***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[smash84]

Hate this howler cliche that has been perpetuated until it becomes common thought. Drs is there to improve umpiring decisions, howler or not.

BCCI syndrome?

 

[Howe_zat]

Reckon the bowling side should have one more than the batting side. Most agree that a batsman knows if he's hit it or not, bowlers aren't really in a position to make an informed choice.

 

[Furball]

This x1000

Also applies to fielding teams making "we'd quite like their best batsman to be out please" reviews.

Might have been GIMP who pointed out that without lbws, 2 reviews an innings seemed to be a lot in last summer's England-India series.

 

[Furball]

It's not ideal that it's in the hands of the players, but currently that's the best option we've got. The day players don't need to be involved in the DRS is the day we won't need umpires anymore so it's a long way off tstl.

What else do you suggest?

If a batsman middles it into his pads and is given lbw, then surely it's the batsman who's best placed to challenge that particular decision?

If we're proposing that we get the third umpire involved, what's the catalyst for getting the third umpire involved? An appeal? Then fielding sides will appeal for everything. At the behest of the on field umpire? Then they'll just refer all lbws in the same way they refervirtually every run out or stumping appeal.

 

[uvelocity]

I really hope you're not serious with the claim that "UDRS created a howler".

well the batsman wouldn't have been out otherwise? Look clearly it was human error at fault, but it was also a product of having DRS. Wouldn't have been out in 1984.

The tennis one that was mentioned earlier, why that isn't completely automatic I have no idea, it was instantaneous and clear that the ball was in. Rugby League is suffering immensely from video ref blundering and agonising. I don't know about AFL but pretty sure the goal review system was unpopular. Soccer doesn't have any review system and I'd reckon that refereeing blunders are less visible and no more common despite no review system.

I was all in favour of DRS, I think it was a good idea, but it has failed. Could still have a place but needs huge changes.

 

[Crazy Sam]

The DRS was supposed to be in favour of the umpire's decision.

The question to be asked should be "is there genuine evidence to overturn this decision", not "can we get this decision 100% correct down to a millimetre of hotspot evidence". This really shouldn't take more than a couple of views of the available replays/hot shot/etc. If there is doubt - bad luck - the decision goes in favour of the on-field umpire whose original decision stands.

In my opinion, there are way too many LBW's being referred when the rules favour the umpire's decision so heavily (as opposed to favouring either 'bowlers' or 'batsmen').

A decision like Clarke's LBW should not have been referred, especially with only one referral at their disposal. Although that still doesn't excuse the shockers from the two umpires either, who I am sure will each have a black mark against them for those.


I think the current DRS system is spot on, although I think there is a case for two challenges in ODI's.

 

[GIMH]

Also applies to fielding teams making "we'd quite like their best batsman to be out please" reviews.

Might have been GIMP who pointed out that without lbws, 2 reviews an innings seemed to be a lot in last summer's England-India series.

Dunno it it was me or not but if I did say that then I agree with me. Sounds like the sort of thing I'd say; I'm a wise young man.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

What else do you suggest?

If a batsman middles it into his pads and is given lbw, then surely it's the batsman who's best placed to challenge that particular decision?

If we're proposing that we get the third umpire involved, what's the catalyst for getting the third umpire involved? An appeal? Then fielding sides will appeal for everything. At the behest of the on field umpire? Then they'll just refer all lbws in the same way they refervirtually every run out or stumping appeal.

Yeah I know I agree, I'm just pointing out how there's no perfect solution here

 

[Neil Pickup]

well the batsman wouldn't have been out otherwise? Look clearly it was human error at fault, but it was also a product of having DRS. Wouldn't have been out in 1984.

The tennis one that was mentioned earlier, why that isn't completely automatic I have no idea, it was instantaneous and clear that the ball was in. Rugby League is suffering immensely from video ref blundering and agonising. I don't know about AFL but pretty sure the goal review system was unpopular. Soccer doesn't have any review system and I'd reckon that refereeing blunders are less visible and no more common despite no review system.

I was all in favour of DRS, I think it was a good idea, but it has failed. Could still have a place but needs huge changes.

Agreed. Never any dispute about football refereeing decisions. I think Ferguson said how high the quality of officiating was only yesterday.

 

[Top_Cat]

Dunno it it was me or not but if I did say that then I agree with me. Sounds like the sort of thing I'd say; I'm a wise young man.

****test post of the thread, for mine.

 

[uvelocity]

Agreed. Never any dispute about football refereeing decisions. I think Ferguson said how high the quality of officiating was only yesterday.

had to google that

hey on the automatic checking of run outs, they do that mainly because it takes their fat arses that long to run in from square leg anyway

 

[Jono]

aand it begins again. If you're out to get every little marginal little-here-little-there decision perfectly right we might as well get rid of umpires all together, because human beings aren't capable of that.. Half the match will be spent in goddamn limbo. People don't repeat the howler thing just as a cliche, it's because it's the most realistic target for people who actually want to eliminate awful mistakes while getting on with the damn game. You can't have it both ways, there compromises to be made, and I think they've got it right with two reviews absolute max in an innings.

Nah I am sick of this howler ****. I am happy for there to be a review system and in the hands of the players, but then dont' ****ing tell them how to use it and what they can and cannot review.

If I am Ross Taylor and I am surrounded by ********s who can't bat, and I am hit in front of middle and given out LBW, I'm going to call for the review just because I can, and there may be a small chance that it was going down leg. I don't need people telling me that its not a howler and that I should not use it. I am happy for players to use it strategically. These people that say "Oh the UDRS wasn't meant for this" - nah piss off. It was meant to get decisions right. There is already an inherent punishment by reviewing a "non-howler" - you lose the review.

People have to stop talking about "Oh this wasn't the purpose of the review". If I am hit plumb in front on a hat trick ball from Peter Siddle, I will review. Cos I don't want to be that bloke who was the hat trick wicket, like girly Broad was. If I lose the review, that is my punishment. My team suffers and my captain can yell at me.

This "he should not be able to review that" is stupid. Its like telling a player he should not be able to declare poorly. If you make a poor decision by trying to use the system strategically you are already punished.

 

[Jarquis]

Nah I am sick of this howler ****. I am happy for their to be a review system and in the hands of the players, but then dont' ****ing tell them how to use it and what they can and cannot review.

We're not. We're just saying don't ****ing moan about it afterwards.

 

[Jono]

Who is moaning though? uvelocity? Surely he doesn't count.

edit: also fixed my incorrect spelling of 'there', embarrassing to say the least. uvelocity-esque one might say.

 

[uvelocity]

only janelle jono is moaning aws

 

[Jono]

#loudandproud

 

[Spark]

well the batsman wouldn't have been out otherwise? Look clearly it was human error at fault, but it was also a product of having DRS. Wouldn't have been out in 1984.

Yeah, look, this is just an insane proposition.

 

[Jono]

uvelocity posting like Burgey.




Except replace 1984 with 1944 obv.

 

[uvelocity]

Yeah, look, this is just an insane proposition.

what part of that is not factual

 

[Spark]

All of it. Well, apart from the 'human error' bit, that bit is true.