View Poll Results: UDRS?

Voters
135. You may not vote on this poll
  • In favour

    112 82.96%
  • Opposed

    13 9.63%
  • BCCI is the best organisation out

    10 7.41%
Page 125 of 125 FirstFirst ... 2575115123124125
Results 1,861 to 1,874 of 1874
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: ***Official*** DRS discussion thread

  1. #1861
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,074
    Have the third umpire keep an eye on everthing with a direct link to the standing umpires ear. So even after the two referrals are up, obviously bad decisions can be still corrected.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  2. #1862
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,017
    Let each side have two "free" referrals and after that devise a forfeit for each failed one
    Cruxdude likes this.

  3. #1863
    U19 Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    Let each side have two "free" referrals and after that devise a forfeit for each failed one
    I don't think it's the number of referrals available but more the sheer awfulness of the person who passes judgement on the referral ala Khawaja. Batsmen in this ashes series are avoiding reviewing decisions through sheer lack of trust + the chances of losing a precious referral.

  4. #1864
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,664
    It's become increasingly clear that hotspot should only be used to overrule a decision when it shows an edge - it's a positive only marker. i.e. to overrule a caught behind appeal turned down, or to overrule an LBW appeal given by the onfield umpire.

    When it doesn't show an edge, it's not conclusive evidence that an edge hasn't occurred. The absence of an edge shown by hotspot shouldn't reprieve a batsman given out caught behind without further clear evidence (e.g. snicko, daylight between bat and ball). Likewise, the absence of an edge on hotspot should not be significant evidence to overrule an LBW appeal given not out without further more conclusive evidence (e.g. snicko and daylight between bat and ball).

    Tl,dr: hotspot won't give many false positives but will give plenty of false negatives. Snick may give more false positives (lots of things make noise), but shouldn't give many false negatives (the mic is pretty good at picking up even tiny sounds of leather hitting wood). They need to be used in conjunction knowing the limitations of each.


  5. #1865
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,726
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  6. #1866
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    11,703
    Yeah last five overs before a new ball they will get used on the off chance it was out.

    Rather it was ones for lbw aren't lost if it stays umpires call but was hitting the stumps.

  7. #1867
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,610
    Well you could say the same for the flat two reviews per innings rule; "cue reviews at 9 down for spurious reasons." And we absolutely do see that all the time.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  8. #1868
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,726
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Yeah last five overs before a new ball they will get used on the off chance it was out.

    Rather it was ones for lbw aren't lost if it stays umpires call but was hitting the stumps.
    I disagree as it should be to eliminate howlers.

    I actually prefer Agger's idea of reducing it to 1 per innings - then the gamble option won't be taken.

  9. #1869
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Yeah last five overs before a new ball they will get used on the off chance it was out.

    Rather it was ones for lbw aren't lost if it stays umpires call but was hitting the stumps.

    Yep.. same feelings here.. Thought that Umpire's Call decisions not deducting your reviews in hand was a much better idea..
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  10. #1870
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,424
    Way to fiddle without actually doing anything.

    Need rid of the burden-of-proof thing.
    Every 5 years we have an election and have to decide who are the least obnoxious out of all the men. Then one gets in and they age really quickly. Which is always fun to watch.

  11. #1871
    Makes more sense to just give another review at 80 overs, resetting it is just outright dumb for the reasons other people have mentioned - if you have 1 or 2 left after 70 overs you just use them on any old crap. Maybe the ICC wants to pad out the stats so the umpires look less useless (lower successful referral rate)?
    National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
    Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:


    MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk

  12. #1872
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,068
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    I disagree as it should be to eliminate howlers.

    I actually prefer Agger's idea of reducing it to 1 per innings - then the gamble option won't be taken.
    Not while reviews are lost for "umpire's call".

    And for people who say "oh it's to eliminate the howler", if you're the fielding side you challenge an lbw decision because you think the ball's going to hit the stumps, so it seems a bit daft to lose reviews when HawkEye is projecting the ball hitting the stumps.

  13. #1873
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,658
    I wouldn't like one per innings. They're there to overturn as many decisions as possible, reducing the likelihood of have any when a howler is made is just pointless.

    So is reseting them though. I wouldn't mind adding one or two every 80 overs, like they do for tiebreaks in tennis, but reseting it is just dumb. You should just get three or four if you haven't burnt your reviews early, not the same amount as a team that has.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    This English top three are cornflakes. They're not the most exciting thing out but they're pretty effective. Then the middle order are the sugar. Would be too much on their own but added to the cornflakes they add some much needed interest

    When KP returns he will be the banana..

  14. #1874
    U19 Vice-Captain JontyPanesar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    527
    Let umpires ask the third umpire whenever there is any doubt, that includes checking hotspot, snicko, and hawkeye. Likewise, let the third umpire step in if he can catch an obvious howler that hasn't been referred before the subsequent ball is bowled (with regulations on batsmen and bowlers for obvious hurrying or time wasting). Minimize the need for reviews altogether

    If a technology isn't reliable, why not let the third umpire make an informed decision using good old fashioned slo-mo?

    Reviews are still necessary when dealing with stubborn umpires like Bucknor who refuse to refer even basic appeals for stumpings and run outs

    If its umpires call, you shouldn't lose a review.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. CricSim/PlanetCricket Discussion etc
    By ripper868 in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 17-08-2010, 06:15 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM
  3. Trade Discussion Thread
    By Simon in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 15-04-2009, 03:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •