DRS: Worth Persevering With?

[Crazy Sam]

I actually think the system as it is now is great. Umpires will make mistakes, even 3rd umpires.... but I really believe the current system helps when there is a very clear 'howler' which is what it is there for. The 50/50 ones are just a part of the package but if it means we eliminate most blatantly wrong decisions then so be it.

 

[Second Spitter]

Not sure players can put their sunglasses on that.

Better?

Doug Bollinger can even leave his rug on it.

 

[Shri]

Is...is that a Steve Smith bust?

 

[uvelocity]

one thing i found quite wierd is that the reviews reset at 80 overs, but not again at 160

 

[Shri]

No team but India bowls 160 overs in a test innings.

 

[paulted]

But why two referrals? How about 1 per batsman? Both teams would have to be more sure about how and when to use it.

 

[jcas0167]

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.........?

YES, it's worth persevering with. The human eye often misses things and it's unfair on umpires, players and fans for the best evidence not to be available to the decision makers.

 

[GotSpin]

I actually think the system is pretty good as it is.

You can't give the Umpires the ability to review decisions because otherwise it'll be like run outs where they will review everything 'just to be sure'.

The no-ball phenomenon is bizarre though and frankly annoying.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I actually think the system is pretty good as it is.

You can't give the Umpires the ability to review decisions because otherwise it'll be like run outs where they will review everything 'just to be sure'.

The no-ball phenomenon is bizarre though and frankly annoying.

Yeah I agree with all of this. I think there are areas the system could be improved but giving umpires the decision on whether to review or not is not one of them. Would slow the game down too much and be bad from the point of view of entertainment levels. I mean if you are a team in charge of your own reviews and you use (or indeed fail to use) them in the wrong situations that's your own fault anyway.

 

[Dory]

The only issue I have with the current system is with needing conclusive proof to overturn a decision. The commentators keep telling me the 3rd umpire needs conclusive evidence to overturn but in practise it seems more like they ignore the original decision.

An example of this is the Philander decision if he was given not out or the 3rd umpire was ignoring the on field umpire and making a new call than I agree not out is correct, however I saw no conclusive evidence that his hand was off the bat, so why was it overturned.

I think an important part of any sports video review system is that people watching at home know what call is going to be made even if they don't necessarily agree with it.

 

[Ruckus]

yeah think most things could be improved somewhat but it's still a far better situation than without it. Agree that the no-ball thing is the biggest issues atm though. Takes so much away from the flow of the game.

 

[GotSpin]

Well they should be checking every ball regardless.

It's one of the problems with having a DRS system in the first place. It takes away from the excitement and spontaneity of the game and the rechecking of the noball every single time a wicket falls only serves to further exacerbate this situation.

 

[Jarquis]

Just make no-balls automatic innit.

 

[Ruckus]

Well they should be checking every ball regardless.

It's one of the problems with having a DRS system in the first place. It takes away from the excitement and spontaneity of the game and the rechecking of the noball every single time a wicket falls only serves to further exacerbate this situation.

I actually quite like the other aspects of DRS from an entertainment pov, sort of similar to hawkeye in tennis I guess. The problem with the no-ball thing is it happens directly after a wicket falls, so it comes across as this massive anticlimax (I can't imagine how annoying it would be for the bowling side to have your emotions toyed with like that). And aside from that a no ball is a pretty trivial thing when it comes down to it, so spending so much time reviewing it is gratuitous. Don't see why they can't just have a camera fixed on the line permanently and have a off field umpire relaying if it's a noball for every delivery in real time.

 

[Shri]

Why not have some extra 3 rd umpires who watch the crease and the foot via a fixed camera live(like for run outs) and hit a light or something if its a no ball? They could also look for the waist high no balls. Increase third umpires' man power and responsibilities.

Edit: Or what he said

 

[Maximas]

Bit of an issue with fielders getting in the way, not only that but they won't have much time to make their decision, so it could get a bit messy if it's really close and the next ball needs to be bowled. Not only that but the on-field umpire might not be able to give the bowler feedback when they are getting close to the line, which is a bit unfair unless the 3rd ump can communicate that information

 

[Shri]

Two cameras. Opposite ends.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

The only problem with DRS is the humans who are using it, both players and officials.

Most players and captains have figured out how to use the system, although there is still too much "wasting a review over marginal crap". However, 3rd umpires are still rather inept with no consistency whatsoever.

Umpires need to umpire, the job of reviewing should be a specialist role.
Also, I would like for communication between umpire and reviewer to be broadcast. It works in football.

 

[Furball]

The only problem with DRS is the humans who are using it, both players and officials.

Most players and captains have figured out how to use the system, although there is still too much "wasting a review over marginal crap". However, 3rd umpires are still rather inept with no consistency whatsoever.

Umpires need to umpire, the job of reviewing should be a specialist role.
Also, I would like for communication between umpire and reviewer to be broadcast. It works in football.

Definitely agree with the bolded. The commentators are already privy to the discussions between the 3rd umpire and his on-field mate, broadcasting the discussion IMO would make the review process more transparent and would allow constructive criticism of the way the system works. At the moment when there's a strange decision (Khawaja had a terrible decision against him inexplicably upheld at Old Trafford IIRC) then we're guessing as to why the 3rd ump has come to the decision he has.

 

[Second Spitter]

Two ideas from baseball's proposed DRS that may be of utility to cricket
:
1. Teams will be allowed to view a replay before instigating a referral -- implicit to this, the coach/manager is in control of the decision to refer rather than on-field players. This measure is even easier to implement in cricket since team management sit in-front of tv screens for the duration of the game. Incidentally teams are only given 1 referral plus a bonus referral if the first one is correct. That's it. Honestly you don't need more if you have the opportunity to view it on a replay.

2. In circumstances where teams don't have any referrals remaining after the 7th inning, the video umpire may still review decisions provided there is "indisputable video evidence" --- this implies a higher standard. This is trickier to interpret in a cricket context - presumably this would apply only to "Stuart Broad" situations and perhaps blatant edges in LBW decisions. However, i'm not sure what is equivalent to "after the 7th inning" in cricket. Something arbitrary like 5 or less wickets or 120 runs to win, 4th innings only?

Your thoughts please...