Abolish the DRS

[TheJediBrah]

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.

How could you possibly misunderstand my post? The % of ball hitting is completely irrelevant. Nothing you've said has anything to do with what I was saying.

What is "insanely stupid" is that an lbw decision that is given out, and shown to be hitting the stumps (49%, 24%, 1% doesn't ****ing matter) could be changed to not out on review.

 

[bcubed]

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.

Except no one (at least not me) is talking about thrusting your pad down the pitch.
Bat and pad together is still a legitimate defence as far as I know and if it was that easy to "use your bat to defend" why do all cricketers, especially Test cricketers, keep getting out lbw?

 

[SteveNZ]

How could you possibly misunderstand my post? The % of ball hitting is completely irrelevant. Nothing you've said has anything to do with what I was saying.

What is "insanely stupid" is that an lbw decision that is given out, and shown to be hitting the stumps (49%, 24%, 1% doesn't ****ing matter) could be changed to not out on review.

Okay, apologies for misconstruing your post.

And fine, you think it's insanely stupid, myself and a lot of other people don't. There's a margin for error I'm led to believe on the system, which is why the 25% or whatever it is exists ie clipping the outside of the stumps. Past that, the decision making should stick with the technology. There's no industry or sport in the world (past the league example I used) where technology is available and deemed superior to human decision making, but this human element is still able to have an influence on the outcomes. Or very few, if any.

You can't have a decision that is 25% or less hitting the stumps and deem it to be out. That sort of marginal lbw decision has always been against what we term a fair and just dismissal. And again, why that would in any way be influenced by an on-field adjudicator, beats me. If I'm a batsman, I just want to know based on solid information - which is available to us - whether I'm out. If that's 25% or 50% or whatever of the ball, I know this before I reach the crease and I can cop it. 1% nah, I wouldn't stand for it. But what I can't cop is technology partly deciding whether I'm out or not, but also an umpire in real time who has nowhere the tools, and also has human infallibility, involved with their split second decision.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So essentially it just comes down to "benefit of the doubt" going with the umpire, or the batsman. I'm happy with it going with the umpire, but I can also understand why others disagree.

It just makes more sense to me, and I'd bet it would lead to even more controversy doing what you suggest. Just using the same example as before, an affirmative lbw decision that was proven correct on review could still be reversed if not enough of the ball is hitting the stumps. Can you imagine the uproar if a decision like that (correct decision changed to the wrong decision) decided a match or series.

That defeats the whole purpose of DRS, which is to ensure the correct decision is reached (or at least to remove all terrible decisions). The only way removing Umpire's Call could work IMO, would be to then remove all margin of error entirely from the system of review, ie. if 1% of ball is hitting it's out, with no necessary margin. Otherwise you will get the sort of farcical situations that I mentioned above.

 

[social]

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

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

 

[SteveNZ]

So essentially it just comes down to "benefit of the doubt" going with the umpire, or the batsman. I'm happy with it going with the umpire, but I can also understand why others disagree.

It just makes more sense to me, and I'd bet it would lead to even more controversy doing what you suggest. Just using the same example as before, an affirmative lbw decision that was proven correct on review could still be reversed if not enough of the ball is hitting the stumps. Can you imagine the uproar if a decision like that (correct decision changed to the wrong decision) decided a match or series.

That defeats the whole purpose of DRS, which is to ensure the correct decision is reached (or at least to remove all terrible decisions). The only way removing Umpire's Call could work IMO, would be to then remove all margin of error entirely from the system of review, ie. if 1% of ball is hitting it's out, with no necessary margin. Otherwise you will get the sort of farcical situations that I mentioned above.

I don't believe benefit of the doubt should go with the umpire. They're not part of the game. It's always gone with the batsman, and even as the staunchest bowler and advocate for batsmen not having it so bloody easy all the time, I'm happy for it to remain that way.

But that's essentially what I'm saying - an lbw is not proven correct unless more than the allotted percentage is hitting the stumps. From there, is the doubt area and should be overturned in all circumstances. 1% wouldn't work because of the nuances of the game, no one would be comfortable with that.

I happen to 100% agree with you that what I'm saying essentially defeats the purpose of DRS, which should always have been to remove the terrible decision. But it's gone so far away from what the purpose is that we're not ever getting back to saving it for the shocker. I just believe what I'm saying is the best of an indifferent situation.

 

[Starfighter]

First of all its not reality its a predicted path

Which is a lot more accurate than human guesswork.

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

We have the technology to make better decisions. Batsmen should no longer get away because there's doubt.[

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

Not in my experience.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't believe benefit of the doubt should go with the umpire. They're not part of the game. It's always gone with the batsman, and even as the staunchest bowler and advocate for batsmen not having it so bloody easy all the time, I'm happy for it to remain that way.

But that's essentially what I'm saying - an lbw is not proven correct unless more than the allotted percentage is hitting the stumps. From there, is the doubt area and should be overturned in all circumstances. 1% wouldn't work because of the nuances of the game, no one would be comfortable with that.

I happen to 100% agree with you that what I'm saying essentially defeats the purpose of DRS, which should always have been to remove the terrible decision. But it's gone so far away from what the purpose is that we're not ever getting back to saving it for the shocker. I just believe what I'm saying is the best of an indifferent situation.

You can accept that you'd end up with correct decisions being changed to the wrong decision? How?

