Abolish the DRS

[Burgey]

Yeah what I'm saying is I think the way umpires make their calls is slowly but surely being influenced by the DRS. It's understandable too. If they see a 50:50 call, you sort of can't blame them for giving it one way or the other depending on who has reviews left than letting the players sort it out.

I know it's cop out, but the Root decision was a classic example of it imo. To some extent the Dar one vs Smith the other week was too. I think he had a guess and let the players sort it out with technology.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

Then change it to 24% FFS, it doesn't change the point at all. I was responding directly to a guy who mentioned 50%

 

[Adders]

Yeah what I'm saying is I think the way umpires make their calls is slowly but surely being influenced by the DRS. It's understandable too. If they see a 50:50 call, you sort of can't blame them for giving it one way or the other depending on who has reviews left than letting the players sort it out.

I know it's cop out, but the Root decision was a classic example of it imo. To some extent the Dar one vs Smith the other week was too. I think he had a guess and let the players sort it out with technology.

If the umpires continue to do this and I'm absolutely convinced that Tucker did with the Root referral, then they should no longer have the safety net of the soft dismissal and umpires call.

The Root one was pretty clear cut, but what if the situation was very tight and the 3rd umpire couldn't find sufficient evidence to overturn the on field decision? The umpires can't be influenced by who has reviews left to use........that's totally ****ed when their on field decision still carries so much weight in the DRS process.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If the umpires continue to do this and I'm absolutely convinced that Tucker did with the Root referral, then they should no longer have the safety net of the soft dismissal and umpires call.

The Root one was pretty clear cut, but what if the situation was very tight and the 3rd umpire couldn't find sufficient evidence to overturn the on field decision? The umpires can't be influenced by who has reviews left to use........that's totally ****ed when their on field decision still carries so much weight in the DRS process.

Yeah I can't believe that it actually influences their decisions at all. That would be absurd. It may seem that way sometimes, but I highly doubt it.

 

[Adders]

Yeah I can't believe that it actually influences their decisions at all. That would be absurd. It may seem that way sometimes, but I highly doubt it.

Seriously did you see the Root referral?

It was a shocker but I genuinely think Tucker copped out and took the safe option (as in the right decision would prevail in the end) If you didn't see it there was a typically massive appeal from the Indians for a caught behind, England had 2 reviews, India none, Tucker gave it out knowing that if he messed up and Root hadn't hit he could review it. If he gave it not out and Root had of nicked it the Indians couldn't review and a crook decision would stand.

The only way to ensure the right decision was reached was for him to give it out, even if he wasn't sure and probably should have given the batsmen the benefit of doubt.

 

[SteveNZ]

If the umpires continue to do this and I'm absolutely convinced that Tucker did with the Root referral, then they should no longer have the safety net of the soft dismissal and umpires call.

The Root one was pretty clear cut, but what if the situation was very tight and the 3rd umpire couldn't find sufficient evidence to overturn the on field decision? The umpires can't be influenced by who has reviews left to use........that's totally ****ed when their on field decision still carries so much weight in the DRS process.

This is exactly why on field call should be abolished as a consideration for marginal lbws. To think they're decided by an umpire who makes a split second decision, and may or may not be based on how many referrals are left etc. It's human nature to do so, I don't particularly blame Tucker (nor did I see it). That situation should never arise.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

So what? Why is 49% 'insanely stupid'? There's got to be a cut-off point somewhere. I fail to see how that is insanely stupid but using human decision as a consideration involving technology you brought in to ensure more correct decision making THAN THE ACTUAL HUMAN IN QUESTION (I like to yell in debates sometimes for effect) is somehow intelligent.

If you review it, it was out, 49% of ball hitting, not out. It's brought in as a rule, everyone knows it. Yeah they'll feel aggrieved it wasn't one more percent. Unfortunately Alan Turing isn't with us any more and probably wasn't a cricket guy anyway, so we're not getting a system where 100% of people are happy 100% of the time.

 

[Starfighter]

I think some people are misunderstanding the percentage of the ball that needs to be hitting the stumps. When they decided to revise it they originally proposed to change from 50% of the ball within the centreline of the stumps to 25%.
Instead the implemented change was from 50% of the ball hitting within the centreline of the stumps to 50% hitting within the outside edges.
The percentage of the ball that must be hitting has not changed but the target to get an overturn in the bowler's favour now spans the entire width of the wicket, rather than between the centres of off and leg.

