Should reviews be taken out of the players' hands?

[StephenZA]

What bothers me about people complaining about losing reviews is that lots of reviews get used tactically, rather than in the belief that a genuine mistake was made. It was the blatant mistakes players and spectators were not happy with... not the close calls before DRS. If its close and could go either way why review? I have no sympathy unless you are confident it is an incorrect decision and needs to be reviewed. If you guess it may have been incorrect decision but unsure and you use up a review tough luck.

Just get rid of ump's call completely imo. If any part of the ball hits the stumps, it's out. Middle of the ball is in line, out. Plain and simple.

It's ridiculous to use a system that brushes aside decisions made with a small margin of error, for decisions made by individuals with a higher margin.

As far as umpires call goes I don`t think it good for the game to remove the umpires authority particularly in marginal calls. I would also like to know what the margin of error is on DRS before I start questioning what should and should not be out.

 

[Daemon]

The problem with removing umpire's call is that you are assuming ball tracking is immaculate.

I'm not, but I'm definitely saying that it's more accurate than umpires.

 

[Kirkut]

Giving the review power to the team staff may create a new confusion. Only the players and umpires have the horizontal view of the events on the cricket field whereas the team staff have a slightly vertical view of the game (like watching on TV). So the staff may end up using reviews when not supposed to.

 

[Shri]

What?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm firmly of the belief that it stays with the players, and not the umpires themselves.

You smash an LBW, are you going to start walking off when it can't be reviewed once you leave the arena? There's much more disrespect going to be shown to umpires to get them to review their decision.

And then you'll have the umpires referring everything for their own reputation, which is fair enough.

 

[Kirkut]

What?

For example a bowler may appeal for an lbw and then instantly realize that the ball could be missing stumps marginally by height, not taking the review. But that's not the case if the support staff has the power over reviews, they view the game on the screen where it is difficult to detect the subtle height differences and may end up taking the review.

 

[Kirkut]

The problem with removing umpire's call is that you are assuming ball tracking is immaculate.

Yeah this. Also completely doing away with umpire's call will hurt their dignity. DRS is created for reviewing howlers, if it's a complex decision then the umpire has the right over it.

 

[Shri]

I'm firmly of the belief that it stays with the players, and not the umpires themselves.

You smash an LBW, are you going to start walking off when it can't be reviewed once you leave the arena? There's much more disrespect going to be shown to umpires to get them to review their decision.

And then you'll have the umpires referring everything for their own reputation, which is fair enough.

Hang around for 15 seconds or whatever. Inside edges that are howlers can be figured out instantly and the guy who is appointed to take these calls can do it quickly.

 

[Bijed]

Just get rid of ump's call completely imo. If any part of the ball hits the stumps, it's out. Middle of the ball is in line, out. Plain and simple.

It's ridiculous to use a system that brushes aside decisions made with a small margin of error, for decisions made by individuals with a higher margin.

I agree, but can also see why people wouldn't want it removed altogether. Not so much with pitching/impact, though - as people have noted in the past, they're known events which shouldn't be affected by the technology's margin of error.

Alternatively, I don't disagree with the idea of not losing a review for an umpire's call, though I guess this would just encourage reviewing everything close and take ages.

 

[S.Kennedy]

There was a recent LBW, Oz v South Africa - I think it was Smith but do not quote me on that? - where the ball looked to be going down the leg side yet balltracker insisted on it hitting stumps. Do not remove the human being from the process.

 

[watson]

The whole DRS thing is tedious enough as it is without having to have some bozo in the dressing room staring intently at a cricket screen all day so he can make a 10 second decision as to whether Steve Smith was out or not.

The fact is, knowing when to review an lbw decision should be just as much Smith's responsibility as playing a proper forward-defensive stroke. Both aspects of the game require the application of skill and judgement, and if Smith is not sure how to do either successfully then he should go to his coach for some training.

Batting, bowling, catching, fielding, and assessing the trajectory of a delivery pending an lbw review are all much of a muchness in the modern game.



(Having said that, IMO Smith should be let of with a caution as a first time offender. But since he has now set the precedent he should be given no slack the next time.)

 

[Red]

Perhaps the simplest method is that teams should be fined 10,000 or 20,000 (or whatever) dollars from their match fees for every occasional they ask for a review and they're shown to be wrong.

That might make sure that they only review actual clangers.

 

[honestbharani]

May never work for teams like the Big 3.

 

[Migara]

The only thing I would change to the present system is, the one reviewing does not lose a review if he loses out to umpire's call.

Exactly. And if a particular review has more than one "umpires call" tags with regards to "pitched outside leg", "hit with in the line" or "hitting the stumps", such decisions should be regarded as not out.

 

[Midwinter]

The whole point of the limited review system is to create artificial controversy.

It is working well isn't it.

The technology is in place at every test match, why isn't it being used to review all decisions ?

The imposition of a rule that limits reviews is ludicrous if the point is to make sure the correct decisions are made.