***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Marcuss]

But that doesn't happen in the current system if teams use it properly!

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, to clarify I mean the UDRS system.

[Shri]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

But that doesn't happen in the current system if teams use it properly!

"Use it properly"?? The current system is a farce afaic because of the handling of marginal call part. We already had this discussion Markarse. I feel strongly about that part and won't change my opinion. Arguing the same points over an over again is a waste of time. Won't do it here.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Midwinter

Any thoughts on these possibilities, or any others you can think of ?

To take your points in turn:


Its a game, take the good with the bad and respect the umpire.

Of course you should but that doesn't tell us actually anything about whether we should have review system or not.

Plus players are more likely to show disrespect to umpires when they are making wrong decisions that screw a team over.

And most importantly of all, umpires are of secondary importance to the game itself. They are there simply to make decisions as accurately as possible. The UDRS helps them do that.


The current sytem is simply a ploy for TV to add drama for people who aren't interested in cricket

Well, the reason it's been adopted and retained is to improve decision-making, which it does. If it also adds to the drama for TV viewers (and spectators at the ground who see the whole thing on big screens), I don't see why that's a bad thing.


If it is going to be used, it should be used every single time. To limit its use is a travesty, simply ridiculous.

Not necessarily. It stops the reviews taking over and becoming tiresome. The same system is of course used in tennis so it's not as though it's been plucked out of thin air.


It gives perference to some batsmen over others i fteh referrals have been used by earlier batsmen. It will influence players averages depending on their position in the batting order.

I don't think this is a major thing.

Batsmen's averages have always been determined by where they bat in the order. Openers have to face the new ball and fresh fast bowlers, but also usually get time to build an innings. Lower/middle order batsmen are maybe more likely to be asked to sacrifice their wickets hitting out for quick runs. And tailenders have always got rough decisions from umpires.


Will the batsman getting reprieved lead to higher scoring games and possibly more draws ?

No. I don't know what the stats are, but I'd think the wrong "not outs" and "outs" reversed under UDRS are pretty similar in number.

Besides, if what we need to avoid draws is a whole load of uncorrected umpiring errors, I'd take the draw every time. Look at other areas of the game to try to ensure results. You could start with the pitches.

Will umpires give more not out decisions because they won't want to be shown up as being wrong ?

They'll be shown up as being wrong whether they give batsmen "out" wrongly, or give batsmen "not out" wrongly. In fact those errors are already shown up. It's just that those errors can now be corrected.

What's more likely to happen is that umpires will tend to get decisions right more often, a process which began when they started using Hawkeye but before the UDRS came in. Hawkeye has shown us that a lot of the assumptions which we and umpires used to make about what's out and what's not out were simply wrong.


What will happen when an umpire is shown to be regularly wrong on lineball decisions ?

In the short term, his regular errors will be corrected. And in the long term he'll have to improve, or get the sack. These are good things, surely?

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Shri

"Use it properly"?? The current system is a farce afaic because of the handling of marginal call part. We already had this discussion Markarse. I feel strongly about that part and won't change my opinion. Arguing the same points over an over again is a waste of time. Won't do it here.

Marginal calls are marginal because Hawkeye isn't 100% accurate. It would be entirely wrong to absolutely trust Hawkeye 100% on calls where the ball is predicted to be clipping the stumps and I'm happy that they go back to the on field umpire's decision where there's no evidence to 100% support the review.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Bears repeating.

[silentstriker]

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.

So every time a team appeals, you want to stand around for a minute while hawkeye, hotspot and everything else is replayed?

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

So every time a team appeals, you want to stand around for a minute while hawkeye, hotspot and everything else is replayed?

It doesn't have to take that long. Take the human element out of the picture and automate everything.

[GingerFurball]

In a situation like the Marcuss North wicket today, I don't see anything wrong with the umpire radioing the 3rd umpire and asking him to confirm whether the ball hit bat or pad first.

I really hope Tendulkar is the victim of diabolical umpiring in South Africa. Would be absolutely hilarious to see the fallout.

[Shri]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Marginal calls are marginal because Hawkeye isn't 100% accurate. It would be entirely wrong to absolutely trust Hawkeye 100% on calls where the ball is predicted to be clipping the stumps and I'm happy that they go back to the on field umpire's decision where there's no evidence to 100% support the review.

Humans aren't 100% accurate, technology isn't 100% accurate. So, who do we trust?

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Shri

Humans aren't 100% accurate, technology isn't 100% accurate. So, who do we trust?

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

*headbashingaginstwall.jpg

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Shri

Humans aren't 100% accurate, technology isn't 100% accurate. So, who do we trust?

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Originally Posted by Dissector

Opponents of UDRS seem to basically be arguing that a 95% system is better than a 99% system because the latter isn't 100%.

Bears repeating again.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

It doesn't have to take that long. Take the human element out of the picture and automate everything.

It takes that long for the crew to put all of that together. Plus more time for the third umpire to look through all of the various pieces of evidence.

If it were instantaneous, I'd agree with you.

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

In a situation like the Marcuss North wicket today, I don't see anything wrong with the umpire radioing the 3rd umpire and asking him to confirm whether the ball hit bat or pad first.

I really hope Tendulkar is the victim of diabolical umpiring in South Africa. Would be absolutely hilarious to see the fallout.

AWTA. As much I want to see India win in South Africa, they need another series like the one down under. Tendulkar to be given out shockingly on 99, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.

Let's see if that doesn't change his mind.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

It takes that long for the crew to put all of that together. Plus more time for the third umpire to look through all of the various pieces of evidence.

If it were instantaneous, I'd agree with you.

Well, that's my point precisely. Get rid of the third umpire. Replace him with an algorithm. I can't see why hawkeye would take time. It's plotting a trajectory off the co-ordinates gathered from multiple cameras, thats all. It should be instantaneous. The bottle neck in the process is the human.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Shri

Humans aren't 100% accurate, technology isn't 100% accurate. So, who do we trust?

Jesus ****ing Christ.

When a team uses a review, they are asking the third umpire to overturn the decision. The decision can only be overturned if, using the available technology, the third umpire is 100% certain that the original decision was wrong.

Hawkeye has a small margain of error. If you're looking for an lbw decision to be overturned, if Hawkeye shows the ball just clipping the stumps, that's not 100% conclusive proof that a not out decision was incorrect. You cannot look at that and say "the ball would probably have hit the stumps, overturn it." If Hawkeye can be developed so that the predictive element is 100% accurate, then yes, there would be no marginal decisions.