DRS: Worth Persevering With?

[paulted]

For line decisions: Run outs, No balls, and iffy catches fine....But lets give the umpires the authority they deserve. Its not, in my opinion made the game better. It's always been a great game and needs little tinkering. Remember the subs.........?

 

[Shri]

Ideally, not in its current form. Needs to rest fully with the umpires and not with the players. Somethings better than nothing all that ****.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The "something is better than nothing" attitude is what's breeding complacency and preventing the implementation of a proper system that doesn't shift the blame from the umpires to the players.

 

[Shri]

Yeah but being realistic is what is going to let us eventually achieve that. If they are smart enough to introduce 2 new balls to ODIs/introduce powerplays/invent T20s in 10 years time, they are eventually going to make changes to the current system as well. Getting too pissed off at it is useless. Just lay back and later say I told you so.

 

[YorksLanka]

agree with Shri, something(even if it isnt perfect) is always better than nothing otherwise we would be using slates and candles for this forum!! DRS has definately helped the game imho...

 

[Furball]

Ideally, not in its current form. Needs to rest fully with the umpires and not with the players. Somethings better than nothing all that ****.

Whenever people spout this rubbish I always ask this question and it never gets a satisfactory answer.

When a player is given out caught behind, when he knows fine well he hasn't hit it (best example that comes to mind off the top of my head is Alistair Cook being given out at Adelaide in 2010 when he was hit on the shoulder by a bouncer from Siddle), who the **** should make the decision to review if not the player?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Whenever people spout this rubbish I always ask this question and it never gets a satisfactory answer.

When a player is given out caught behind, when he knows fine well he hasn't hit it (best example that comes to mind off the top of my head is Alistair Cook being given out at Adelaide in 2010 when he was hit on the shoulder by a bouncer from Siddle), who the **** should make the decision to review if not the player?

If it's an LBW, let the guys in the dressing room (if not the umpires) view the replay and signal to the player if they think it's worthy of a review. Saves a wasted review.
If it's a nick, let the guys in the dressing room view the replay and signal to the player if they think it's worthy of a review. If the player knows that it's a detectable miss on review, let him go ahead with asking for the review anyway.

 

[Furball]

If it's an LBW, let the guys in the dressing room (if not the umpires) view the replay and signal to the player if they think it's worthy of a review. Saves a wasted review.
If it's a nick, let the guys in the dressing room view the replay and signal to the player if they think it's worthy of a review. If the player knows that it's a detectable miss on review, let him go ahead with asking for the review anyway.

Worst idea ever.

I'll elaborate. The umpires get the vast, vast majority of their decisions correct. Your proposal completely undermines them and you might as well just do away with them altogether if we're just going to wait for a signal from the dressing room as soon as the coach has worked out whether the umpire got it right.

Other than the limitations of the technology, I really don't get what the objection is to the DRS system provided the umpires aren't complete morons (stand up Dharmasena.)

 

[G.I.Joe]

If you enjoy wasted reviews, then yes, it certainly is.

 

[Furball]

If you enjoy wasted reviews, then yes, it certainly is.

If batsmen or fielding captains want to burn reviews on speculative/desperation punts then that's their problem.

The game's bad enough with umpires absolutely refusing to make any sort of line call on run outs or stumpings without going upstairs to the 3rd umpire (seriously, when was the last time an on field umpire gave a run out or stumping that wasn't so blatantly out that Stevie Wonder would have given it) and we're already seeing umpires getting lazy with front foot no-balls (again, step up Kumar "useless ****" Dharmasena). Give the umpires control of the review system and we're as well just not having them make any on field decisions at all, they'd just be smartly dressed hat holders.

 

[Shri]

They are eventually going to not be there in a few decades when the tech will be doing a better job than them. Might as well get them used to it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

If batsmen or fielding captains want to burn reviews on speculative/desperation punts then that's their problem.

The way to reduce speculative punts is to involve in the decision to review the people who have access to information that reduces the speculative component as much as is possible, whether they be people seated in front of the telly in the dressing room or umpires upstairs. To deny players this benefit and then to blame them for wasted reviews is either stupidity or perversity.

 

[Adders]

Other than the limitations of the technology, I really don't get what the objection is to the DRS system provided the umpires aren't complete morons (stand up Dharmasena.)

The limitations of the technology + the 3rd umpires lack of power to use common sense in interpreting it is what's wrong with DRS.

I actually feel sorry for the 3rd umps in some respects, they have got no mandate at all to use their brain, they need to have 100% evidence to overturn a decision.....99.8 is not good enough. Some of the worst DRS decisions returned are because the 3rd umps hands are tied, and yet these buggers cop all the crap.

 

[GIMH]

I do think something is better than nothing BUT it is an attitude that can leave us to accept what we've got when we could have something better

DRS is better than no DRS for me but it is clearly flawed and needs to be improved

 

[Spark]

A good start would be to do what rugby does and actually let us listen to the communication between the umpires and the third ump. That way we can actually tell what the protocol for overturning decisions is, when it's being applied correctly or incorrectly, and how it can be improved.

 

[Red]

Do umpires even call front foot no-balls anymore? Unless there's a possible wicket and they want to clarify?

 

[Second Spitter]

Heck, umpires are beginning to use the third umpire to count balls in an over (as seen in the RSA's 2nd innings at Newlands).

At this rate, there will be one of these behind each set of stumps with a speaker attached to it;

 

[Maximas]

DRS has been quite successful I think, and is absolutely worth persevering with, its aim is to eliminate 'howlers' from the game, and if captains didn't abuse the system by using it to review very close decisions (sometimes out of desperation), then it would serve that function perfectly, as it is, that function is largely being served anyway, particularly now that captains such as Alistair Cook have worked out how to get the best out of it. The solution to make the system perfectly is certainly not to put it in the hands of the increasingly scrutinised and conservative umpires, as Furball was saying, everything would be checked, and the game would slow to a crawl. Not only that, but the system of "3rd umpire intervention" that I often see spouted as the solution to this problem has arguably been discredited by its trial during the Ryobi Cup in 2012/13 .

"It's just shocking, it's embarrassing, it needs to worked out," said Bailey, also Australia's Twenty20 captain. "I think it confuses the players, I think it confuses the umpires. I think leave it in the hands of the players. You get two, if you use them with bad reviews then so be it."Paul Marsh, the chief executive of the Australian Cricketers Association and a member of the cricket committee, said the problems encountered with the system had not been envisaged at the time it was devised, and would force a close look at its faults at the end of the summer.
"Certainly when it was talked about conceptually we didn't see the problems that would come up," Marsh told ESPNcricinfo. "There are issues with broadcaster actually showing replays, and I don't think anyone saw that, and it just seems to be inconsistent the way that it is working. It definitely is something we need to put on our agenda for the coming year.

 

[Jono]

Not sure players can put their sunglasses on that.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yup, you're relying even more on the host broadcaster if you leave it to the players in the rooms.

Anything that relies on the batsman not getting off the ground so that a third party (3rd umpire or his teammate) will end up as a pure farce.