Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[grecian]

If you rely on a piece of tech to prove something the lack of proof on that piece of tech has to at least suggest that there wasn't an edge, otherwise you end up with situations like this. I mean, if you break it down, I'm sure we all see the through process Dharmasena went through, right? Following Trott in the first test, where he was given out because hotspot did not show evidence of an edge, they're clearly under directive to not count a lack of hotspot as evidence of no edge but use other tech. So the umpire gives it out, video replay shows no evidence of an edge, hotspot shows no evidence of an edge, there is an unexplained sound that could theoretically be the ball hitting the bat, that sound was obviously the basis of the on-field decision, so there's some "doubt". Can't overturn the umpire's decision. You have to at least conclude that if there is no evidence on hotspot you need something else conclusive to suggest the ball hit the bat.

To put it another way, there's a reason you talk about "reasonable" doubt in a criminal trial and not just "doubt" full stop, because you can create doubt out of basically nothing, as Dharmasena did. You have to take the lack of evidence on tech as a strong suggestion the ball did not hit the bat unless something else conclusively suggests otherwise.

Either that or forget about lawyering over umpiring decisions and let the umpire's decision stand. Because the current system is clearly non-functional.

They are trialling a change, so it's not like they're not doing anything to assuage the problems.

That's why I fail to understand the level of ire, they've admitted that things aren't perfect, and they're trying to change that.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well the evidence on tech here was that you could drive a truck through bat and ball and that there was bat on pad involved. I think that should be enough grounds without having to go to reverse hotspot.

It's just not logically sound to say that no mark means probably no edge when we know that Hotspot sometimes misses fine edges. Mark (in the right place) means edge. No mark doesn't necessarily mean no edge. It shouldn't be any more complex than that.

 

[Sanz]

So following the Khawaja decision, I'm interested in what DRS apologists think the protocols should be for overturning non-LBW decisions at this point. It feels like there's been a lot of back and forth this series over how it should function, from the umpire seemingly using a lack of evidence on the tech to support the umpire's decision to overrule (Trott decision) to the umpire needing clear evidence that the umpire's decision is wrong to overturn, which basically seems to amount to absolutely no doubt at all, no matter how slight, or the on-field decision stands.

I'm inclined towards the view that, if DRS is here to stay, just having the third umpire make a decision completely independent from the on-field ump and going with it is better than what we have now. Basically treating the review system for non-LBWs as being the option of having the decision made by a completely different umpire twice per innings. Because right now the "evidence to overturn" system just seems totally non-functional for anything other than LBWs. For LBW at least the decision is fundamentally subjective on some level, the umpire thinks it's going to hit the stumps or he doesn't, and something that is just flicking the stumps could easily be out or not out and both decisions are fair enough. But with edges there's a clear problem where an unexplained sound or deflection makes it basically impossible to overrule a decision. The only way I could see the umpire's call being overturned is when it goes against the batting side, ie the umpire thinks they've missed it and hotspot, being the only totally conclusive piece of tech available, clearly shows an edge. But for decisions that favour the batsmen it really feels broken right now, even if you ignore any other issues with it holding up play, impacting spectator enjoyment etc.

It's not just that you can miss the ball by a couple of inches but be given out because there's a random noise that creates "doubt", but that the batting side is punished by losing a review even if reviewing it was totally reasonable.

DRS technology is not reliable enough, the users of the DRS are not educated enough on how to use the technology to consistently make the correct decisions. The implementation of DRS as it is today is flawed and the decisions based on it are inconsistent and unreliable. It has been roved once again in this series.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

They are trialling a change, so it's not like they're not doing anything to assuage the problems.

That's why I fail to understand the level of ire, they've admitted that things aren't perfect, and they're trying to change that.

Personally I think it's had a (significant) negative effect on an Ashes series, and that this is not the place to trial something that clearly hasn't been thought through properly. Hence the ire. And again, it's not about the bad decisions, there are bad decisions in every series and that's fine, it's that the cost of DRS as a spectator is so significant that it has to have a notable impact on improving the accuracy of umpiring decisions to be worthwhile. It just hasn't, some howlers get overturned, some don't, some are too close to call and the decision ends up being basically random, sometimes it might work but one side is out of reviews, and often nothing much happens at all. It really just doesn't help enough to justify adding a layer of complexity to the game, removing immersion as a spectator, taking the spontaneous impact and excitement away from the umpire's decision and so on. I really don't see how anyone could have watched this Ashes series and thought DRS made it better as a spectator. Unless you just really enjoy watching inconclusive slow motion replays.