That would be a lot harder for most people to accept than Umpire's Call existing, I would have thought.

 

[SteveNZ]

You can accept that you'd end up with correct decisions being changed to the wrong decision? How?

That would be a lot harder for most people to accept than Umpire's Call existing, I would have thought.

I don't think there's such thing as a correct decision when you're talking about what we are, the ball clipping/margin of error scenario. What I'm saying is, if the 25% of the ball rule is instituted (I don't know this particular nuance of DRS) and it's established that everything above this is out, and everything below it is not out, I think batsmen around the world will accept it moreso than the current state of play where an umpire's split second on-field call holds more bearing. Chris Rogers, a very recent international player, was firmly of this belief and perhaps it's one shared in international changing rooms.

I think a lot of people are like me and they cannot fathom why umpire's call is relevant when we have superior technology. Maybe they don't understand it as well as you do - and that's not one lick of sarcasm. As Joe Blow who watches cricket and thinks he understands the game pretty well, that's my issue.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think there's such thing as a correct decision when you're talking about what we are, the ball clipping/margin of error scenario. What I'm saying is, if the 25% of the ball rule is instituted (I don't know this particular nuance of DRS) and it's established that everything above this is out, and everything below it is not out, I think batsmen around the world will accept it moreso than the current state of play where an umpire's split second on-field call holds more bearing. Chris Rogers, a very recent international player, was firmly of this belief and perhaps it's one shared in international changing rooms.

I think a lot of people are like me and they cannot fathom why umpire's call is relevant when we have superior technology. Maybe they don't understand it as well as you do - and that's not one lick of sarcasm. As Joe Blow who watches cricket and thinks he understands the game pretty well, that's my issue.

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.

 

[Daemon]

Just remove both umps call and margin for error. Ez.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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!)

Simply put, whether or not DRS was involved, the attitude to LBWs was changing over time because of access to hawkeye. In Australia, it showed how many balls were going over the stumps from quicks, and has shown more balls were sliding down leg, particularly with regards to yorkers, that in the past "looked out".

In other conditions, it showed how many more of these balls were hitting the stumps particularly with spin - and how "getting forward" wasn't enough to provide the regular excuse that the umpires liked to use. The DRS has only happened to hasten this movement. It's also shown that in general, a lot of batsmen being given out to sweep shots weren't correct decisions - showing the umpire's natural bias against certain strokes that we've all seen at lower levels of the game.

What we have is an environment that encourages batsman to show the full face of the bat, and get it out in front of the pad which asks a different sort of batsmanship, and to be honest one that should be encouraged at lower levels anyway.

 

[Furball]

If anything I'd have thought HawkEye has done a lot to remind people that leg stump actually exists. A lot of lbws are now given that in the past would have been adjudged to be sliding down.

 

[vic_orthdox]

If anything I'd have thought HawkEye has done a lot to remind people that leg stump actually exists. A lot of lbws are now given that in the past would have been adjudged to be sliding down.

Yeah, think that's right too with anything around the kneepad or over.

 

[bcubed]

Which is a lot more accurate than human guesswork.

We have the technology to make better decisions. Batsmen should no longer get away because there's doubt.[

Not in my experience.

It's not reality which is what you claimed. Reality is ball hitting stumps or ball not hitting stumps.
Of course the technology helps but batsman should only be given out when the umpire believes the ball will definitely hit the stumps, I.e. there is no doubt
And I can only say it is influencing local umpires in my experience.

 

[bcubed]

Simply put, whether or not DRS was involved, the attitude to LBWs was changing over time because of access to hawkeye. In Australia, it showed how many balls were going over the stumps from quicks, and has shown more balls were sliding down leg, particularly with regards to yorkers, that in the past "looked out".

In other conditions, it showed how many more of these balls were hitting the stumps particularly with spin - and how "getting forward" wasn't enough to provide the regular excuse that the umpires liked to use. The DRS has only happened to hasten this movement. It's also shown that in general, a lot of batsmen being given out to sweep shots weren't correct decisions - showing the umpire's natural bias against certain strokes that we've all seen at lower levels of the game.

What we have is an environment that encourages batsman to show the full face of the bat, and get it out in front of the pad which asks a different sort of batsmanship, and to be honest one that should be encouraged at lower levels anyway.

Fair comment but my point is that without DRS umpires are guessing (albeit using their judgement) and should still not give things out if they are in doubt

 

[Starfighter]

It's not reality which is what you claimed. Reality is ball hitting stumps or ball not hitting stumps.
Of course the technology helps but batsman should only be given out when the umpire believes the ball will definitely hit the stumps, I.e. there is no doubt
And I can only say it is influencing local umpires in my experience.

You're saying that lbw is a black and white hitting/not hitting situation, yet you claim that umpires should only give a decision when there is no doubt, yet it is very common for not out (i.e. doubt) decisions to be hitting the stumps.

You contradict your first point with your second point.

 

[Shady Slim]

@OP

no

 

[bcubed]

You're saying that lbw is a black and white hitting/not hitting situation, yet you claim that umpires should only give a decision when there is no doubt, yet it is very common for not out (i.e. doubt) decisions to be hitting the stumps.

You contradict your first point with your second point.

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

 

[Starfighter]

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

Nope. If there is a good way of determining it we should use it. The benefit of the doubt ain't in the laws.