Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[Furball]

The cost to spectators isn't really about time, obviously delays can be a frustration (and are unnecessary in this case, unlike say sightscreen issues), but I'm more concerned about the feeling of watching the game. I find watching a bad decision with DRS infinitely more frustrating than an on the spot mistake by the umpire, I miss the significance of the moment of the umpire's verdict, which is one of the most exciting parts of cricket, and so on. Yeah maybe those things would be worth it if the results were conclusive, as with run outs for example, but to bother going through all that for the decisions today just hurts the experience of watching the game significantly for no real benefit.

Imagine watching football if every goal was sent to video review with a 50% chance of being overturned on some random technicality. Ignoring the time and the accuracy of the decisions and everything, obviously that would reduce the excitement of a goal being scored, you'd just be waiting on the replay. That's essentially how DRS feels to me as a spectator. Bad umpiring decisions never bothered me that much, though.

Football is a terrible comparison given the rarity and importance of a goal.

And it's hardly a random chance of being overturned. This is the first DRS **** up this series. Yes it shouldn't happen, yes it's unacceptable but it's not as if 3rd umpires are flipping a coin ffs.

 

[Adders]

As I expected.

It's not the DRS that's the problem, it's the mungos applying it.

As I've said about half a dozen times since the Khawaja **** up...........those mungos are part of the DRS mate.

It is a package that involves technology and the people to interpret it, you cannot isolate one from the other. If those mungos fail then DRS fails.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Football is a terrible comparison given the rarity and importance of a goal.

And it's hardly a random chance of being overturned. This is the first DRS **** up this series. Yes it shouldn't happen, yes it's unacceptable but it's not as if 3rd umpires are flipping a coin ffs.

I'm not trying to posit football as an accurate comparison, of course it's different in a million ways. I'm just saying that there's more to impacting the spectator experience than just how much time it takes, the drama of the moment is important and DRS impacts it a lot. Though actually I think the rarity and importance of a wicket in test cricket isn't that different from football, I mean you can easily go hours and hours without seeing one. The umpire's decision is a hugely important moment of tension and DRS takes that away.

I really don't see how this is the first DRS **** up of the series. Yeah okay it might be the first absolutely 100% incorrect beyond any doubt decision on a review, but there have been a huge number of inconclusive, debatable, unable to be referred etc decisions which all erode the purpose of DRS in the first place which is to reduce the controversy surrounding umpiring decisions and remove utterly terrible decisions entirely. There were at least two terrible decisions today that DRS didn't change and none that it did, for example.

 

[Adders]

This is the first DRS **** up this series. Yes it shouldn't happen, yes it's unacceptable but it's not as if 3rd umpires are flipping a coin ffs.

I know what you are saying there is technically correct, but the Bell catch by Smith and the Agar run out surely amount to the same thing.......a failure of the system we have in place now. I know neither of those were DRS reviews, but for all intents and purposes still amount to the same thing......just the umpires called for the reviews and not the players. The whole process still failed though.

 

[morgieb]

I know what you are saying there is technically correct, but the Bell catch by Smith and the Agar run out surely amount to the same thing.......a failure of the system we have in place now. I know neither of those were DRS reviews, but for all intents and purposes still amount to the same thing......just the umpires called for the reviews and not the players. The whole process still failed though.

Stumping?

 

[outbreak]

wasn't there some issue with the umpires union/association that stopped the icc implementing improvements to the way DRS is done a year or so ago? remember hearing one of the commentators go on about it possibly in an indian match. I agree though that I kind of miss hanging on the umpires decision for a wicket, now it really lacks that excitment. Even on a bad call back then you didn't get too angry because some go your way some don't and it's a real time decision. I know casual cricket fans I work with who've stopped following this series based on all the odd calls and 50/50 decisions going on. The australian media going on and on and on about each 50/50 call is partly to blame for this though. Get a bad decision, complain for a bit then get over it and on with the game. If you can improve the system look at it after the game is over. Cricket's always been a game where some days calls go your way and others they don't.

 

[Cabinet96]

It's bizarre but I'm struggling to think of a decision this series that has been clearly and obviously wrong that has been correctly overturned, such as Cook being given caught behind off his shoulder or the Michael Clarke decision at Adelaide.

It seems like everything that's going upstairs is extremely borderline.

Bell and Haddin at Trent Bridge the only ones I can think of.

 

[Spark]

Rogers at TB 2nd dig, given out caught behind off the pad after missing it by about three inches

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah that too. Amazing how much easier it is to forget the non controversial ones though, isn't it?

 

[Spark]

Ideally that's how the system should work. Weird onfield decision, quickly sent upstairs, everyone sees straight away that it's not out, overturned and everyone moves on with the game.

 

[GotSpin]

The cost to spectators isn't really about time, obviously delays can be a frustration (and are unnecessary in this case, unlike say sightscreen issues), but I'm more concerned about the feeling of watching the game. I find watching a bad decision with DRS infinitely more frustrating than an on the spot mistake by the umpire, I miss the significance of the moment of the umpire's verdict, which is one of the most exciting parts of cricket, and so on. Yeah maybe those things would be worth it if the results were conclusive, as with run outs for example, but to bother going through all that for the decisions today just hurts the experience of watching the game significantly for no real benefit.

