Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[vic_orthdox]

Disagree, just like DRS its extra work when you already have the desired result.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah that was the incident but then Swann decided to talk about the general "cheating" culture in cricket.

'It was just cheating but we live in an age where cheating is accepted in our game. If you don't walk and get away with it no-one seems to say anything. I don't agree with that.'

In any case what is the difference? The umpire has to decide if he edged it. The umpire has to also decide if the fielder caught it.

Because a fielder claiming a catch and a batsman not walking are different ffs.

He's not obliged to do anything.

 

[GIMH]

Disagree, just like DRS its extra work when you already have the desired result.

I don't really care about the DRS side but agree on the example. Just let me go to sleep ffs.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's crotchless underwear atm, that's what it is.

 

[Burgey]

Been thinking about the walking thing.

Walking has a place in most, non-Test cricket because, the way I see it, an umpiring **** up just doesn't feel like part of the game. It is, of course, but it doesn't sit right. You feel as though something other than batting, bowling and fielding has done something. That's what was good about Bell being recalled when he was run out against India - since it seemed like a non-cricketing ****up, the Indians thought they were right and the rules were wrong in this case by recalling him.

But when you bring DRS into the hands of the players, it becomes unarguably a part of their game. Players have to be tactical about how to use it - either aggressively, aiming to get any chance that comes their way, or defensively, aiming to let the odd chance slide to make sure they get the ones that are there for sure. If you choose the former, and then you miss out on an obvious decision down the line, the opposition is not only within his rights to punish your poor strategy, but pretty much obligated to. It's no different to having your keeper stand up to a quick when he's not good enough and then watching the byes roll down - walking in this case is like not running for those byes. It's not only unnecessary, it's a failure to punish poor cricketing strategy.

I don't like this, really, at all. I don't want use-of-DRS-skill to become part of the game alongside batting, bowling and fielding, so I don't want it to be a players' decision. And I want there to be the option to walk - just like "withdrawing the appeal", I think there's something a little bit special about how sometimes, you can say what feels right is better than the literal rules. But as long as DRS is in the players' hands, we can't have it. It just doesn't make sense.

Very good post.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, agreement with Scaly here, I feel you get doubly excited myself, and you should not have the sickening feeling that the excitement was caused by a wholly wrong call.

Yeah, I just don't feel that way at all. It's not that the final decision isn't exciting (it is), it's that the original decision isn't exciting any more. When Watson had Bell given out LBW, it was a huge wicket for Australia, and in retrospect Australia probably would have won the test if it had been given. I was utterly unmoved because I knew he'd review it and the entire decision would come down to whether the ball was just shaving leg stump and would be out on "umpire's call" or be marginally missing, a matter of a few cm either way. Without DRS, it was obviously close and could go either way and you get the verdict immediately, you don't sit around for two minutes waiting to find out if you can be excited or not. The umpire's verdict just makes it slightly more likely to be out, it's not out when he raises the finger. Fair enough if you think the marginal accuracy of decisions is more important than the instant excitement of a wicket, but there's no way the umpire's verdict has the same impact today that it did pre-DRS.

 

[Top_Cat]

Same could surely be said pre-neutral umpires? Was more fun to hate Pakistani umpires when your side was dudded in Pakistan and then Miandad made a great anti-hero when he came to Australia and failed after gaining favourable decisions at home. The umpire's verdict certainly had a big impact then but I doubt you'd find anyone saying the game as a whole was better with that **** going on.

 

[morgieb]

Interesting no-one's said anything about the Root decision.

 

[MW1304]

Looked pad first to me, side on view was the best.

 

[Furball]

Because we're not a bunch of whingers.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Interesting no-one's said anything about the Root decision.

That's because it was either (i) out or (ii) far too inconclusive to overturn the on-field call.

Personally I'm in favour of option (i), as demonstrated by the side-on hotspot.

 

[morgieb]

Because we're not a bunch of whingers.

lol, fair enough.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Same could surely be said pre-neutral umpires? Was more fun to hate Pakistani umpires when your side was dudded in Pakistan and then Miandad made a great anti-hero when he came to Australia and failed after gaining favourable decisions at home. The umpire's verdict certainly had a big impact then but I doubt you'd find anyone saying the game as a whole was better with that **** going on.

I don't think that's the same at all. I don't think anyone is arguing that wrong decisions (or biased ones) add to the drama of the game in a good way and should be preserved. Just that there are some things not with sacrificing for accuracy of decisions. I mean, we all think that to some degree. We could do an instant replay check for a front foot no ball on literally every delivery and it would probably improve accuracy rates but it would be totally worthless. I just feel like I'd rather have the decision made on the field and potentially be wrong but at least preserve the drama and excitement of the flowing contest than review most appeals, or in the case of no-ball replays, basically every appeal. Or at the very least it's not unreasonable to point out that it does effect the viewing experience quite a lot. The raised finger no longer has that instant impact that you get from, say, a goal in soccer or a boundary to bring up a century or a clean bowled or whatever. Hell, even a clean bowled goes to DRS...

The drama is now in whether Hawkeye says missing or umpire's call, and in whether or not a cm of the foot is behind the line, not in the umpire's verdict.

 

[91Jmay]

Can anyone explain to me why use of the DRS is any different to a captain being innovative with his fields? It seems to have been looked down on whenever mentioned in a slightly back handed compliment 'England used the DRS better' but why is that any less legit than saying 'Clarke set his fields better'?

 

[Daemon]

ICC news : ICC trials instant replays for third umpire | Cricket News | Australia in England - The Investec Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If you take the system out of the player's hands then it just gives them another official to complain about. **** awful idea, how do they draw the line as to what and where the third ump can intervene?

 

[Daemon]

Dunno, that's why it's on trial I guess.

 

[uvelocity]

"Our strategy has been: let us introduce technology but not on the basis they are just ball counters and coat hangers." - dave richardson

cant argue with that

 

[Maximas]

If you take the system out of the player's hands then it just gives them another official to complain about. **** awful idea, how do they draw the line as to what and where the third ump can intervene?

was a proven failure during the Ryobi Cup last season in Australia, that system works nowhere near as well as commentators think it will

 

[grecian]

was a proven failure during the Ryobi Cup last season in Australia, that system works nowhere near as well as commentators think it will

I get that it didn't work then, but TBH one horrid instance does not put a definitive line through anything, or they'd have abandoned Tech for run-outs when it was implemented at first. Umps took awhile to get their heads around that too.