***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[morgieb]

Are you in favour of UDRS?

Well?

Most people who have it love it, but some people are still questioning it. What do you think?

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm opposed to it in favour of other, more thorough, less tactical uses of technology. I'm in favour of it compared with the previous system of nothing, though.

 

[Zinzan]

Needs a bit of re-jigging, but effectively we're getting closer to eliminating the shockers, which is the main thing for mine.

 

[kingkallis]

In favor, definitely!

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, could be better but it's a massive step from where we were two years ago, I like it. Except when used in favour of the opposition

 

[Debris]

That third option was obscene and made me want to punch my monitor.

 

[G.I.Joe]

URDS needs to make better sense.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2369921-post3508.html

I do agree that India didn't use the review system as well as the Sri lankans in that 08 series but to say they completely sucked at it is wrong. There were quite a few decisions that should have been given upon review but weren't and that is what I feel frustrated the Indians. A certain Sachin Tendulkar not too happy with the very first one either......

56.6 Kumble to Samaraweera, no run, Kumble asks for the review for a lbw decision. It landed on back of length, outside off stump, skidded towards middle and off and hit the pad. The doubt that might rise is that whether it hit the bat at the same time but the side-view replay show that it hit the pad first. And it looks out. Decision still pending. It hit the inner half of the front pad. Hold on .. the verdict is NOT OUT. Kumble has a word with the umpire and walks away disappointed. Tendulkar, sitting in the dressing room, signals it was out - he put up the index finger up. And also suggests it was skidding on rather than bouncing. Controversy here. Anyway that's that. Let's carry on. Perhaps, the umpire reckoned it would have bounced over. The virtual eye says it would have hit the top half of the middle stump

5.5 Harbhajan Singh to Warnapura, no run, Kumble has asked for review for the lbw decision. It landed on a length on the leg stump, turned slightly, Warnapura stretched forward to defend and the ball clipped the outer half of the front pad in front of middle. It might miss the off stump. Decision pending. Verdict is Not Out. The virtual eye suggests it would have hit the top of the off stump

30.2 Sehwag to DPMD Jayawardene, no run, Indians have gone for the Review for the lbw decision. It landed outside off stump, turned in to beat the waft across the line and struck him low, just below the knee roll in the front of middle stump. Looks like it might hit the leg stump. Decision pending. Verdict is Not Out. Virtual eye shows it would hit the leg stump

6.4 Muralitharan to Sehwag, OUT, Mahela asks for the Review for the lbw. The ball pitched on the leg stump line - - half outside leg and half inside- and straightened and Sehwag shouldered arms. The ball clipped the inner half of the front pad - which was placed around the leg stump line - and then went on to hit the back pad in front of the stumps. It's a slightly tough one. It hit the front pad first and then deflected. After the chat with the third umpire, Benson has given it out. Joy for Sri Lanka. What a blow from Murali.

Let's rewind: I will have a look at the replays - they have gone for ad breaks - to see whether it was the topspinner or doosra - in which case he would be out - or was it the off break in which case considering it hit the front pad first, you can say it would have turned to miss the leg stump. Boycott, on air, reckons it should not have been given out.

Replays are in now. The ball did straighten. It was not the pure topspinner that would have gone on with the angle. It did straighten a bit. The virtual eye showed the path as if it hit the back pad first. The virtual eye showed it hitting the middle as if the deflection didn't happen. What happened was that it hit the front pad first. Having said that it was not hitting the middle, I would have to say that it might have grazed the leg stump. Any way that is that. A you tube moment. And the debate will continue.

27.3 Kumble to Warnapura, no run, review for the leg before decision. Kumble has asked for it. It landed on a length just outside off stump, turned in to beat the forward prod and struck him on the knee roll in front of middle. Decision pending. NOT OUT is the verdict. The umpires must have reckoned it would turned down leg side. My guess is that it would have hit the leg stump. Kumble has a chat with the umpire Doctrove. Virtual eye suggests it would have hit the top of the leg stump

Another look at reviews | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Indians are teh crybabies!!

 

[Howe_zat]

Yes, I agree with using the technology, I have no qualms about overturning the umpire. However I remain unconvinced by allocating reviews to captains, as I don't think umpire's decisions should be a part of tactics. I also think that the current system is much too favourable to the batsman.

 

[GIMH]

URDS needs to make better sense.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2369921-post3508.html



Indians are teh crybabies!!

Those ones that were going to hit the top of the stumps...were they clipping, i.e. what we would now clal umpire's call?

Seem to remember it all beiong a bit murky on that front.

Those examples are from late 08, and I felt the referral system was a sham when employed in our series in the West Indies in 09. They seemed to tidy it up from there though, and although there were still some problems in SA, it's improved.

 

[andyc]

Could be wrong here, but in the India-SL series, was Hawkeye only there as a help for the 3rd umpire if needed, or was it used and followed like it is nowadays?

 

[centurymaker]

Could be wrong here, but in the India-SL series, was Hawkeye only there as a help for the 3rd umpire if needed, or was it used and followed like it is nowadays?

IIRC the umpires weren't allowed to use hawk-eye in the first few series that URDS was employed.

 

[Noble One]

I think it is a great system. Soon teams will stop wasting it on 50/50 calls and only use it when the decision by the umpire is a true howler. The LBW review from the bowling of Harris was the worst I have ever seen.

Needs to be made mandatory for all Test series. It's a farce that some series have a completely different set of rulings. Can you imagine games being played without the third man for run-outs? I don't care what it costs, the ICC runs enough pointless tournaments to bank for a good idea.

 

[Teja.]

UDRS is a pathetic, pathetic system considering the potential of the technology in use. It's one of the worst ways one could think of to use such brilliant technology which if used in a better fashion can come close to eliminating subjectivity in decisions completely from the game.

However, It's much better than human umpiring.

 

[andyc]

Read a quote the other day on Cricinfo which seemed to indicate that India's tour to SA wouldn't have UDRS, as India obviously aren't fans. I was under the impression that it was up to the home side to decide, though?

 

[Dissector]

Clearly not much of a debate here and like most I would like to see it in every series. UDRS could be improved but it's better than what came before. Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

 

[Prince EWS]

Clearly not much of a debate here and like most I would like to see it in every series. UDRS could be improved but it's better than what came before. Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Bullet!!!!.

 

[social]

Given that the technology is not infallible (e.g. seems the margin of error on ball hitting stumps is half a ball width, snicko cant be used for whatever reason etc) and we've also seen the 3rd umpire making mistakes in spit of its presence, I'm against its wholesale adoption

Leave it for very basic stuff like no-balls, runouts/stumpings, point of contact with pitch/pad etc and the rest up to the umpire

I've actually come to miss the human element in decision making and feel the wholesale adoption of technology has taken something away from the current Ashes test series

 

[andyc]

Clearly not much of a debate here and like most I would like to see it in every series. UDRS could be improved but it's better than what came before. Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Sums up my views pretty much perfectly.

 

[Shri]

Not a fan of the limited number of referals. Make 'em unlimited or at least increase the number and would support it. Also if the hawk eye says it is hitting the stumps, it should be given out regardless of the margin.

 

[marc71178]

But hawk eye isn't accurate enough to say that, which is why there margin of error has to be there.