Abolish the DRS

[CharlesLara]

I don't believe this at all. The vast majority of enmity held toward DRS is likely the result of things not going someone's way during play, it's just human nature. Grass is always greener etc. Just wait until the scenarion I mentioned earlier (an overturned "correct" decision) decides a match and see if players and fans around the world will accept it.

Agree to disagree I suppose, but I think it would be huge mistake to remove umpire's call and do as you suggest, even if it may "simplify" things to an extent.

I have to respectfully disagree with this. If the rule is in place, then there are no grey areas. The point we are trying to make is that ATM the exact same dismissal scenario can have two outcomes depending on what the umpire says, yet technology is PROVEN to be more accurate than humans, and lets not get caught up over numbers here, we are still talking about a predicted path. There needs to be a line as to whats out and whats not out. ATM we have scenarios where the umpires call is called upon, you;re at the mercy of the initial decision, whether wrong or right. We are talking small margins here, BUT the type of margins I'd back technology to get right over human error.

One thing people are bringing up, is that we umpires seem to give more now, which is true, I just think technology has proven that things we thought didnt "look" out and cliches like "automatic big stride = not out" are slightly changing. The amount of wicket to wicket LBWS particularly off spinners is encouraging IMO and I dont see anything wrong with it. I think people need to realise that ones were thought were not out in the past, may actually have always been out.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, but the main divisive point in DRS is the umpires call, thats where the rub of the green point you brought up stems from.

 

[cnerd123]

You are confused
You previously referred to the DRS system being reality - I said its not and the only reality is whether a ball hits the stumps or not.
Anything else is guesswork, scientifically supported or not
So lbw is absolutely not a black or white scenario hence one should get the benefit of the doubt

a) Benefit of the doubt isn't a real thing though. Nowhere in the laws does it say to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt

b) There is less doubt now. It's not that the umpires have doubt and decide against the batsmen, it's that where there was doubt before, there isn't know, because thanks to technology we now know that instances that wouldn't have been given before are actually out now and thus should be given. Also works vice-versa with the impact outside off thing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I have to respectfully disagree with this. If the rule is in place, then there are no grey areas. The point we are trying to make is that ATM the exact same dismissal scenario can have two outcomes depending on what the umpire says, yet technology is PROVEN to be more accurate than humans, and lets not get caught up over numbers here, we are still talking about a predicted path. There needs to be a line as to whats out and whats not out. ATM we have scenarios where the umpires call is called upon, you;re at the mercy of the initial decision, whether wrong or right. We are talking small margins here, BUT the type of margins I'd back technology to get right over human error.

One thing people are bringing up, is that we umpires seem to give more now, which is true, I just think technology has proven that things we thought didnt "look" out and cliches like "automatic big stride = not out" are slightly changing. The amount of wicket to wicket LBWS particularly off spinners is encouraging IMO and I dont see anything wrong with it. I think people need to realise that ones were thought were not out in the past, may actually have always been out.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, but the main divisive point in DRS is the umpires call, thats where the rub of the green point you brought up stems from.

If you can eliminate the margins entirely, (ie. 1% of ball hitting is out, 0% not out etc) and ignore any margin of error, then it could work. But if you were to leave any margin whatsoever, or give any benefit of the doubt to anyone other than the umpire (eg. the batsman), it would be a disaster.

 

[straw man]

Just remove both umps

good idea

 

[Burgey]

a) Benefit of the doubt isn't a real thing though. Nowhere in the laws does it say to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt

b) There is less doubt now. It's not that the umpires have doubt and decide against the batsmen, it's that where there was doubt before, there isn't know, because thanks to technology we now know that instances that wouldn't have been given before are actually out now and thus should be given. Also works vice-versa with the impact outside off thing.

I thought there was something in one of the laws about umpires having to be cerain or be sure, and if they were then and only then would they give someone out.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah, can we get that clarified? I've used that argument before that it does exist in the laws and been shouted down.

 

[Starfighter]

From the Lord's website (Law 36):
1. Out LBW

The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.

(a) The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball,

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker’s wicket,

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person,

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails,

either (i) is between wicket and wicket,

or (ii) if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump.

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

2. Interception of the ball

(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

3. Off side of wicket

The off side of the striker’s wicket shall be determined by the striker’s stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery. See Appendix D.

