***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[hazsa19]

I've watched them all again and i'm certain everything was ok.

If anything there was a slight illusion created by the position of the back leg in the case of Lyons lbw shot.

 

[ganeshran]

Didnt Hughes get an iffy lbw call in Lanka and Hawkeye actually acknowledged the error in their system.

IMO, DRS is in place to prevent umpiring howlers not to make marginal calls. Simple replays and a pitch mat can help eliminate inside edge lbws, missed edges, pitched outside leg etc.

 

[Furball]

Didnt Hughes get an iffy lbw call in Lanka and Hawkeye actually acknowledged the error in their system.

IMO, DRS is in place to prevent umpiring howlers not to make marginal calls. Simple replays and a pitch mat can help eliminate inside edge lbws, missed edges, pitched outside leg etc.

Suresh Raina at Lord's. Was an absolute joke of a decision.

 

[marc71178]

But you don't get it GF - the predictive element of the camera is not good enough.

 

[Furball]

But you don't get it GF - the predictive element of the camera is not good enough.

I suppose we could use side on cameras to let the umpires guess if it's going over the top and a front on shot so they can guess if it's hitting. That's much more reliable than a system which does all that for you.

 

[hazsa19]

But you don't get it GF - the predictive element of the camera is not good enough.

Would love to know what position you're in to make that call.

 

[marc71178]

True, guess we need to see it from multiple angles.

 

[Cabinet96]

Suresh Raina at Lord's. Was an absolute joke of a decision.

Tendulkar had one as well, both of Broad. Incredible to think how unlucky he was in the India series, considering his average

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I just had an idea.

What do you guys think about separating DRS into two parts - LBW Reviews and Everything else.

With LBW's there is a lot more grey. It's not just a matter of OUT or NOT OUT, because of the predictive nature we have:
(1)OUT
(2)Given OUT but could've gone the other way
(3)Given NOT OUT but could've gone the other way
(4)NOT OUT

Now, as we hear every single time there is a review. "DRS is only there to be used for the HOWLERS". When it comes to LBW, (2) and (3) would be marginal decisions ie not howlers. These shouldn't be reviewed, so if they are and the review is unsuccessful the team deserves to lose one of their two reviews. We have to have a limit on reviews otherwise teams will use them for every single dismissal/appeal. But my problem lies with the different nature of dismissals.

If there was no limit to reviews, will a team always use it for LBWs?
It won't be 100% of the time, but pretty close. There are also a lot of LBWs appeals in a game ---> Wasting a lot of time.
If there was no limit to reviews, will a team always use it for catches?
I don't think they will. Plus, how many reviews of this nature do we get in a test match? Not very many, and I doubt it will increase with unlimited reviews.

I know I'm struggling to get my point across, but what it really comes down to is this.
Aren't all incorrectly given non-lbw decisions howlers?

*Now don't talk about close catches, because I believe that the fielders word should count when there is doubt.
**Also, stfu about the inaccuracies of HotSpot. Assume we are in a world where a mark on HotSpot means an edge, and no mark means no edge.

If your answer is yes, doesn't it make sense to separate LBW's and non-LBW's, have limited LBW reviews and unlimited non-LBW reviews?

Feel free to rubbish my incoherent babbling. Surely this has come up before? Maybe I am missing something.

 

[99*]

Would love to know what position you're in to make that call.

Guy who worked on and has studied the predictive systems that DRS uses was on radio today.

Said that DRS has a 95% accuracy within 3mm most of the time. The only problem is when the ball making contact with the pad is close enough to the contact with the pitch, then it can't make a reliable prediction.

 

[hazsa19]

I just had an idea.

What do you guys think about separating DRS into two parts - LBW Reviews and Everything else.

With LBW's there is a lot more grey. It's not just a matter of OUT or NOT OUT, because of the predictive nature we have:
(1)OUT
(2)Given OUT but could've gone the other way
(3)Given NOT OUT but could've gone the other way
(4)NOT OUT

Now, as we hear every single time there is a review. "DRS is only there to be used for the HOWLERS". When it comes to LBW, (2) and (3) would be marginal decisions ie not howlers. These shouldn't be reviewed, so if they are and the review is unsuccessful the team deserves to lose one of their two reviews. We have to have a limit on reviews otherwise teams will use them for every single dismissal/appeal. But my problem lies with the different nature of dismissals.

