***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[KiWiNiNjA]

Teams can suck it up if they don't use the ****ing system properly imo.

This.

If you use it for a marginal LBW decision then you can't complain about having no reviews left.

If you only used it for when you know you got bat on it when given LBW, when you know you didn't get bat on it when given out caught, then you should be able to overturn all the mistakes in your innings.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The reason it's in the player's hands is because they've got no-one else to complain to if they **** it up. Imagine how much **** third umpires will get if it gets put in their hands. what if a spinner is bowling off three steps and he's already bowled another ball before the third ump has time to get his word out to the middle? The system is fine, teams just need to get their bloody **** together about using it right.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Surely there could be some system brought in that allows players to challenge an obviously wrong decision and have it reversed? Obviously this would need to be regulated to stop spurious referrals and thus teams should perhaps be limited to just one challenge so the system isn't used unless a player is absolutely sure the decision is wrong. Teams would need to be careful not to waste their referral on a dismissal that, while close, is not a howler.

Oh wait, that's what we have. Blame lies squarely with Clarke here.

 

[Red]

LBW should be entirely at the discretion of the on field umpire unless there has been a clear bat on ball, which can be decided quickly by the 3rd umpire based on the live footage (plus hot spot if it's clear). I still think hot spot can be inconclusive for fine edges to the keeper, and the standing umpire is still the best person to make those decisions. Run outs/stumpings are where technology is most useful.

 

[Furball]

One review is fine as long as batsmen stop wasting them on "but I don't want to be out" reviews.

 

[uvelocity]

Oh wait, that's what we have. Blame lies squarely with Clarke here.

you're right, but be that as it may, the system, by allowing a player to be involved and causing it to not catch what it was intended to, is failing.

 

[BackFootPunch]

you're right, but be that as it may, the system, by allowing a player to be involved and causing it to not catch what it was intended to, is failing.

But does that mean we need to fix the system or the people (ab)using it? There are examples in all areas of culture and society of theoretically fine systems being used badly by people. Generally we just accept that people are dumb and don't blame the system, why not do the same here?

 

[morgieb]

If a system is in place to fix howlers, then why can't some howlers not be reviewed?

Problem is, there's no real perfect system to fix this.

 

[morgieb]

And what happens if someone reviews a decision, but it's umpire's call? That's unfair if you refer it as a fielder it's given not out, yet as a batsmen it's given out. Either the rules of benefit of the doubt needs to be changed, or they should not lose referrals.

tbf, this didn't happen with Clarke, but still...

 

[Neil Pickup]

One review is fine as long as batsmen stop wasting them on "but I don't want to be out" reviews.

This x1000

 

[Neil Pickup]

And what happens if someone reviews a decision, but it's umpire's call? That's unfair if you refer it as a fielder it's given not out, yet as a batsmen it's given out. Either the rules of benefit of the doubt needs to be changed, or they should not lose referrals.

tbf, this didn't happen with Clarke, but still...

Then it's not a howler and you can suck it up.

 

[morgieb]

That's because it was obviously not out. The problems come when you get more and more marginal ones so where does the third ump draw the line on what he overturns and what he doesn't? Aus had one review, they blew it, so hard luck on Warner but his captain was a dick.

Well if one can be overturned with a replay then it should be. If more advanced technology needs to be used, then let the decision stand. That's not particularly grey afaic.

 

[morgieb]

Then it's not a howler and you can suck it up.

Then why should howlers have to suck it up?

It's like circular logic here.

 

[Cabinet96]

Then it's not a howler and you can suck it up.

But it's also not really a "but I don't want to be out" review. I'm in favour of trying to get people to cut down on stupid reviews, but you put it at the risk of getting batsman not to review obviously wrong decisions due to fear of wasting the review, and that's a complete failure of the system.

Many bowlers, and perhaps even a few batsmen, would argue that when reviewing something that is umpires call, they were actually correct with their review. I somewhat agree, and think they probably shouldn't lose a review for it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

And what happens if someone reviews a decision, but it's umpire's call? That's unfair if you refer it as a fielder it's given not out, yet as a batsmen it's given out. Either the rules of benefit of the doubt needs to be changed, or they should not lose referrals.

tbf, this didn't happen with Clarke, but still...

Then the umpire didn't get it wrong.

Well if one can be overturned with a replay then it should be. If more advanced technology needs to be used, then let the decision stand. That's not particularly grey afaic.

Oh trust me, there'll be oceans of grey discovered. You can't have a third party completely in charge of something like this, it'll be an utter mess.

Then why should howlers have to suck it up?

It's like circular logic here.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[morgieb]

Then the umpire didn't get it wrong.



Oh trust me, there'll be oceans of grey discovered. You can't have a third party completely in charge of something like this, it'll be an utter mess.



Not sure what you're getting at here.

He didn't get it right though. That's the grey area that everyone talks about.

The point is that if howlers can't be referred, then why should people suck up their team getting wrong referrals?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Well you can't prove he got it wrong, so the decision stays with him because he's in charge. Might as well get rid of umpires if that's not going to be the case. Since we have this annoying and controversial grey area we want to avoid it where possible and the best way of achieving that is by discouraging players from reviewing 50/50 calls. The grey area is the umpire's domain.

Still don't get what you mean with that second line. They can refer howlers all day as long as some dick in their top order doesn't pack a sad.

 

[morgieb]

Well tbf, even if you don't review the 50/50 stuff, the way it works means that you may choose not to review a decision, because you haven't got enough reviews left, and even if technology would've overturned it, you have vague doubts that it would, particularly early in the innings. And that just sucks.

An example in a different sport which uses referrals was last night in the tennis, where Wawrinka didn't want to overturn a decision as he was weary about how much of a howler it was, yet his original conviction was correct - it was in. And that has 3 referrals a set - much more than 1-2 referrals a game. It could well have cost him the match.

Having only 1 review means that some things that would've been overturned may go unreferred, even if some **** didn't waste it on themselves, and that is ineffective use of UDRS, I feel.

 

[vicky]

Well tbf, even if you don't review the 50/50 stuff, the way it works means that you may choose not to review a decision, because you haven't got enough reviews left, and even if technology would've overturned it, you have vague doubts that it would, particularly early in the innings. And that just sucks.

An example in a different sport which uses referrals was last night in the tennis, where Wawrinka didn't want to overturn a decision as he was weary about how much of a howler it was, yet his original conviction was correct - it was in. And that has 3 referrals a set - much more than 1-2 referrals a game. It could well have cost him the match.

Having only 1 review means that some things that would've been overturned may go unreferred, even if some **** didn't waste it on themselves, and that is ineffective use of UDRS, I feel.

Really comes down to what you want from the system, if it's to eliminate howlers then the system is fine as is, don't blame the system if players abuse it by referring 50/50 calls which go against them leaving no reviews for when genuine howlers occur...

If it's to get as many right decisions as possible then you throw the decision to refer to the umpires, only problem is then that every appeal will end up being reviewed (as with run outs and stumpings now).

Couldn't really blame the umpires for that either, would YOU want to be the umpire who got a decision wrong because you decided not to review it?

 

[Jarquis]

Then why should howlers have to suck it up?

It's like circular logic here.

Because if you waste your referrals on non-howlers you don't deserve to use them for their correct purpose.