 

[Daemon]

Blogs: Kartikeya Date: Giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt? It's in the law | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[mr_mister]

When it comes to marketing the game, "umpire's call" is a complete nonsense.

Take the example of when a lbw review from the fielding side is turned down as a result of "umpire's call" despite ball tracker showing it hitting the stumps

Little Johnny understands ball hitting stumps

Little Johnny doesnt give a **** about statistical deviation

good way to educate Little Johnny on statistics and increase his math knowledge then. Be honest, did learn about averages through cricket? Yeah thats what i thought

 

[cnerd123]

Be honest, did learn about averages through cricket?

I actually did tbh.

 

[Dan_M_Bali]

DRS is great and is a welcome addition to the game. There are ways to improve it but all in all it's a fantastic thing.

The real problem in cricket is the fecking toss. How one team, on the flip of the coin, suddenly be up a certain creek. It's a joke, especially on Indian pitches, you call it wrong it equates to taking Peter North style 10 inches, seriously meaty length and girth right where the sun don't shine... and yet the game hasn't even started yet.

In no other sport does a coin toss directly affect the result.

 

[honestbharani]

DRS is great and is a welcome addition to the game. There are ways to improve it but all in all it's a fantastic thing.

The real problem in cricket is the fecking toss. How one team, on the flip of the coin, suddenly be up a certain creek. It's a joke, especially on Indian pitches, you call it wrong it equates to taking Peter North style 10 inches, seriously meaty length and girth right where the sun don't shine... and yet the game hasn't even started yet.

In no other sport does a coin toss directly affect the result.

 

[Dan_M_Bali]

How so?

 

[bcubed]

From the Lord's website (Law 36):
1. Out LBW

The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.

(a) The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball,

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker’s wicket,

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person,

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails,

either (i) is between wicket and wicket,

or (ii) if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump.

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

2. Interception of the ball

(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

3. Off side of wicket

The off side of the striker’s wicket shall be determined by the striker’s stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery. See Appendix D.

So the batsman is only out if "but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket".
Unless the ball would have (i.e. without doubt) gone on to hit the stumps, the batsman is not out lbw. i.e. he should get the benefit of the doubt

 

[OverratedSanity]

Blogs: Kartikeya Date: Giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt? It's in the law | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

This is exactly why umpires call and the soft signal are BS.

 

[Starfighter]

So the batsman is only out if "but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket".
Unless the ball would have (i.e. without doubt) gone on to hit the stumps, the batsman is not out lbw. i.e. he should get the benefit of the doubt

'Would have' and 'without doubt' are two different concepts. The umpire can judge that the ball would have hit the stumps without complete certainly (i.e.not without doubt), which occurs often and is also what Date misses completely. The law gives no standard of proof for judging if the ball would have hit the stumps, so benefit of the doubt is not in the law, it's merely a convention applied to it.

 

[marc71178]

So the batsman is only out if "but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket".
Unless the ball would have (i.e. without doubt) gone on to hit the stumps, the batsman is not out lbw. i.e. he should get the benefit of the doubt

However, when an umpire gives it out it is because he, from his (superior to the TV camera) vantage point with his (superior to Joe Public) experience of both the present pitch and Cricket around the world, doesn't have any doubt in the decision.

What you think about doubt from watching it on TV about doubt is totally and utterly irrelevant.

 

[bcubed]

'Would have' and 'without doubt' are two different concepts. The umpire can judge that the ball would have hit the stumps without complete certainly (i.e.not without doubt), which occurs often and is also what Date misses completely. The law gives no standard of proof for judging if the ball would have hit the stumps, so benefit of the doubt is not in the law, it's merely a convention applied to it.

It doesn't say might have hit. It doesn't say would probably have hit. It says would have. So to me (and this is why the cricketing world has traditionally interpreted it this way) it means the umpire needs to be sure it definitely would have hit

 

[vcs]

I actually did tbh.

So did I haha. I was about 9-10 when I first started watching (WC '92) and all the numbers were a mystery in the beginning. I only understood "x runs needed off y balls" and knew that x>y in those days meant huge trouble for the chasing team.

 

[Starfighter]

It doesn't say might have hit. It doesn't say would probably have hit. It says would have. So to me (and this is why the cricketing world has traditionally interpreted it this way) it means the umpire needs to be sure it definitely would have hit

I already explained why this is incorrect. Go back and try again.

In any case it doesn't present any case against DRS, as it is a doubt-reducing measure.