DRS: Worth Persevering With?

[Adders]

Your thoughts please...

I think you've been hacked by Lokomotive.

 

[Maximas]

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.

No, too slow, and it might create problems if management think it's too close to call.

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?

The DRS is meant to take the really poor decisions out of cricket, and it's up to the players to use implement it in a way that achieves this, if you run out of reviews and you get a howler go against you it's your own team's fault for abusing the system by using it on closer calls or you have poor judgement. In any case there will never be a clear line drawn between 'indisputable evidence' and not enough evidence

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

In baseball they are mainly using the review system for plays at the bases (force/tag), home runs, and catches.
(yes, I'm ignoring a few other plays for simplicity's sake)

Comparing to cricket,
the plays on the bases = run outs
home runs = boundary or not

These are already dealt with outside of DRS by going to the 3rd umpire. So it's only really the catches (mainly trap plays) part used in the Baseball Instant Replay that can be directly compared to Cricket's DRS.

Most of these are things that can be clearly seen by replay and require very little judgement. There is no ball tracking, margins of error, or anything like that.
It's basically, has he beat the ball?
has he tagged him in time?
has it cleared the line?

All pretty basic compared to cricket, where the biggest use of DRS is for LBW. Also, I think you'll find instant replay in baseball being used very sparingly, and when it is used it will be quite black and white. In cricket however, things are a bit more grey.

This is all a long winded way of saying "nah, I don't think you can really compare the two."

 

[paulted]

Line decisions thru DRS and umpires ONLY should be part of the laws but should not be under the purview of any player. This game after all is pretty much THE perfect sport and should not be messed with. I'm prejudiced and love this sport. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like Cricket you clearly lack intelligence anyway. If football is"the beautiful game" Cricket is a supermodel............

 

[YorksLanka]

i agree with Paulted about our wonderful game but i disagree about DRS and i think that the umpires should be given the full support f the system to help them as its all well us seeing things in slow motion and with the benefit of several replays but the unpires dont get those luxuries...i persnallythink that most of the falws seen are due to the inability of teams being unable to use the system properly and that is their fault..

 

[hendrix]

I might be in the minority here, but I love the drama the DRS creates by leaving it in the players hands. One of the best moments in cricket was when Watson reviewed a plumb LBW and you could see KP laughing his head off.

The howlers are still removed, but I quite like the tactical vs team vs individual nature of the way players utilise DRS.

 

[SJS]

There is a basic problem with the debate on DRS. It invariably goes down to "poor umpires without the benefit of numerous cameras and slow motion replays" versus "lousy umpiring decisions ruining games". Both miss the vital point and the main reason for the DRS system being their in the first place - the possibility of result altering wrong decision that could be avoided if somehow technology could be used/harnessed etc.

It should not boil down to umpires versus machines but has to be reduction in wrong decisions to the extent technology allows us.

Then we can focus on what technology allows us and what it doesn't. Then we can focus on the limitations of the technology as it exists at a point in time and make the system so as to get the best out of it to reduce as many errors as we can - not all for that may almost never happen.

Either all or none is the worst approach we can take.

Of course, there are constraints but we need to see which can be overcome. For example, one often hears of grounds not being equipped and the associations concerned not having the financial means to equip them. Surely the world body needs to help out. One is tempted to say that the BCCI, instead of bullying the others for greater share and damning the DRS system might think of helping out from their overflowing coffers and adjust the "loans" from a slightly higher share of the proceeds in bilateral games against the country concerned till the dues are completely repaid. I can already hear the roar of disagreement from some Indian fans but the idea is not to damn BCCI but to just highlight the need to for all concerned to try and improve the overall proportion of correct decision making than we have today.

So many Indian fans seem to support BCCI's stand against DRS only because the BCCI opposes it, has ensured that everyone of its commentators opposes it (they will be thrown out the day they speak for it) and the same applies to players. The fans, therefore, are conditioned by this apparent 'unanimity' of opinion on the matter.

If BCCI was in favour of it and the rest of the world against it, the situation would have been exactly the opposite with the majority of the same Indian fans all for technology.

