***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[vic_orthdox]

If the system I want were implemented there'd have been no incorrect decision either, FFS. Good luck when you run out of referrals.

I don't really understand what you're saying that you want with your system. Is it that every ball has to be passed through a set of technological tests after the happening, to test whether or not a wicket occurred? With no human intervention?

And then whenever an appeal is made, you refer it to the technological tests, with no input from the umpire?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't really understand what you're saying that you want with your system. Is it that every ball has to be passed through a set of technological tests after the happening, to test whether or not a wicket occurred? With no human intervention?

And then whenever an appeal is made, you refer it to the technological tests, with no input from the umpire?

Yes.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes.

How would you apply that to caught decisions? Or lbw decisions involving a possible inside egde? They require human interpretation.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yes.

You still have to have someone interpret the findings though, surely? Obviously hawkeye takes care of itself, but for other things: bat or pad first for LBW decisions, caught behinds and hot spot, low catches, etc.

 

[zaremba]

My issue is that Australia lost one of its challenges where IMO technology failed to conclusively state one way or another. Secondly why should be there a limitation on no. of challenges ?.

There is certainly a respectable case for changing the rules so that a team does not lose a referral where the decision is so close that it simply goes with the "on-field umpire's call".

As to the limitation on number of challenges, I think that the time may come when that becomes possible / desirable. For now, though, the development of this system needs to be incremental so that we don't lose too many change-resistant conservatives and so that the workings and consequences of the UDRS can be fully appreciated. The system needs to have consensus in order to succeed and become established. Once the UDRS is fully established and accepted, and hopefully when it works more quickly and reliably than at present, we might be able to move onto a system in which the 3rd umpire can intervene whenever he considers a mistake has been made. For the time being, however, I think the "limited referrals" approach is a pretty sensible compromise and a decent way of at least phasing the system in.

For my money the BCCI's resistance to the idea is most unfortunate, and in 10 years' time their stance will look positively ridiculous.

 

[G.I.Joe]

How would you apply that to caught decisions? Or lbw decisions involving a possible inside egde? They require human interpretation.

You still have to have someone interpret the findings though, surely? Obviously hawkeye takes care of itself, but for other things: bat or pad first for LBW decisions, caught behinds and hot spot, low catches, etc.

The easy stuff like line calls, hawkeye projections can be automated for each and every delivery. The on-field umpire and the third umpire can assume responsibility for the rest. It is unreasonable to expect a batsman to decide beyond a guesstimate whether or not to refer an lbw call involving himself, for example. Its not unreasonable to expect the third umpire to actually earn his pay. It doesn't take more than 40 seconds to get a replay on screen.

How long does hot spot or snicko take to set up? Genuine question.

 

[G.I.Joe]

There is certainly a respectable case for changing the rules so that a team does not lose a referral where the decision is so close that it simply goes with the "on-field umpire's call".

As to the limitation on number of challenges, I think that the time may come when that becomes possible / desirable. For now, though, the development of this system needs to be incremental so that we don't lose too many change-resistant conservatives and so that the workings and consequences of the UDRS can be fully appreciated. The system needs to have consensus in order to succeed and become established. Once the UDRS is fully established and accepted, and hopefully when it works more quickly and reliably than at present, we might be able to move onto a system in which the 3rd umpire can intervene whenever he considers a mistake has been made. For the time being, however, I think the "limited referrals" approach is a pretty sensible compromise and a decent way of at least phasing the system in.

For my money the BCCI's resistance to the idea is most unfortunate, and in 10 years' time their stance will look positively ridiculous.

Zaremba, the surest way to postpone excellence is the acceptance of mediocrity.

 

[zaremba]

Zaremba, the surest way to postpone excellence is the acceptance of mediocrity.

The surest way to postpone the ability to run is to try to run before you can walk.

If "excellence" is having each decision automatically reviewed by the video umpire, which is debatable, then you will not achieve that by moving straight to that system. It just wouldn't have the necessary support to get it through. Incremental change works, just ask Charles Darwin.

As it happens I quite like the current 3-referral-per-innings system. It has a lot going for it and strikes a pretty good balance.

 

[Furball]

The easy stuff like line calls, hawkeye projections can be automated for each and every delivery. The on-field umpire and the third umpire can assume responsibility for the rest. It is unreasonable to expect a batsman to decide beyond a guesstimate whether or not to refer an lbw call involving himself, for example. Its not unreasonable to expect the third umpire to actually earn his pay. It doesn't take more than 40 seconds to get a replay on screen.

How long does hot spot or snicko take to set up? Genuine question.

LBWs generally aren't a problem though, particularly when the quicks have bowled.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The surest way to postpone the ability to run is to try to run before you can walk.

If "excellence" is having each decision automatically reviewed by the video umpire, which is debatable, then you will not achieve that by moving straight to that system. It just wouldn't have the necessary support to get it through. Incremental change works, just ask Charles Darwin.

As it happens I quite like the current 3-referral-per-innings system. It has a lot going for it and strikes a pretty good balance.

This would apply if hawkeye and the related technology were spanking brand new. They're not. They've been in vogue for quite a few years now, and having gained acceptance there is no rationale for suggesting they're better used for a limited number of deliveries rather than for all of them. Incremental changes are desirable if you're not entirely sure of the effectiveness or impact of a particular change, and if you're not sure of hawkeye's effectiveness or impact, you really shouldn't be using it for even a single delivery to begin with.