Edit: Post directed at some general comments further above, not SteveNZ

 

[SteveNZ]

Okay, but my point was the number is irrelevant when you're saying 50 is okay, but what about 49 - that's unfair.

It doesn't change the fact the on-field call should be ignored completely when a decision goes upstairs. A sport like rugby league has it because there are certain situations where a video ref can't get a clear view. Fair enough. Not here though.

 

[bcubed]

Am new to this Forum - I needed somewhere to talk DRS

I am having issues with DRS

I think umpires have lost their way and no longer know what's out and what isn't
Darma clearly needs a rest and Tucker can't spot a massive inside edge

Case in point is Cooks dismissal on 4th day. Pre DRS that would not have been given out. To the naked eye (mine anyway) that looked like he had a good stride forward, it looked like the ball was hitting outside the line and going down leg. The benefit of the doubt would certainly have gone with the batsman pre-DRS. And that must be right surely, after all it's guesswork so you need to be sure before ending a batsman's innings

But now the benefit of the doubt is going and batsmen are suffering. What worries me most is how this will change local league umpires approach as well. Lbw is always an unsatisfactory dismissal and we don't games where half the dismissals are lbws.

I like DRS as an aid to umpires but just to deal with the obvious clangers. I think the latest rule changes have shifted the balance too far.

I wouldn't get rid of it but let's not forget the benefit of the doubt - I don't want to see loads of lbws every game (especially not when I am batting!)

 

[Furball]

I think some people are misunderstanding the percentage of the ball that needs to be hitting the stumps. When they decided to revise it they originally proposed to change from 50% of the ball within the centreline of the stumps to 25%.
Instead the implemented change was from 50% of the ball hitting within the centreline of the stumps to 50% hitting within the outside edges.
The percentage of the ball that must be hitting has not changed but the target to get an overturn in the bowler's favour now spans the entire width of the wicket, rather than between the centres of off and leg.

Edit: Post directed at some general comments further above, not SteveNZ

#allstumpsmatter

 

[Furball]

Am new to this Forum - I needed somewhere to talk DRS

I am having issues with DRS

I think umpires have lost their way and no longer know what's out and what isn't
Darma clearly needs a rest and Tucker can't spot a massive inside edge

Case in point is Cooks dismissal on 4th day. Pre DRS that would not have been given out. To the naked eye (mine anyway) that looked like he had a good stride forward, it looked like the ball was hitting outside the line and going down leg. The benefit of the doubt would certainly have gone with the batsman pre-DRS. And that must be right surely, after all it's guesswork so you need to be sure before ending a batsman's innings

But now the benefit of the doubt is going and batsmen are suffering. What worries me most is how this will change local league umpires approach as well. Lbw is always an unsatisfactory dismissal and we don't games where half the dismissals are lbws.

I like DRS as an aid to umpires but just to deal with the obvious clangers. I think the latest rule changes have shifted the balance too far.

I wouldn't get rid of it but let's not forget the benefit of the doubt - I don't want to see loads of lbws every game (especially not when I am batting!)

Use your bat then.

Batsmen shouldn't get free lives because they go for a wander down the wicket.

 

[Starfighter]

Am new to this Forum - I needed somewhere to talk DRS

I am having issues with DRS

I think umpires have lost their way and no longer know what's out and what isn't
Darma clearly needs a rest and Tucker can't spot a massive inside edge

Case in point is Cooks dismissal on 4th day. Pre DRS that would not have been given out. To the naked eye (mine anyway) that looked like he had a good stride forward, it looked like the ball was hitting outside the line and going down leg. The benefit of the doubt would certainly have gone with the batsman pre-DRS. And that must be right surely, after all it's guesswork so you need to be sure before ending a batsman's innings

But now the benefit of the doubt is going and batsmen are suffering. What worries me most is how this will change local league umpires approach as well. Lbw is always an unsatisfactory dismissal and we don't games where half the dismissals are lbws.

I like DRS as an aid to umpires but just to deal with the obvious clangers. I think the latest rule changes have shifted the balance too far.

I wouldn't get rid of it but let's not forget the benefit of the doubt - I don't want to see loads of lbws every game (especially not when I am batting!)

