Abolish the DRS

[Daemon]

Which would mean they send every decision upstairs and waste a lot more time.

Maybe let the umpire have 2 referrals each as well lol, I'm sure Dharmasena would welcome it with open arms

 

[SteveNZ]

Isn't that what happens now? I believe if more than half of the ball is hitting, it overturns the umpire's decision of not out to out?

It does, but ones where it is clipping is my issue (the umpire's calls as they stand). They then become subjective to what the umpire decided in real time, which I believe and so do others that it's a farce when that's deemed to be a better scenario than completely trusting technology.

I don't really care about statisical margin of error. It's still smaller than eye sight margin of error.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I wanted them to go the rugby union route where the umpire's free to ask to tv umpire to take a closer look at the replay before coming to a decision.

No, that would be terrible. How would the umpire know which ones to refer? Either he'd have to refer pretty much every decision, or he'd only refer some and there'd still be terrible decisions that don't get overturned because the umpire doesn't realise they're wrong (which is obvious because if the umpire thought they were wrong he wouldn't have made the decision in the first place)

 

[Burgey]

I wanted them to go the rugby union route where the umpire's free to ask to tv umpire to take a closer look at the replay before coming to a decision.

They did that in the Aus v ROW series here in 2005 and tbh there were so many referrals it was ridiculous.

 

[Isura]

Abolishing the DRS is stupid and only someone with the brains of Shastri would even contemplate it

Soccer does absolutely fine without a review system. There is statistical studies that show that penalty kick decisions have almost no impact on match outcomes in the long term (i.e. being awarded a penalty has little correlation with win%). Penalties are significantly more high leverage than almost any decision in a test match.

 

[Isura]

To be clear, I'm not against technology. Only against the current implementation. The sooner we move to robot umpires the better for the sport.

 

[SteveNZ]

Soccer does absolutely fine without a review system. There is statistical studies that show that penalty kick decisions have almost no impact on match outcomes in the long term (i.e. being awarded a penalty has little correlation with win%). Penalties are significantly more high leverage than almost any decision in a test match.

This is the sort of thing academia comes up with. Hey look, our numbers tell us penalties have little statisical bearing on football. A sport where matches are decided by a single goal, and apparently penalties aren't influential. Please.

DRS is 100% necessary, because we have the technology and it is more capable than human decision making. It would be absolutely absurd for TV to have a better decision making process and analysis than the on-field play, given it has been proven to increase accuracy. If soccer don't want it, that's irrelevant to cricket.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

And of course, things in soccer are easily transferrable to cricket. Oh, wait...

 

[TheJediBrah]

Soccer does absolutely fine without a review system. There is statistical studies that show that penalty kick decisions have almost no impact on match outcomes in the long term (i.e. being awarded a penalty has little correlation with win%). Penalties are significantly more high leverage than almost any decision in a test match.

Even if that was accurate, it's hardly a good enough reason. Just because sides overall win% won't change much is hardly reason enough to not try and get more correct results.

brb lost the ashes because of bad decisions but won a test v Pakistan in the middle of the desert that no one cares about to make up for it (hypothetical of course)

 

[GIMH]

Soccer does absolutely fine without a review system. There is statistical studies that show that penalty kick decisions have almost no impact on match outcomes in the long term (i.e. being awarded a penalty has little correlation with win%). Penalties are significantly more high leverage than almost any decision in a test match.

Not a weekend goes by without mass calls for further usage of technology in football, and the top leagues now have goalline technology.

Umpiring decisions aren't really equivalent to a lot of those made by a referee either - aside from awarding a goal - for which the rules permit tech use - and other line calls. Even with multiple replays people disagree over fouls, handballs etc. Much less subjectivity in whether someone has hit it, whether it was bat first, etc.

 

[CharlesLara]

Soccer does absolutely fine without a review system. There is statistical studies that show that penalty kick decisions have almost no impact on match outcomes in the long term (i.e. being awarded a penalty has little correlation with win%). Penalties are significantly more high leverage than almost any decision in a test match.

Um, did you watch the Premier League this weekend? Crucial calls not made throughout SEVERAL games that would of had a bearing on the result. LOL at "there are statistical studies". Try telling a side that got rubbish penalty shout in the 89th minute that it has little correlation, in fact I would suggest, football like cricket, as the margins for error have more riding on them and the game becomes faster / more dynamic technology HAS to be used. People are already calling for it now in football.

