Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe let the umpire have 2 referrals each as well lol, I'm sure Dharmasena would welcome it with open armsWhich 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 armsWhich would mean they send every decision upstairs and waste a lot more time.
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.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?
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)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.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.
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.Abolishing the DRS is stupid and only someone with the brains of Shastri would even contemplate it
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.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.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.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.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.
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.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).
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.They did that in the Aus v ROW series here in 2005 and tbh there were so many referrals it was ridiculous.
You're right, it's unacceptable to take 2 minutes to review a decision in a game that takes 5 days.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.
Wb, ****. Don't insult people and **** off when the series is going on. We could use someone like you for three more tests.You're right, it's unacceptable to take 2 minutes to review a decision in a game that takes 5 days.
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.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
But we've already solved that by reducing it to 25%....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.
Tucker makes some pretty bad calls at the best of times though.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.