***Official*** DRS discussion thread - Page 3

zaremba · 06-12-2010, 01:55 PM

Strongly anti. A wrong "not out" is cancelled out by a wrong "out". And in my view it is important to teach youngsters that two wrongs make a right.

morgieb · 06-12-2010, 03:43 PM

Having unlimited referrals is a bad idea, as most wickets would just be referred.

As for Hawkeye, possibly fair enough, but I still feel the benefit of the doubt should be with the batsman.

Noble One · 06-12-2010, 07:30 PM

Why must the benefit of doubt rest with the batsman? I would be in favour of any system (as long as it's fair) that will help in reducing the runs-scored in the modern era.

NasserFan207 · 06-12-2010, 07:40 PM

For it. Anyone whose against is a conservative moron.

vic_orthdox · 06-12-2010, 08:24 PM

I'm for it. I think it's a lot better way of using the technology, as if you left it to the umpires to do their own referring, then they would doubt themselves and ask to refer pretty much everything all the time, slowing the game down further. It would also still leave shockers in there, as if they realised that someone hit it in the first place for an LBW (for example) then they wouldn't have given it out. It'd create a greater level of doubt in the umpires; with this system, they can just concentrate on making the right decision, and if it turns out to be wrong, so be it.

The other method that's been suggested is that the 3rd Umpire intervene, which I'd find distasteful too. What happens if the Third Umpire only discovers something after the batsman has walked all the way off the field? Will we have batsmen hanging around longer waiting for intervention that may never come instead of walking off? At what point is it too late for the 3rd Umpire to intervene?

Think that the current method, with the players using the chance to refer, is the best way of it being used.

morgieb · 06-12-2010, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dissector

Clearly not much of a debate here and like most I would like to see it in every series. UDRS could be improved but it's better than what came before. Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Yep, spot on basically.

Shri · 07-12-2010, 12:53 AM

Or the 3rd umpire could refer every decision and if a player is given out and walks off wrongly, it could be dealt with the way a batsman retires hurt. If he is found to be not out, he could come back and resume his innings when the next wicket falls. No time loss.

Daemon · 07-12-2010, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shri

Or the 3rd umpire could refer every decision and if a player is given out and walks off wrongly, it could be dealt with the way a batsman retires hurt. If he is found to be not out, he could come back and resume his innings when the next wicket falls. No time loss.

Possible but I don't think that will ever be implemented. No captain would ever like to be informed 10 minutes after a player has been dismissed that he'll be coming back after the next wicket falls.

Mike5181 · 07-12-2010, 01:01 AM

We do need UDRS in the game as Umpires are human and do make mistakes. I think the hopeless use of the review system just as a "why not" sort of thing is a negative of it but really it only wastes 1-2 minutes and there are other far greater problems that contribute to wasted time (like India's over rate grrr

). It makes the game fair for both teams and the best team at the end of the day wins more often due to the implementation of systems like these.

Shri · 07-12-2010, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemon

Possible but I don't think that will ever be implemented. No captain would ever like to be informed 10 minutes after a player has been dismissed that he'll be coming back after the next wicket falls.

**** 'em. Its not about what those sissies like or dislike, its all about what a fair decision means.

silentstriker · 07-12-2010, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

URDS needs to make better sense.

*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

Indians are teh crybabies!!

They are. They cried in Sydney, and I supported them. If they were serious, they'd use the UDRS and try to improve it instead of whinging again. And they lost on marginal decisions in SL....

Marcuss · 07-12-2010, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shri

**** 'em. Its not about what those sissies like or dislike, its all about what a fair decision means.

Making a batsman restart his innings in a completely different match situation isn't all that fair.
What happens if it was the number 11 as well?

silentstriker · 07-12-2010, 02:00 AM

Quite happy to see the level of support on here!

I was pretty sure that once it was implemented, most people wouldn't be nostalgic for decisions like the one Sangakarra got when he was on 192.

It's all nice to say 'UMPIRING AUTHORITY' in theory, but in practice, when you have idiotic decisions that everyone except the umpire knows about within 15 seconds, it's the height of stupidity to just invoke some kind of dumbass tradition and let that go on.

pasag · 07-12-2010, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Quite happy to see the level of support on here!

I was pretty sure that once it was implemented, most people wouldn't be nostalgic for decisions like the one Sangakarra got when he was on 192.