 

[Top_Cat]

By the same token, demanding perfection is it's own problem when the current system is hardly mediocre. It requires a fairly substantial commitment of time and money to staff the tech as it stands and, tbh, if you want perfection, the tech itself will need to be upgraded, using cooled IR cams for Hotspot will substantially up the resolution and utility of it but they cost heaps more than that which already costs a packet. That it's being used at all is a major step forward and makes an upgrade more likely whereas I doubt very much anyone would have paid for the absolute best available technology right off the bat. Conversely, Hawkeye has evolved significantly since it was introduced because it's been invested in and used even when somewhat primitive. Would have gone nowhere had it not been invested in early, as with many other things which we wouldn't dream of doing without now.

The BCCI demanding utter precision or nothing at all just looks obstructive.

 

[Top_Cat]

This would apply if hawkeye and the related technology were spanking brand new. They're not. They've been in vogue for quite a few years now, and having gained acceptance there is no rationale for suggesting they're better used for a limited number of deliveries rather than for all of them. Incremental changes are desirable if you're not entirely sure of the effectiveness or impact of a particular change, and if you're not sure of hawkeye's effectiveness or impact, you really shouldn't be using it for even a single delivery to begin with.

So what's your alternative?

 

[zaremba]

This would apply if hawkeye and the related technology were spanking brand new. They're not. They've been in vogue for quite a few years now, and having gained acceptance there is no rationale for suggesting they're better used for a limited number of deliveries rather than for all of them. Incremental changes are desirable if you're not entirely sure of the effectiveness or impact of a particular change, and if you're not sure of hawkeye's effectiveness or impact, you really shouldn't be using it for even a single delivery to begin with.

I don't dispute there's logic in what you say. But my point is that we need to look at the political reality of this situation. Cricket is a sport with a massive dead weight of conservatives who are highly resistant to change. Try to introduce change at a pace that leaves too many of them feeling too uncomfortable and it will be counter-productive.

The UDRS is established as a Good Thing in my mind, but how well established is it in practice? We have only just completed the first Ashes series in which it's been used. We have only just had the first ODI in which it's been used. The country with the largest clout, India, still won't use it. And various teething problems are still being ironed out. This may not be new technology, but its implementation as part of the decision-making process in cricket is still in its infancy.

I think we should rejoice in the success that the system's had so far. Decision-making has been vastly improved and the heavens have not fallen. If it is right for the system to be pushed further still, that's fine, but we can surely afford to be a little bit patient before that happens.

 

[Jarquis]

Perfection > current system > old system.
Don't understand any resistance to the current system or any lack of desire to improve it once implemented.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

If the system I want were implemented there'd have been no incorrect decision either, FFS. Good luck when you run out of referrals.

Just don't use it on the marginal ones and you shouldn't run out of referrals.

 

[andyc]

The surest way to postpone the ability to run is to try to run before you can walk.

If "excellence" is having each decision automatically reviewed by the video umpire, which is debatable, then you will not achieve that by moving straight to that system. It just wouldn't have the necessary support to get it through. Incremental change works, just ask Charles Darwin.

As it happens I quite like the current 3-referral-per-innings system. It has a lot going for it and strikes a pretty good balance.

It's two, FWIW.

And tbh, for all the idea that UDRS takes credibility away from the umpire, I find that it actually protects them a lot. When England ran out of all their referrals and couldn't overturn the 'not out' call on what was a plumb lbw appeal against Michael Hussey, no one was blaming the umpire. Everyone knows that it's the captain's fault for using up his referrals for what were probably marginal decisions.

 

[smash84]

lol..........with the Herculean efforts of GI this thread has been pushed up to 20 pages now....and counting

 

[zaremba]

It's two, FWIW.

And tbh, for all the idea that UDRS takes credibility away from the umpire, I find that it actually protects them a lot. When England ran out of all their referrals and couldn't overturn the 'not out' call on what was a plumb lbw appeal against Michael Hussey, no one was blaming the umpire. Everyone knows that it's the captain's fault for using up his referrals for what were probably marginal decisions.

spot on

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's two, FWIW.

And tbh, for all the idea that UDRS takes credibility away from the umpire, I find that it actually protects them a lot. When England ran out of all their referrals and couldn't overturn the 'not out' call on what was a plumb lbw appeal against Michael Hussey, no one was blaming the umpire. Everyone knows that it's the captain's fault for using up his referrals for what were probably marginal decisions.

It shifts the blame from the umpires (whose job it is to get those umpiring decisions correct) to the players (whose job it isn't to get umpiring decisions correct). Thats what it does. Sleight of hand.

 

[Uppercut]

Frankly I don't give a crap about UDRS. It could be implemented and I'd be fine, or we could continue without it and I wouldn't care either. I think the umpires do a fantastic job all things considered (the Pak-NZ series is a rare anomaly) and a bad decision or two rarely affects the pleasure I get out of watching a match (no matter which way it goes). While watching matches with UDRS, it's a bit annoying not knowing whether or not to celebrate LBW/caught behind decisions with the referrals and all, but I guess I could get used to it.

To sum up, I don't really care.

It's funny that you feel this way because I don't even actively support a team and I hate umpiring errors at critical points in matches. Much, much moreso than I used to before some countries got rid of them.

Were you not even seriously pissed off after Sydney?