***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[centurymaker]

some ridiculous howlers in the india vs england test, however bad the DRS may seem its a hell of a lot better than having 5+ woeful howlers in every test, or even more. If the best umpire, Dar, is making continuous howlers, surely compulsory DRS in needed.

Dar won't be officiating in the next test there.. which is a bad news for cook in particular.

yea agree that it is at least better than having nothing, so Bcci should embrace it

 

[Flem274*]

The no ball thing is ridiculous I must admit. It's gotten to the stage where quite literally every wicket Doug Bracewell takes gets checked, all because of that one time he got Clarke with one.

In the current NZ-SL series they don't even have DRS and they checked one of his wickets last night for the no ball.

 

[BoyBrumby]

So, after Australia's innings today, is one review per innings enough?

Twatty early review definitely lead to two wrong decisions (Warner and Henriques) standing.

Still no excuse for Warner's wobbly bottom lip tho, IMHO. Not the first batsman to get a smeller. Blame your skipper, fella.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

No, because teams undoubtedly make agreements beforehand to blow reviews on their best batsmen no matter what. Adding more reviews will just result in more stupid reviews since the value of a review will be reduced even further. Teams can suck it up if they don't use the ****ing system properly imo.

 

[morgieb]

If there's only one review per innings IMO I dunno if there's much point having it at all. I don't see why ODI's should have less than tests.

Still, it was a poor review by Clarke. But I for one don't believe UDRS should be there to just eliminate the howlers - I feel it should be there to eradicate any mistake.

 

[uvelocity]

drs is ****

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If it eradicates EVERY mistake then we're basically talking about replacing the umpires completely, which ain't happening. One review = you better be sure you've seen something the umpire hasn't, otherwise quit your whining ****

 

[uvelocity]

just **** it off, woftam

 

[Spark]

flat earth Uvelocity

 

[uvelocity]

I mean they agonise for literally minutes and still **** up decisions, almost every player is ******** at using it except for time wasting at the end of a test match, it deflates the excitement after a wicket quicker than a zyrtec waste of time and money

 

[uvelocity]

gonna kill spark

 

[Cabinet96]

I mean they agonise for literally minutes and still **** up decisions, almost every player is ******** at using it except for time wasting at the end of a test match, it deflates the excitement after a wicket quicker than a zyrtec waste of time and money

Especially when you find out that the batsmen has actually smashed it onto his pad, and the decision is overturned.

I personally would go for two reviews in ODI's.

 

[benchmark00]

Should have zing bats, so when the ball hits the bat it lights up.

 

[uvelocity]

now you're talking

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Should have a 20 run penalty for every ******** LBW review where the batsman hasn't clearly hit it. That'll clear it right up imo.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Should have a 20 run penalty for every ******** LBW review where the batsman hasn't clearly hit it. That'll clear it right up imo.

So that along with the run out he causes would bring Twatto's adjusted average down to what about -10?

 

[Red]

Surely last night's game makes it blatantly obvious it should be in the hands of the third umpire, and not the players....

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Surely this has been explained 9000 times, that's not ****ing practical.

 

[Red]

Surely this has been explained 9000 times, that's not ****ing practical.

Bull****. Warner would've been given not out in 5 seconds.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That's because it was obviously not out. The problems come when you get more and more marginal ones so where does the third ump draw the line on what he overturns and what he doesn't? Aus had one review, they blew it, so hard luck on Warner but his captain was a dick.