DRS

[josephina]

Umpires can refer a runout to the third umpire. They should be able to refer things such as caught behind and bat pad. They shouldn't have to make a decision and force teams to review. Ideally umpires should be able to refer LBW but that takes a long time.

Umpire's call is so bogus. It leaves it open for a corrupt umpire to favour one team. It should be like tennis where they just run with the technology, even if it is only 1mm in or out.

If there is to be umpire's call, it should only refer to will the ball hit. There is no logical reason for umpire's call on where did the ball pitch or did it strike in line. Whoever designed the rules wasn't thinking at the time.

 

[Socerer 01]

umpire’s call exists for striking in line because the ball tracking technology wasn’t 100% accurate then and still isn’t

which umpires are corrupt? never attribute to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetence

 

[trundler]

I agree that Drs suck. Waited in line at the dermatologist for an hour and he looked at me with a magnifying glass for no more than 45 seconds and ****ed me off. *****.

 

[StephenZA]

I agree that Drs suck. Waited in line at the dermatologist for an hour and he looked at me with a magnifying glass for no more than 45 seconds and ****ed me off. ****s.

Did you not enjoy it?

 

[josephina]

umpire’s call exists for striking in line because the ball tracking technology wasn’t 100% accurate then and still isn’t

which umpires are corrupt? never attribute to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetence

Nothing is 100% accurate. Even tennis is within 3mm. At least it is impartial and I doubt a human is more accurate.

I think you are confused on LBW. There are 3 elements. 1 Where did it pitch. 2 Did it strike in line. 3 Would it hit. Umpire's call should only apply to 3 because that is a guess. The other 2 are observable.

I didn't say they are corrupt, but it leaves open the opportunity for bias.

 

[Dendarii]

There are 3 elements. 1 Where did it pitch. 2 Did it strike in line. 3 Would it hit. Umpire's call should only apply to 3 because that is a guess. The other 2 are observable.

Do they still go with umpire's call for pitching? That used to be the case, but I thought they'd done away with it.

As for striking in line, I think there may be the complication of pads not being a flat surface, so Hawk Eye can't be completely accurate there.

 

[Spark]

There's definitely some uncertainty over point of impact; it has to be manually chosen by the operator frame-by-frame and the ball can deviate when it impacts the pad between frames

 

[Shri]

umpire’s call exists for striking in line because the ball tracking technology wasn’t 100% accurate then and still isn’t

it would be the same for everyone then so fair enough. eliminate umpire's call.

 

[Shri]

technological errors are easier to digest than human errors because there is no question of bias

 

[slowfinger]

surely if you automatically review bat pad and caught behind then you might as well just review anything that might be out and get rid of the review system and the umpire?

 

[Shri]

yes that is the goal @cnerd123 s of the world should not be making important decisions in sports

 

[slowfinger]

i think simon tauffel did a really interesting piece recently on Cricinfo about the thought that goes into umpire's call and the necessity of it

I'm full of support for the umpire's call

 

[Ali TT]

technological errors are easier to digest than human errors because there is no question of bias

Yet for some reason throughout the history of DRS, technological errors have been more contentious. Generally, except where accusations of bias have featured, cricket players, fans and authorities have been more forgiving of human error. However, even if far more accurate than human umpires, we fail to accept that DRS will still throw up errors on occasion, in part because there's still a human element involved. Less than 100% accurate remains unacceptable for many

 

[Migara]

more than 1 umpire's call should be made not out

 

[Ashes81]

more than 1 umpire's call should be made not out

I agree 100% on that. 2 umpires calls means two marginal decisions have gone in favour of one team and that shouldn't happen

I wouldn't get rid of umpires call - otherwise the on field umpire is reduced to counting the balls in the over.

 

[Shri]

Yet for some reason throughout the history of DRS, technological errors have been more contentious. Generally, except where accusations of bias have featured, cricket players, fans and authorities have been more forgiving of human error. However, even if far more accurate than human umpires, we fail to accept that DRS will still throw up errors on occasion, in part because there's still a human element involved. Less than 100% accurate remains unacceptable for many

if its 99% accurate, it is 99% accurate for everyone and so very fair

 

[shortpitched713]

i think simon tauffel did a really interesting piece recently on Cricinfo about the thought that goes into umpire's call and the necessity of it

I'm full of support for the umpire's call

I can't agree with an umpire's view on this because he will be biased in keeping him (or his currently working umpire buddy's) jobs intact as much as possible.

I'd say remove as many of the umpire's calls as possible, because the technology is inherently much more objective, and proven reliable over the years.

 

[slowfinger]

I can't agree with an umpire's view on this because he will be biased in keeping him (or his currently working umpire buddy's) jobs intact as much as possible.

I'd say remove as many of the umpire's calls as possible, because the technology is inherently much more objective, and proven reliable over the years.

this is a different debate but seems we're headed towards it.

 

[FBU]

A Quick Visit to DRS - Charles Davis
7 March 2023

While I have it in front of me here are some broad stats on DRS, up to Jan 2023...

DRS called on: 4795 times
Umpire decision overturned: 1285 times = 2.87 per Test

LBW:
303 not out decisions overturned by DRS, out of 1935 reviews.
511 OUT decisions overturned out of 1638

CWK:
181 not out decisions overturned out of 608
161 OUT decisions overturned out of 273

Overall, there are more umpire decisions overturned in favour of batsmen than bowlers. However, the net effect is fairly small, averaging about one less dismissal every 2.4 Tests.

Conclusion: although DRS can have a major effect on individual innings, and on close matches in critical situations, its broad effect on statistics is not great.

Michael Jones commented that it is remarkable how many CWK OUT reviews, which are initiated by batsmen, are NOT overturned. You would think that the vast majority of batsmen would know when they have hit the ball. It shows that many reviews are desperation ploys, hoping somehow that a decision will be reversed without knowing how or why the reversal should apply. The figures also show that in many instances the players have little idea what is going on. Remember all those tantrums, before DRS, by bowlers and batsmen when a decision went against them? Well, much of the time they really had little idea whether the decision was right or wrong.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Michael Jones commented that it is remarkable how many CWK OUT reviews, which are initiated by batsmen, are NOT overturned. You would think that the vast majority of batsmen would know when they have hit the ball. It shows that many reviews are desperation ploys, hoping somehow that a decision will be reversed without knowing how or why the reversal should apply.

Alternatively, the common theory that batsmen know that they've hit the ball is actually wrong.