 

[CharlesLara]

What SteveNZ suggested is 100% on the money. I never understood how you could arrive at the most accurate conclusion, but if it was given out it's out, and not out not out? To me, and Steve said, if its 50 or more OUT, any less not out. It still retains the idea that batsman gets teh benefit of the doubt and makes these things for night and day. Yes I get DRS was initially to remove howlers, but its graduated to a more accurate reading for confirmation of decision and we need to start seeing it as that. What hasn't helped DRS is the at times, complete and utter shambles of when to review used by captains (mainly when taking a gamble on a big wicket).

 

[TheJediBrah]

What SteveNZ suggested is 100% on the money. I never understood how you could arrive at the most accurate conclusion, but if it was given out it's out, and not out not out? To me, and Steve said, if its 50 or more OUT, any less not out. It still retains the idea that batsman gets teh benefit of the doubt and makes these things for night and day. Yes I get DRS was initially to remove howlers, but its graduated to a more accurate reading for confirmation of decision and we need to start seeing it as that. What hasn't helped DRS is the at times, complete and utter shambles of when to review used by captains (mainly when taking a gamble on a big wicket).

Then you could get the situation where an lbw is given out, gets reviewed, 49% of ball is hitting the stumps so the decision is changed to not out.

That would be insanely stupid. Lbw appeal, given out, replay shows ball hitting stumps . . . decision changed to not out. Just think about it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

They did that in the Aus v ROW series here in 2005 and tbh there were so many referrals it was ridiculous.

Yup I mean just look at how many run-outs are referred upstairs even when it's obvious. Not that I blame the umpires for doing so as if they get it wrong they'll be hounded all Test match for not referring. Same would happen, on supercharge, if they had control over all reviews.

 

[Furball]

I can't think if a more terrible feature for a fan of the sport. It slows down the game and adds no additional entertainment value.

I'm sick of examples like yesterday when that knob Ansari stood stood his ground and reviewed a plumb LBW. Take the decision and get on your way. I'm fine with umpire reviews for catches and run-outs but this system has to go. Just **** off and get on with the game.

You're right, it's unacceptable to take 2 minutes to review a decision in a game that takes 5 days.

 

[Shri]

You're right, it's unacceptable to take 2 minutes to review a decision in a game that takes 5 days.

Wb, ****. Don't insult people and **** off when the series is going on. We could use someone like you for three more tests.

 

[mackembhoy]

Not really tbh. I can't think of how to improve it at all.

The only issue I did have was the margin for Umpire's call being too large, but they fixed that recently I believe

Aye but the stupid BCCI haven't taken that for this series. It's still 50 percent of the ball having to hit for umpires call. Rather than 25 percent, otherwise cook would have been out twice before they finally got him.

Kohli would have been gone for under 100 in the first innings iirc. Mind so would have Root in the 90s in rajkot.

 

[Groundking]

Then you could get the situation where an lbw is given out, gets reviewed, 49% of ball is hitting the stumps so the decision is changed to not out.

That would be insanely stupid. Lbw appeal, given out, replay shows ball hitting stumps . . . decision changed to not out. Just think about it.

But we've already solved that by reducing it to 25%....

 

[Burgey]

There was a decision Tucker made yesterday for a caught behind from Root which illustrated the way DRS is going. He missed it by a mile, and either Adders or FJ pointed out that with India having no reviews left and England two at that time, it was like he put his finger up knowing if Root hadn't hit it then he'd review, whereas if he doesn't give it out then India has no reviews left and can't change it.

And it was a decision which tbh I can't believe an international umpire got so wrong. He missed the ball by about three inches.

 

[Blocky]

There was a decision Tucker made yesterday for a caught behind from Root which illustrated the way DRS is going. He missed it by a mile, and either Adders or FJ pointed out that with India having no reviews left and England two at that time, it was like he put his finger up knowing if Root hadn't hit it then he'd review, whereas if he doesn't give it out then India has no reviews left and can't change it.

And it was a decision which tbh I can't believe an international umpire got so wrong. He missed the ball by about three inches.

Tucker makes some pretty bad calls at the best of times though.

If you look at the recent Australia vs Pakistan test, the umpires were on absolute song, the teams were using the reviews mostly as gambles but I don't recall a single terrible decision either of them made. I think more so the ICC just needs to get better at cleaning weeds out and ensuring that umpires are ranked on performance, not perception of performance. i.e "This team constantly gives the umpire a poor rating, he must be bad" rather than "This umpire constantly calls LBW decisions right, he's good"