We need to get sentiments and false nationalistic fervour out of the equation and then put our heads together to see how we can ensure a higher proportion of correct decisions. It can be done given no standing on false ego nor the mulish tendency exhibited by the Indian board.

 

[Muloghonto]

No, too slow, and it might create problems if management think it's too close to call.

" Too slow" is just a lame excuse for refusal to use technology. Period.
Take NFL for example. Its a game of 1 hour playtime, that is extended to 2.5 to 3 hours with all the breaks, referrals and getting to the line of scrimmage.
Yet, the use of technology has not made the game 'too long', it has made the game the single greatest team sport in the world on the basis of the best officiating & real time ruling made for a game. In this regard, it is not even a contest. Football is orders of magnitude ahead of every team sport in terms of getting correct decisions made, especially when you factor in that it is a contact sport, requiring regulating 'illegal modes of contact' between 20+ players in real time, yet it gets over 99% of its decisions right.

Whatever playtime lost or 'total game-time bloating' that is caused by the use of technology is sacrificial to the altar of near-perfect rulings that affect a game's outcome.

The DRS is meant to take the really poor decisions out of cricket, and it's up to the players to use implement it in a way that achieves this, if you run out of reviews and you get a howler go against you it's your own team's fault for abusing the system by using it on closer calls or you have poor judgement. In any case there will never be a clear line drawn between 'indisputable evidence' and not enough evidence

No, the DRS should not be just to get rid of howlers, it should be to correct every single incorrect decision. However, the basic criticism of DRS technology not being foolproof, is the most obvious stumbling block to the whole DRS argument. BCCI does have a point on it being misleading and counter-productive to treat imperfect outcomes as perfect from the technology provided. Football does not suffer from this (as in football, all techology used pertains to camera footage and camera angles) but cricket does. Hotspot, snicko, etc. are not foolproof and if they are, it hasn't been tested independently to come to such conclusions.

So the justification for anti-DRS stance should be on the basis of its technology not being open to scrutiny, not whether it slows the game down or not.

 

[Dan]

Because what Test cricket really needs to do is get even longer.

The NFL is an absolute joke from that perspective, not a shining beacon of sporting efficiency.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

" Too slow" is just a lame excuse for refusal to use technology. Period.
Take NFL for example. Its a game of 1 hour playtime, that is extended to 2.5 to 3 hours with all the breaks, referrals and getting to the line of scrimmage.
Yet, the use of technology has not made the game 'too long', it has made the game the single greatest team sport in the world on the basis of the best officiating & real time ruling made for a game. In this regard, it is not even a contest. Football is orders of magnitude ahead of every team sport in terms of getting correct decisions made, especially when you factor in that it is a contact sport, requiring regulating 'illegal modes of contact' between 20+ players in real time, yet it gets over 99% of its decisions right.

Whatever playtime lost or 'total game-time bloating' that is caused by the use of technology is sacrificial to the altar of near-perfect rulings that affect a game's outcome.



No, the DRS should not be just to get rid of howlers, it should be to correct every single incorrect decision. However, the basic criticism of DRS technology not being foolproof, is the most obvious stumbling block to the whole DRS argument. BCCI does have a point on it being misleading and counter-productive to treat imperfect outcomes as perfect from the technology provided. Football does not suffer from this (as in football, all techology used pertains to camera footage and camera angles) but cricket does. Hotspot, snicko, etc. are not foolproof and if they are, it hasn't been tested independently to come to such conclusions.

So the justification for anti-DRS stance should be on the basis of its technology not being open to scrutiny, not whether it slows the game down or not.

Taking 2-3 hours to get through 1 hour of playtime is whats fundamentally wrong with American Sport

 

[Spark]

Because what Test cricket really needs to do is get even longer.

The NFL is an absolute joke from that perspective, not a shining beacon of sporting efficiency.

but it makes teh moniez so it must be perfect right

 

[Muloghonto]

Because what Test cricket really needs to do is get even longer.

The NFL is an absolute joke from that perspective, not a shining beacon of sporting efficiency.

