Abolish the DRS

[Isura]

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.

 

[BeeGee]

40.6
Broad to Ashwin, no run, given lbw! This is a big break-back from Broad. Ashwin has called for the review. Is there an inside edge? Yes, he's whacked it into his pad. This will be overturned. A very big bit of wood on that.

 

[BeeGee]

Imagine what a farce that game the other day would have been without DRS, where they set a record for the greatest number of upheld reviews.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see results based on how well teams perform, rather than on how poorly the umpires perform.

 

[fredfertang]

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.

One of the good things about forums is that you can get stuff like this off your chest without being ridiculed in the way you would be down the pub

 

[The Battlers Prince]

The rules surrounding it are a problem as well. I don't like the DRS either, however I doubt it's ever going to leave at this stage. So we'all have to learn to live with it.
It's biggest problem of those that can be changed easily is it's application. I'm not sure if it should be in the hands of the umpires or if the current rules need to be fixed. But the current setup where an umpire makes a decision and it's ruled to be hitting a part of the wickets on the computer simulation changes nothing yet costs the team a review. That itself is wrong in my opinion. It's all messed up.
Needs some amendments

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

but keep it on when dharmashocker is umpire

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah let's go back to 5-10 terrible decisions per Test match. Inside edges given lbw, caught behinds getting wrong all the time etc.

One of the good things about forums is that you can get stuff like this off your chest without being ridiculed in the way you would be down the pub

So instead you get ridiculed on a forum?

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Yeah let's go back to 5-10 terrible decisions per Test match. Inside edges given lbw, caught behinds getting wrong all the time etc.

Hyperbole.

Do you think the current situation could be improved with better rules regarding implementation?

 

[grecian]

Yeah let's go back to 5-10 terrible decisions per Test match. Inside edges given lbw, caught behinds getting wrong all the time etc.



So instead you get ridiculed on a forum?

The problem with the internet though, is no doubt how ridiculous the opinion, some others will agree with you, which very much is the problem of the World nowadays.

Anyway, silly OP, particularly the oft-repeated and totally ludicrous idea that reviews are boring for spectators, not sure anyone has ever been at a ground when a close one happens. Cricket is a sport that has many pretty boring breaks. Bat changes, drinks, sight screens, a review is not really one of them.

 

[hazsa19]

Nope. DRS has shown how poor the standard of umpiring has been.

They should concentrate on training umpires as 3rd Umpires. The whole process could be slicker. For example I don't get why they need a standard slow-mo of an lbw that does nothing to help the decision. Go to Ultra-Edge/ Hot-Spot, then ball tracking if required.

 

[fredfertang]

So instead you get ridiculed on a forum?

Which has its advantages, the fact that you can do so with your pyjamas on and your tackle hanging out being just one of many

 

[GIMH]

What if you don't wear pyjamas?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hyperbole.

Do you think the current situation could be improved with better rules regarding implementation?

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

 

[grecian]

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

It's probably hyperbole that 5-10 shockers in a match are overturned, but it's not so much that 5-10 bad decisions are. It's a good system, but could do with tweaking as most judicial systems could, but even as is, is a vast improvement on no DRS by a few country miles IMHO. Better decisions, better game.

 

[fredfertang]

What if you don't wear pyjamas?

Nothing wrong with naked posting, although a bit chilly in late November on the Wirral I would have thought

 

[The Battlers Prince]

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

The margin of error being included was to do with the computer simulation being acknowledged as wrong some percentage. If I'm taking your meaning correctly then how about the "umpires call" being fixed next? That's a big grey area that detracts from the system IMO. It seams yourself and others think it's a good enough system then why does the same delivery mean a different outcome? A ball hitting 10% means 2 different things depending on the umpires decision. I'm confused by that

 

[Spark]

If having to wait a few minutes for a decision really irritates you that much then you should probably find another sport to watch.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The margin of error being included was to do with the computer simulation being acknowledged as wrong some percentage. If I'm taking your meaning correctly then how about the "umpires call" being fixed next? That's a big grey area that detracts from the system IMO. It seams yourself and others think it's a good enough system then why does the same delivery mean a different outcome? A ball hitting 10% means 2 different things depending on the umpires decision. I'm confused by that

Absolutely wrong. Umpire's call is essential and an excellent idea whoever came up with that, I probably wouldn't have thought of it.

The margin of error necessitates something like "umpire's call" existing. Also without it the Umpire's original decision is meaningless. "Benefit of the doubt" going with the umpire is as it should be.

As I said, I honestly couldn't think of a way to improve it right now. (other than potential technology updates, obviously, but that's not really anything to do with the system)

 

[grecian]

There's one thing i'd be very tempted to do, and that is have the third-umpire not really an umpire. What I mean is just utterly tech-savvy and understanding of all the technology, he could run through what he wanted to see himself knowing the camera technology. Honestly you could teach nerdy types the basic rules of LBW in a week, it doesn't really need the years of experience an onfield ump need, because there is little nuance in the pictures.

The Umpire still gets the first decision on his gut, but then it is upto an analytical person to workout if it's right, I'd ideally not have him be a cricket fan, cut bias out of it all together

 

[SteveNZ]

As I've said before, DRS should, in my opinion, be applied as the authority on all decisions. If it goes upstairs, DRS makes the decision. Not at all influences by what decision an umpire made in real time on the field. If half or more of the ball is hitting, out. If less, not out. Irrelevant what the umpire said, because we are told and we believe ourselves that technology is able to make a more proof-based decision with more time and information to do so. It doesn't eliminate decision making on field, because teams will still **** their reviews up.