Imagine watching football if every goal was sent to video review with a 50% chance of being overturned on some random technicality. Ignoring the time and the accuracy of the decisions and everything, obviously that would reduce the excitement of a goal being scored, you'd just be waiting on the replay. That's essentially how DRS feels to me as a spectator. Bad umpiring decisions never bothered me that much, though.

Yeah I agree with this. Ruins the moment

 

[Son Of Coco]

They are trialling a change, so it's not like they're not doing anything to assuage the problems.

That's why I fail to understand the level of ire, they've admitted that things aren't perfect, and they're trying to change that.

I think the issue is the 'changes' they're trialling seem to have introduced a degree of complexity to the decision-making that some umpires don't have the brains to interpret correctly. Generally speaking, when the UDRS came in we saw it do what it was supposed to do - i.e overrule really poor onfield decisions like the one we saw intially given last night. But now, due to the apparent need for tinkering, we're seeing these decisions compounded by the ineptitude of the person in the 3rd umpire's seat, whose decision-making process has been clouded by whatever ****ed up idea they have of what constitutes enough evidence to overrule.

You didn't need hotspot or any of the other technology available last night to overrule the decision, all you needed was slow-motion video and an angle from behind the batsman. There was a huge gap between bat and ball. Yet, somehow, there wasn't enough evidence to give a bloke not out.

Unfortunately, as is the way with most things, it seems eventually the inmates take over the asylum and stupidity starts to reign free.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah well better ruining a moment than the entire game imo

 

[Son Of Coco]

DRS technology is not reliable enough, the users of the DRS are not educated enough on how to use the technology to consistently make the correct decisions. The implementation of DRS as it is today is flawed and the decisions based on it are inconsistent and unreliable. It has been roved once again in this series.

It's not about education on using the system, it's about not being a ****ing idiot. If Dharmasena didn't know the ball not hitting the bat means you're not out, no amount of education will ever help him.

 

[Riggins]

how quickly does the hawkeye projection become available?

 

[andyc]

Has something changed in the way DRS has been implemented for this series? The last few times I've seen it in action it hasn't been anywhere near as controversial.

 

[Spark]

Some interesting things popped up on the Guardian blog for yesterday surrounding the DRS process:

3.3 The process of consultation

a) On receipt of an eligible and timely request for a Player Review, the
on-field umpire will make the sign of a television with his hands in
the normal way.

b) He will initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming
the decision that has been made and that the player has requested a
Player Review.

c) The third umpire must then work alone, independent of outside help or comment, other than when consulting the on-field umpire.

d) A two-way consultation process should begin to investigate whether there is anything that the third umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should change his decision.

e) This consultation should be on points of fact, where possible phrased in a manner leading to yes or no answers. Questions requiring a single answer based on a series of judgements, such as “do you think that was LBW?” are to be avoided.

f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which
may help in the decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire’s questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman
may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out.

g) and h) and i) are a lot of stuff about the LBWs which you can read here if you are interested.

j) In circumstances where the television technology (all or parts
thereof) is not available to the third umpire or fails for whatever
reason, the third umpire shall advise the on-field umpire of this
fact but still provide any relevant factual information that may
be ascertained from the available television replays and other
technology. See also paragraph 3.5 (d).

k) The on-field umpire must then make his decision based on those
factual questions that were answered by the third umpire, any other
factual information offered by the third umpire and his recollection
and opinion of the original incident.

l) The on-field umpire will reverse his decision if the nature of the
supplementary information received from the third umpire leads him
to conclude that his original decision was incorrect.

The important things to note from all that are:

1) The word "conclusive" is not in the text. Anywhere. At all.

2) The on-field umpire is not supposed to ask 'did I get that caught behind decision right?' He is supposed to ask 'does Hot Spot show anything?' or 'can you hear a noise?' In other words, he should go through a list of questions that can be answered 'yes' or 'no'.

3) The TV umpire is not supposed to say 'I think that was out' or 'I think I heard a noise' or 'I think I saw a Hot Spot'. He is supposed to answer 'yes', 'no', or 'inconclusive.' If he has any factual information that the on-field umpire hasn't asked about, he should also provide that.

4) Once all that has been done, it is up the on-field umpire to take all he knows into consideration, including his original thoughts, and make his own decision about whether it is out or not.

Based on that, it looks like the primary issue is that Tony Hill is absolutely hopeless. I think life would be so much better if they just did what rugby does and let us listen in on the communication between the umpires.

 

[Adders]

Stumping?

Yeah that one too

 

[straw man]

Shamelessly stealing this from somewhere else and adapting slightly to post here:

bad people + bad systems = horror
bad people + good systems = frustration
good people + bad systems = longer than it should take but not unpleasant add in time constraints and you're back to frustration
good people + good systems = great experience

Regarding Dharmasena, unless he is actually blind I can only imagine that the process he was required to follow was so prescriptive and absolute that he would have needed to break all the rules to make a reasonable decision (and if so, maybe he should have done so). Complex systems cannot be managed effectively using such an inflexible approach; that only works for simple production-line types of work.

Edit: Or what Spark said and it wasn't Dharmasena's call in the end. That is filed firmly under 'poorly designed systems' as clearly the third umpire should be the one making the decision in that scenario.

 

[Spark]

From what I posted, it does seem extremely prescriptive. I can now imagine a chain of events which would've led to Hill not overturning his decision but in that case it would suggest that the system is patently and deeply flawed.