And I don't think you can just blame the umpires because clearly they're operating under a set of guidelines as to how they should interpret the technology re: doubt etc. Unless someone thinks Dharmasena actually believed on the evidence he viewed, ignoring the on-field decision, that Khawaja actually hit it. I don't.

edit: Another instance of the same thing as I type this with Smith.

 

[grecian]

Personally I think it's had a (significant) negative effect on an Ashes series, and that this is not the place to trial something that clearly hasn't been thought through properly. Hence the ire. And again, it's not about the bad decisions, there are bad decisions in every series and that's fine, it's that the cost of DRS as a spectator is so significant that it has to have a notable impact on improving the accuracy of umpiring decisions to be worthwhile. It just hasn't, some howlers get overturned, some don't, some are too close to call and the decision ends up being basically random, sometimes it might work but one side is out of reviews, and often nothing much happens at all. It really just doesn't help enough to justify adding a layer of complexity to the game, removing immersion as a spectator, taking the spontaneous impact and excitement away from the umpire's decision and so on. I really don't see how anyone could have watched this Ashes series and thought DRS made it better as a spectator. Unless you just really enjoy watching inconclusive slow motion replays.

And I don't think you can just blame the umpires because clearly they're operating under a set of guidelines as to how they should interpret the technology re: doubt etc. Unless someone thinks Dharmasena actually believed on the evidence he viewed, ignoring the on-field decision, that Khawaja actually hit it. I don't.

edit: Another instance of the same thing as I type this with Smith.

The trial is not being used, it's just being looked at, they reckon it'll make more definitive decisions, we'll see.

I can blame the umpires I'm afraid, both the ones making the bad original decision, and the ones that are reviewing badly. Guidelines based around benefit-of-the-doubt are, and always have been open to interpretation. There was NO doubt on this decision for me.

In the end, you and others don't like the disruption, I'm not bothered myself. I've said before I think it adds to the theatre. I also seriously don't get this decisions being bad with DRS, being less bad than decisions being bad on-field.

So as an apologist, this decision has changed my view not one jot.

 

[Uppercut]

I think we need to forget the idea of leaving it to the on-field umpire. I don't think the players (or, for that matter, the commentators or fans) would be willing to put up with a return to such large numbers of bad decisions with nothing that can be done about it. We repeat it every time but all DRS did today was slow the game down. The wrong decision would have been made regardless.

So it's really a matter of what can be done to iron out the flaws. The big issue for me is consistency, and I think the reason we're seeing it applied inconsistently to nicks is because the guidelines are too vague. I don't care much what the guidelines are, as long as they're well-defined. For example, say an umpire's decision to give someone out stands unless all noises can be accounted for and there is no mark on hotspot. And an umpire's decision to give someone n/o stands unless there's a mark on hotspot.

If this were the case Khawaja would probably still have been given out, because there was a noise when the ball passed the bat (if Snicko was made available that could replace the noise requirement). But, at least it would be consistent and remove more human error. I'm not that thrilled by the "umpire's call" margins on lbw shouts either, but at least they're non-arbitrary and everyone knows what the rules are before the game. I think that's the most important thing.

 

[GIMH]

DRS should correct more errors than it does but instances of correct decisions being incorrectly overturned are few and far between, Trott at TB an obvious exception. So ultimately as many are at pains to say, it's still having the desired effect, alas not to the extent it should be.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So it's really a matter of what can be done to iron out the flaws. The big issue for me is consistency, and I think the reason we're seeing it applied inconsistently to nicks is because the guidelines are too vague. I don't care much what the guidelines are, as long as they're well-defined. For example, say an umpire's decision to give someone out stands unless all noises can be accounted for and there is no mark on hotspot. And an umpire's decision to give someone n/o stands unless there's a mark on hotspot.

Yeah I just can't accept that as a viable method because there is a cost to all this. If the guidelines for DRS protect the on-field umpire's decision in all but the most egregious scenarios, I really don't think it's worth spending so much time and effort reviewing decisions. As you said, nothing would have changed today at all if DRS wasn't in play, despite the fact that there were several bad decisions. Khawaja wrongly given out, Smith wrongly given not out LBW, and I think there's a pretty good case that Swann should have had an LBW too but that's a more marginal call. At least two "howlers", and DRS didn't prevent them, but that didn't stop us from spending however long watching replays - 15-20 minutes?

