***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Furball]

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.

The number of referrals is unlimited though: as long as you're using your referrals to overturn wrong decisions (see Cook's dismissal and the 2 referrals used in Australia's 2nd innings in this Test) then you won't run out.

 

[smash84]

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

This.

 

[Jarquis]

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

Tbf, Hawkeye is consistent. So whilst marginal calls might have been missing the stumps, they also might have been hitting. So as long as the margin for error on the cameras is the same around the world, I'd have no issue with all balls Hawkeye says to be clipping the stumps being given out.
Benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman enough as it is.

 

[weldone]

Tbf, Hawkeye is consistent. So whilst marginal calls might have been missing the stumps, they also might have been hitting. So as long as the margin for error on the cameras is the same around the world, I'd have no issue with all balls Hawkeye says to be clipping the stumps being given out.
Benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman enough as it is.

Nah, I am a firm believer in the theory that benefit of the doubt has to be with the batsman.

 

[zaremba]

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%.

Spot on.

 

[weed wizard]

I would blindly say , yes.
Adding HOTSPOT, HAWKEYE, SNICKOMETRE together wil b good for cricket.

As far as BCCI is concerned, they sure are the dumbest board in the city.

 

[smash84]

.

As far as BCCI is concerned, they sure are the dumbest board in the city.

The PCB begs to differ

 

[weed wizard]

Couldnt agree more, mate.
But BCCI is even dumber

 

[Blaze 18]

The number of referrals is unlimited though: as long as you're using your referrals to overturn wrong decisions (see Cook's dismissal and the 2 referrals used in Australia's 2nd innings in this Test) then you won't run out.

This. Having unlimited unsuccessful reviews is a bad idea, as teams would just feel inclined to go upstairs for every thing.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Unashamedly a fan. Was initially anti as I thought the partial way it would be applied by captains could be an issue (and I wasn't entirely wrong), but it's so much better than not having it.

Still needs tweaking, but if it overturns just one duff call it's justified its worth IMHO.

 

[zaremba]

Strongly anti. A wrong "not out" is cancelled out by a wrong "out". And in my view it is important to teach youngsters that two wrongs make a right.

 

[morgieb]

Having unlimited referrals is a bad idea, as most wickets would just be referred.

As for Hawkeye, possibly fair enough, but I still feel the benefit of the doubt should be with the batsman.

 

[Noble One]

Why must the benefit of doubt rest with the batsman? I would be in favour of any system (as long as it's fair) that will help in reducing the runs-scored in the modern era.

 

[NasserFan207]

For it. Anyone whose against is a conservative moron.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm for it. I think it's a lot better way of using the technology, as if you left it to the umpires to do their own referring, then they would doubt themselves and ask to refer pretty much everything all the time, slowing the game down further. It would also still leave shockers in there, as if they realised that someone hit it in the first place for an LBW (for example) then they wouldn't have given it out. It'd create a greater level of doubt in the umpires; with this system, they can just concentrate on making the right decision, and if it turns out to be wrong, so be it.

The other method that's been suggested is that the 3rd Umpire intervene, which I'd find distasteful too. What happens if the Third Umpire only discovers something after the batsman has walked all the way off the field? Will we have batsmen hanging around longer waiting for intervention that may never come instead of walking off? At what point is it too late for the 3rd Umpire to intervene?

Think that the current method, with the players using the chance to refer, is the best way of it being used.

 

[morgieb]

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%.

Yep, spot on basically.

 

[Shri]

Or the 3rd umpire could refer every decision and if a player is given out and walks off wrongly, it could be dealt with the way a batsman retires hurt. If he is found to be not out, he could come back and resume his innings when the next wicket falls. No time loss.

 

[Daemon]

Or the 3rd umpire could refer every decision and if a player is given out and walks off wrongly, it could be dealt with the way a batsman retires hurt. If he is found to be not out, he could come back and resume his innings when the next wicket falls. No time loss.

Possible but I don't think that will ever be implemented. No captain would ever like to be informed 10 minutes after a player has been dismissed that he'll be coming back after the next wicket falls.

 

[Mike5181]

We do need UDRS in the game as Umpires are human and do make mistakes. I think the hopeless use of the review system just as a "why not" sort of thing is a negative of it but really it only wastes 1-2 minutes and there are other far greater problems that contribute to wasted time (like India's over rate grrr ). It makes the game fair for both teams and the best team at the end of the day wins more often due to the implementation of systems like these.

 

[Shri]

Possible but I don't think that will ever be implemented. No captain would ever like to be informed 10 minutes after a player has been dismissed that he'll be coming back after the next wicket falls.

**** 'em. Its not about what those sissies like or dislike, its all about what a fair decision means.