How is it a joke ? The NFL satisfies the most basic requirement to being a successful sport: picture-perfect near-100% correct decision making, where less than 5 decisions for the whole season ( when each game has 100+ decisions and over 25 teams partake. Do the math!) are wrong.

Cricket is a joke in comparison, where it is structurally broken, with a far, far higher error rate in rendering cricketing decisions. If Test cricket cannot survive the implementation of a successful technological system (which has yet to be determined for cricket's sake) that ensures near perfect decision-making impacting the game, then it shouldnt exist. Or at the very least, be demoted from being important at all. For a format that has a lesser competency of getting the officiating of the game right, is automatically, an inferior format.

 

[Muloghonto]

Taking 2-3 hours to get through 1 hour of playtime is whats fundamentally wrong with American Sport

err no, that is a consequence of having sports that are far, far more legitimately officiated, leading to greater spectator participation. Though it is not true for ice hockey (another broken game, even more so than cricket due to erroneous and sub-standard officiating).

The fundamental objective of a sport is not to present an athletic contest in the least possible time consumed to conclude that contest. The fundamental objective of the sport is to deliver such a said contest in the most fairest, cleanest way possible in officiating, that leads to the outcome of the contest.
Providing time efficiencies is a priority but not at the expense of the integrity of the sport.

 

[Flem274*]

weren't you saying the other week the fundamental yadda yadda of sport was to entertain?

Now you're harping on about it being about fairest contest. Make your mind up.

 

[Muloghonto]

weren't you saying the other week the fundamental yadda yadda of sport was to entertain?

Now you're harping on about it being about fairest contest. Make your mind up.

They are not mutually exclusive,neither does the word 'fundamental' imply singularity.

The objective of a sport, fundamentally, from the logistics side of it, is to make it the fairest contest possible. The objective of the sport, in terms of competing with the wider field of entertainment, it has to be entertaining. Adding time to get the ruling right does not take away from the entertainment factor, since I'd rather spend 5 hours watching a sport i like that 'works' over spending 4 hours watching a sport i like that is 'broken' and some missed officiating results fundamentally in the outcome.

 

[hendrix]

How is it a joke ? The NFL satisfies the most basic requirement to being a successful sport: picture-perfect near-100% correct decision making, where less than 5 decisions for the whole season ( when each game has 100+ decisions and over 25 teams partake. Do the math!) are wrong.

Cricket is quite different from gridiron.

We've seen numerous cases where technology has not definitely proven a decision to be correct or incorrect. Siding with the umpire so that the sport does not become more about precedent than action is the logical choice here.

 

[marc71178]

So let me get this right. The latest weird theory is that the greatest team sport in the world is only actually seriously played in one country in the world. What total and utter bollocks.

 

[Muloghonto]

So let me get this right. The latest weird theory is that the greatest team sport in the world is only actually seriously played in one country in the world. What total and utter bollocks.

The greatest team sport is the one that has the least amount of ambiguity to the decision-making of the game. That would be football.

 

[Maximas]

Why does everything have to be black and white in terms of officiating to have a perfect sport? Umpires make **** calls every 2 minutes in AFL and people still love it.

And cricket is a slow game, particularly test cricket, the cost of a few erroneous decisions and grey areas in the laws to try and keep the game at a reasonable pace is not a very high price to pay IMO.

 

[Adders]

The greatest team sport is the one that has the least amount of ambiguity to the decision-making of the game. That would be football.

WTF?? Did you seriously post that??

Edit:

By your criteria of "least amount of ambiguity to the decision-making of the game" then perhaps lawn bowls is the greatest sport??, **** maybe even tiddlywinks deserves a mention. Can't imagine that there is much "ambiguity" involved in the decision making in either of those contests.

As I've seen from past posts of yours you are voicing opinion and trying to pass it off as fact.

You may believe that NFL is the greatest team sport and you may believe that it is because it is the best officiated sport, but that is just opinion mate because the numbers make that statement just laughable. And when you want to talk facts then the numbers are what count.