***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[kyear2]

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.

 

[fredfertang]

Let each side have two "free" referrals and after that devise a forfeit for each failed one

 

[Expressway76]

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.

 

[hendrix]

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.

 

[marc71178]

Not so sure this will work, cue reviews in 80th over for spurious reasons

 

[flibbertyjibber]

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not so sure this will work, cue reviews in 80th over for spurious reasons

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.

 

[marc71178]

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.

 

[honestbharani]

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..

 

[Howe_zat]

Way to fiddle without actually doing anything.

Need rid of the burden-of-proof thing.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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)?

 

[Furball]

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.

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

 

[JontyPanesar]

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.

 

[Cevno]

ICC news : Hawk-Eye admits technical error in Masood dismissal | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

Interesting they had to admit after Pakistan asked for a special meeting.

 

[morgieb]

Bumping this because of discussion in the tour thread.

 

[Cabinet96]

Why did UDRS become DRS?

 

[GIMH]

Who knows but I blame America. They've never been able to handle the letter u over there.

 

[Furball]

Bumping this because of discussion in the tour thread.

Cliffs for those of us who have just woken up and cbf wading through said thread?

 

[morgieb]

Cliffs for those of us who have just woken up and cbf wading through said thread?

Lyon was given not out on the field. There was a HotSpot on the bat where the ball was presumed to have deviated, but there were nothing on Snicko and therefore it was given not out. Worse Lyon had started to walk after he saw the HotSpot, as if he was admitting that he hit it.