Tbh I think we should get to the stage where lbw decisions that could be given out are given out. Enough of this 'batsman gets the benefit of doubt' crap.

 

[uvelocity]

Said that DRS has a 95% accuracy within 3mm most of the time. The only problem is

there's no way to prove it

tbh I think the decisions were all spot on from Hobart.

 

[Prince EWS]

there's no way to prove it

There is actually.

They take a ball that goes right through to the keeper/stumps and 'stop' the tracking of it short of where it finishes, predict the path and then compare it to what actually happened. Tests doing exactly that is where their data comes from.

 

[uvelocity]

There is actually.

They take a ball that goes right through to the keeper/stumps and 'stop' the tracking of it short of where it finishes, predict the path and then compare it to what actually happened. Tests doing exactly that is where their data comes from.

yeah well except for that

and except that cricket balls do wierd things sometimes

 

[uvelocity]

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

More to it than just DRS, but probably fits best here. Agree with everything.

 

[Crazy Sam]

Tbh I think we should get to the stage where lbw decisions that could be given out are given out. Enough of this 'batsman gets the benefit of doubt' crap.

The umpire gets the benefit of the doubt, not the batsman.

I feel the current challenge system is the best way of implementing the DRS. I hate hearing Mark Taylor and co waffling on about leaving it to the umpires or even letting the 3rd umpire reverse decisions.

Just in the past couple of tests we've had about 6-8 dismissals referred by the umpires to the 3rd umpire to check for a front foot no ball, some of which are so pathetically cautious that you wonder what the umpire was actually doing. Can you imagine if umpires then start reviewing every LBW appeal, nick, bat-pad catch? And how is the 3rd umpire supposed to review it if the replay doesn't become available for 2-3 minutes, by which time the batsman is already back in the dressing room?

If a team feels hard done by then the opportunity is there at the moment to check it. If they want to challenge a 50-50 call then that's a risk they take but 50-50 calls should remain with the umpire's original decision.

 

[andyc]

The umpire gets the benefit of the doubt, not the batsman.

I feel the current challenge system is the best way of implementing the DRS. I hate hearing Mark Taylor and co waffling on about leaving it to the umpires or even letting the 3rd umpire reverse decisions.

Just in the past couple of tests we've had about 6-8 dismissals referred by the umpires to the 3rd umpire to check for a front foot no ball, some of which are so pathetically cautious that you wonder what the umpire was actually doing. Can you imagine if umpires then start reviewing every LBW appeal, nick, bat-pad catch? And how is the 3rd umpire supposed to review it if the replay doesn't become available for 2-3 minutes, by which time the batsman is already back in the dressing room?

If a team feels hard done by then the opportunity is there at the moment to check it. If they want to challenge a 50-50 call then that's a risk they take but 50-50 calls should remain with the umpire's original decision.

To take it in a slightly different direction, the amount of times we've seen no balls for dismissals reviewed recently shows that umpires really are not that great with no balls, and that they should be handed over to the third umpire. If this many dismissals are getting reviewed, how many close no-ball calls are given incorrectly on a delivery left alone outside the off stump that the umpire can't be bothered reviewing? In a game like the last Aus-NZ Test, a difference of one or two runs every innings could have been crucial.

Given that the third umpire doesn't have to do much, surely he can just monitor the popping crease to look for no balls on each delivery, or an automated system can be devised. I imagine taking it away from the on field umpires would make their jobs much easier as well.

 

[Spikey]

I feel the current challenge system is the best way of implementing the DRS. I hate hearing Mark Taylor and co waffling on about leaving it to the umpires or even letting the 3rd umpire reverse decisions.

The BigBash has showed this 100% shouldn't happen in international cricket ever

 

[Furball]

Why on earth front foot no-balls aren't the remit of the third umpire is beyond me.

 

[vic_orthdox]

You just know that there's a good chance that it'll come in, only after we've all seen how poorly it works.