It's all nice to say 'UMPIRING AUTHORITY' in theory, but in practice, when you have idiotic decisions that everyone except the umpire knows about within 15 seconds, it's the height of stupidity to just invoke some kind of dumbass tradition and let that go on.

Would have been pretty much the greatest innings of all time. Would have won the match, drawn the series. Don't think many knocks would have come close had he not been sawed off.

slugger · 07-12-2010, 03:36 AM

use it in all matches and be done with it, it is what it is.

View Poll Results: UDRS?
In favour	109	84.50%
Opposed	10	7.75%
BCCI is the best organisation out	10	7.75%
Voters: 129. You may not vote on this poll

06-12-2010, 03:43 PM	#32 (permalink)
morgieb Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Paradise City Posts: 8,943	Having unlimited referrals is a bad idea, as most wickets would just be referred. As for Hawkeye, possibly fair enough, but I still feel the benefit of the doubt should be with the batsman. __________________ 4-0 RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012 Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

07-12-2010, 12:53 AM	#37 (permalink)
Shri Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 8,937	Or the 3rd umpire could refer every decision and if a player is given out and walks off wrongly, it could be dealt with the way a batsman retires hurt. If he is found to be not out, he could come back and resume his innings when the next wicket falls. No time loss. __________________ RIP Craigos. Owe you a beer.:( http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2186298-post7381.html 4-0; 5-0; 4-0; 3-0; 4-0 Banter is a two way street. Deal with it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CricSim/PlanetCricket Discussion etc	ripper868	Testing Forum	80	17-08-2010 06:15 PM
Sri Lanka Thread	chaminda_00	2009 ICC World Twenty20	7	05-05-2009 05:29 AM
Trade Discussion Thread	Simon	World Club Cricket	137	15-04-2009 03:15 PM

06-12-2010, 01:55 PM	#31 (permalink)
zaremba Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: chez les Ashes Posts: 8,730	Strongly anti. A wrong "not out" is cancelled out by a wrong "out". And in my view it is important to teach youngsters that two wrongs make a right.

06-12-2010, 07:30 PM	#33 (permalink)
Noble One International Vice-Captain Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 4,112	Why must the benefit of doubt rest with the batsman? I would be in favour of any system (as long as it's fair) that will help in reducing the runs-scored in the modern era.

06-12-2010, 07:40 PM	#34 (permalink)
NasserFan207 International Regular Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Essex Posts: 3,576	For it. Anyone whose against is a conservative moron.

06-12-2010, 08:24 PM	#35 (permalink)
vic_orthdox Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 24,371	I'm for it. I think it's a lot better way of using the technology, as if you left it to the umpires to do their own referring, then they would doubt themselves and ask to refer pretty much everything all the time, slowing the game down further. It would also still leave shockers in there, as if they realised that someone hit it in the first place for an LBW (for example) then they wouldn't have given it out. It'd create a greater level of doubt in the umpires; with this system, they can just concentrate on making the right decision, and if it turns out to be wrong, so be it. The other method that's been suggested is that the 3rd Umpire intervene, which I'd find distasteful too. What happens if the Third Umpire only discovers something after the batsman has walked all the way off the field? Will we have batsmen hanging around longer waiting for intervention that may never come instead of walking off? At what point is it too late for the 3rd Umpire to intervene? Think that the current method, with the players using the chance to refer, is the best way of it being used.

07-12-2010, 01:01 AM	#39 (permalink)
Mike5181 International Regular Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: City of Sails Posts: 3,405	We do need UDRS in the game as Umpires are human and do make mistakes. I think the hopeless use of the review system just as a "why not" sort of thing is a negative of it but really it only wastes 1-2 minutes and there are other far greater problems that contribute to wasted time (like India's over rate grrr ). It makes the game fair for both teams and the best team at the end of the day wins more often due to the implementation of systems like these.

07-12-2010, 02:00 AM	#43 (permalink)
silentstriker The Wheel is Forever Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 36,546	Quite happy to see the level of support on here! I was pretty sure that once it was implemented, most people wouldn't be nostalgic for decisions like the one Sangakarra got when he was on 192. It's all nice to say 'UMPIRING AUTHORITY' in theory, but in practice, when you have idiotic decisions that everyone except the umpire knows about within 15 seconds, it's the height of stupidity to just invoke some kind of dumbass tradition and let that go on.

07-12-2010, 03:36 AM	#45 (permalink)
slugger State Vice-Captain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Auckland Posts: 1,052	use it in all matches and be done with it, it is what it is.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)