculous to use a system that brushes aside decisions made with a small margin of error, for decisions made by individuals with a higher margin.

 

[S.Kennedy]

The problem with removing umpire's call is that you are assuming ball tracking is immaculate.