***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by Spark

???

whats your question newton?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by vicky

This.

Really, if you accept that the DRS as it is is there to overturn "howlers" then Clarke's thought process before reviewing an LBW should have been:

1) Did I hit the cover off it
2) Did it hit me a foot outside off
3) Did it pitch a foot outside leg
4) Did it hit me on the thigh when i was halfway down the pitch

If the answer to all the above is no the Clarke's conclusion should have been "Accept the decision, it's too close to call and we might need the review for a genuine howler later in the innings" as opposed to "What would Watto do..."

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

[wellAlbidarned]

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.

[uvelocity]

judy jono is a howler ftr

[Spark]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

whats your question newton?

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

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Jono

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.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

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.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

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]

Originally Posted by Spark

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]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

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]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

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]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

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]

Originally Posted by GIMH

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.