***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Jono]

So do you have a pause of play after every single appeal so that the third umpire can check?
We don't have the technology yet where we can find these things out instantaneously.

You could imagine the outrage if an edge was discovered 2-3mins after the appeal, yet play had already been continued.

Also, third umpire making decisions means you still have human error.

All good points.

 

[Bun]

Came across this article in another forum:

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Tendulkar in India is elevated a level beyond that — he is considered a god. And yet this god of cricket was all at bay against Saeed Ajmal. He could not, even once, correctly read Ajmal’s doosra. The IT hubs of Bengaluru worked overtime to provide Tendulkar the escape in the Decision Referral System (DRS) when he was actually plumb on an arm ball of Saeed Ajmal. The review showed an amount of deflection on the ball that Saeed Ajmal would have been proud to claim on any of his off-spinners.

:facepalm:

 

[Howe_zat]

...The IT hubs of Bengaluru...

lol

 

[Teja.]

Yeah, I detest the tactical referring too. The long term goal should be to eradicate as many incorrect umpiring decisions as possible. Not to test the batsman/captain's hearing and sight.

 

[Daemon]

Another reason why it shouldn't be umpire only UDRS is that possibly after a while it might cause new umpires in the future to not give a **** anymore and just refer every other LBW, just like run outs nowadays.

 

[Furball]

Another reason why it shouldn't be umpire only UDRS is that possibly after a while it might cause new umpires in the future to not give a **** anymore and just refer every other LBW, just like run outs nowadays.

Run outs are fine - even if the umpire is 99% sure that the batsman is in or out, why not refer it upstairs to make sure that the decision is 100% correct?

 

[Daemon]

Run outs are fine - even if the umpire is 99% sure that the batsman is in or out, why not refer it upstairs to make sure that the decision is 100% correct?

Don't have a problem with run outs, just that if they start treating LBWs like that then the issue of time wasting will crop up again

 

[Furball]

Don't have a problem with run outs, just that if they start treating LBWs like that then the issue of time wasting will crop up again

True - but LBWs are one area that UDRS has shown that umpires are getting most calls spot on - and there's usually plenty of mitigating circumstances for the ones they're getting wrong.

 

[zaremba]

I don't really see the problem with tactical referrals really.

Either the decision gets overturned or you waste a referral.
Even though there are still the likes of Shane Watson who always refer, I think you will find that most teams are getting a lot better at using their referrals. Captains realise if they waste an early referral then it makes the decision of using the last one a lot harder.

AWTA.

"Shall we refer this one, Skipper? He's their best batsman and that was close."
"No, old chap, this system was introduced to correct obvious errors and although that was mighty close and we could well get him out, we won't because it wasn't a clear howler."

Give me a break. Since when did tactics become a dirty word?

 

[Jono]

haha so strongly awta!

 

[GIMH]

This has been discussed a few times, probably in this thread and all, but with us all getting used to the system now, I thought I'd ask again.

What do you think of the 'Umpire's Call' rule?

It seems strange to me that the exact same delivery can have a different consequence based purely around what was originally given but at the same time I do understand it.

One school of thought has been to keep that aspect as it is but not to cost a team a referral if a decision is upheld on this basis. However the counter-argument is that these are not what the system is there for and that teams should only review howlers.

Where do you stand?

 

[Cruxdude]

This has been discussed a few times, probably in this thread and all, but with us all getting used to the system now, I thought I'd ask again.

What do you think of the 'Umpire's Call' rule?

It seems strange to me that the exact same delivery can have a different consequence based purely around what was originally given but at the same time I do understand it.

One school of thought has been to keep that aspect as it is but not to cost a team a referral if a decision is upheld on this basis. However the counter-argument is that these are not what the system is there for and that teams should only review howlers.

Where do you stand?

I stand with the rule as it is now. Tough luck for the batsman but I think it acts as a balance for benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman.

 

[pup11]

I just want to ask everyone that why there is so much blind faith in hawk-eye, cricket is probably the only sport where hawk-eye is used in a predictive fashion whereas everywhere else its used as graphical representation of a real event.

That's where I have big problems with it, the recent Tendulkar lbw UDRS review during the semi-final is just one of the many ocassions when the hawk-eye has predicted a path for the ball after impact that not many sane cricket followers would be able to digest.

UDRS is basically something that just further establishes the fact that the on-field umpires are in-charge when it come to decision making and UDRS's main job is just to prevent absolute stinking decisions, but it fails in fulfilling its purpose when people start reviewing even the marginal decisions and basically that's what is happening atm.

 

[vcs]

I would prefer benefit of doubt always going to the batsman (say if a ball is pitching half-way outside leg, or just a small percentage of it hitting the batsman in line, or just clipping the stumps etc.). Referrals not being lost for the marginal ones would also be good.

 

[Daemon]

I would prefer benefit of doubt always going to the batsman (say if a ball is pitching half-way outside leg, or just a small percentage of it hitting the batsman in line, or just clipping the stumps etc.). Referrals not being lost for the marginal ones would also be good.

Then every single marginal decision would be referred?

 

[vcs]

Then every single marginal decision would be referred?

That would be a problem, yeah. I haven't thought this through.

 

[Jono]

I think if the ball is even clipping the stumps it should be given out.

 

[vcs]

I think if the ball is even clipping the stumps it should be given out.

Why? I've always been a "benefit of doubt to the batsman" guy.

 

[Jono]

Because it makes the line clear.

 

[Daemon]

Don't really care which choice they make for the marginal decisions, whether it be benefit of doubt to the batsmen or sticking with the on field call. Important thing is whichever they choose, like Jono said, the line has to be clear