How has the balance shifted too far? The amount of ball needed to hit the stumps for an overturn is still far greater than needed to dislodge the bails.
Umpires haven't lost their way, DRS and constant replays simply show how poor they are. Dharmasena aside, the current lot are an improvement over Bucknor, De Silva and so on.
So you're saying that a trite maxim should have taken precedence over reality? The fact is the ball was hitting the stumps, so it's reasonable to give it out.

Local umpires never give LBWs anyway so that's a moot point.

 

[bcubed]

Use your bat then.

Batsmen shouldn't get free lives because they go for a wander down the wicket.

Perhaps you are a bowler. Perhaps you don't play cricket. Perhaps you are incapable of a coherent response.
But if that's the standard of considered response round here, I will waste no more time

 

[bcubed]

How has the balance shifted too far? The amount of ball needed to hit the stumps for an overturn is still far greater than needed to dislodge the bails.
Umpires haven't lost their way, DRS and constant replays simply show how poor they are. Dharmasena aside, the current lot are an improvement over Bucknor, De Silva and so on.
So you're saying that a trite maxim should have taken precedence over reality? The fact is the ball was hitting the stumps, so it's reasonable to give it out.

Local umpires never give LBWs anyway so that's a moot point.

First of all its not reality its a predicted path

And since when was the benefit of the doubt a trite maxim?!

And local umpires do give them because they see these decisions being given on TV and think they should also give them

 

[vic_orthdox]

Years of blokes thrusting their pad down the wicket hoping to get benefit of the doubt, and now they have to use their bat. Fine by me.

 

[indiaholic]

Perhaps you are a bowler. Perhaps you don't play cricket. Perhaps you are incapable of a coherent response.
But if that's the standard of considered response round here, I will waste no more time

If you have a problem with that line of argument then explain what that is rather than saying a response is incoherent because you don't agree with it.

 

[bcubed]

If you have a problem with that line of argument then explain what that is rather than saying a response is incoherent because you don't agree with it.

No argument was presented

"use your bat then" is facile

 

[Bijed]

Am new to this Forum - I needed somewhere to talk DRS

I am having issues with DRS

I think umpires have lost their way and no longer know what's out and what isn't
Darma clearly needs a rest and Tucker can't spot a massive inside edge

Case in point is Cooks dismissal on 4th day. Pre DRS that would not have been given out. To the naked eye (mine anyway) that looked like he had a good stride forward, it looked like the ball was hitting outside the line and going down leg. The benefit of the doubt would certainly have gone with the batsman pre-DRS. And that must be right surely, after all it's guesswork so you need to be sure before ending a batsman's innings

But now the benefit of the doubt is going and batsmen are suffering. What worries me most is how this will change local league umpires approach as well. Lbw is always an unsatisfactory dismissal and we don't games where half the dismissals are lbws.

I like DRS as an aid to umpires but just to deal with the obvious clangers. I think the latest rule changes have shifted the balance too far.

I wouldn't get rid of it but let's not forget the benefit of the doubt - I don't want to see loads of lbws every game (especially not when I am batting!)

Now we've got the technology though, it's far more reasonable for an umpire to go with a decision they're only, say, 60% sure of. It is educated guesswork to an extent, even in the most extreme cases it's never a total stab in the dark,

I know the original introduction of DRS came with the remit to 'Eliminate Howlers', but as the technology improves I don't see why it shouldn't become more an integrated part of the game.


Regarding the Root incident, umpires going with a decision that 'favours' a side with no reviews left is an interesting one, though. I suppose it's arguably fair if a team has lost their reviews on tight calls, but that's a separate issue. Reminds me of that time Chris Rogers was given out LBW to a full toss from Swann which was high and going down leg, but didn't review because Watson had just wasted one.

I suppose it also depends a bit on the manner of non-dismissal. In the Root case, Root would have known he'd missed it, but if an umpire gives someone out to an obvious-non LBW (obviously outside the line/pitched outside leg for example) using the same logic that Tucker may have, the batsmen may think "Oh, crap, I thought I was outside the line, but maybe not. I don't reckon I should review because there's like 3 other more valuable batsmen who might need to". But then I guess the non-striker should be able to help out in this case.

 

[Furball]

No argument was presented

"use your bat then" is facile

It isn't though is it.

If your 'defence' consists of thrusting your pad down the pitch then I don't have much sympathy for you if umpires are now giving more lbws. You could avoid being given lbw by using your bat to defend.