There's a cost to DRS for players and spectators and the payoff for that cost has to be a significant improvement in the accuracy rate of decisions or it's not worth it. I think you can actually make an argument that it changes the way the game is played too - for instance getting a big stride in is no longer a particularly good tactic to reduce your chances of being given out LBW because "doubt" is really about the exact position of the ball as tracked by a computer and not a function of the umpire's ability to make a clear judgement. As Murphy put it in the match thread today, if you're going to pay that price, and then sit there for five minutes waiting for the third umpire to make a decision, you want a high likelihood of a better decision being made, which just isn't the case presently and this whole series is a perfect representation of that with a significant portion of the DRS referrals being too close to call at the end of the day anyway.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah look personally I'm not bothered about the time it takes up. There were a bunch of other delays today too with the sightscreen and repairs to the pitch etc, but they still got 90 overs in. Test cricket isn't a game for impatient people anyway. I wouldn't need very many more correct decisions to think it worthwhile. I'd have found Haddin hitting the winning runs at TB after smacking one through to the keeper much worse for the game.

 

[Cabinet96]

DRS should correct more errors than it does but instances of correct decisions being incorrectly overturned are few and far between, Trott at TB an obvious exception. So ultimately as many are at pains to say, it's still having the desired effect, alas not to the extent it should be.

Yeah look personally I'm not bothered about the time it takes up. There were a bunch of other delays today too with the sightscreen and repairs to the pitch etc, but they still got 90 overs in. Test cricket isn't a game for impatient people anyway. I wouldn't need very many more correct decisions to think it worthwhile. I'd have found Haddin hitting the winning runs at TB after smacking one through to the keeper much worse for the game.

Yup, agree with both completely.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah the delay argument doesn't wash in a five day game tbh.

 

[Cevno]

ICC needs to define the parameters a lot more specifically plus maybe give some training to TV umpires. Important to recognize the limitation of certain technology as well.

It's been years now and the same problems still happening.

 

[Adders]

.

In the end, you and others don't like the disruption, I'm not bothered myself. I've said before I think it adds to the theatre. I also seriously don't get this decisions being bad with DRS, being less bad than decisions being bad on-field.

Seriously don't agree with that at all.......I think it is 100% worse to have a review process get a decision blatantly wrong compared to an onfield umpire making an error in real time from 22 yards away..........and I'd be willing to bet if you asked Usman Khawaja this morning he'd say the same thing.

As for the disruptions, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the game of cricket if the payoff is getting decisions correct.........what we have now is nothing short of an absolute farce.

One of the better cricinfo articles imo.....

Brydon Coverdale: DRS breaking spirits of players and fans | Cricket News | Australia in England - The Investec Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo

More importantly, while the DRS might not be broken, its implementation is breaking the spirits of players and fans. Without the DRS, Khawaja would still have been out, caught Prior bowled Swann. Everyone would have accepted it as an on-field mistake, one of those errors that umpires have made for 135 years. But getting it wrong with the assistance of replays cannot be tolerated.

This sums up my feelings on it exactly.

 

[Furball]

That doesn't mean you scrap it entirely.

 

[morgieb]

Who were the umpires in 2010/11?

And more importantly, were there any umpiring controversies?

 

[Furball]

Who were the umpires in 2010/11?

And more importantly, were there any umpiring controversies?

No, because 99% of the crap decisions were overturned.

Hussey got a life a Brisbane (we'd used our reviews) and Bell getting a caught behind overturned at Sydney are about the only 2 that I can think of.

Ponting went off on one at Dar at Melbourne over KP being not out but that was just an under pressure captain losing it.

 

[morgieb]

As I expected.

It's not the DRS that's the problem, it's the mungos applying it.

 

[Furball]

Although to be honest a lot of the DRS 'controversy' this series has been Australians whinging abiut correct decisions.

 

[Furball]

It's bizarre but I'm struggling to think of a decision this series that has been clearly and obviously wrong that has been correctly overturned, such as Cook being given caught behind off his shoulder or the Michael Clarke decision at Adelaide.

It seems like everything that's going upstairs is extremely borderline.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The cost to spectators isn't really about time, obviously delays can be a frustration (and are unnecessary in this case, unlike say sightscreen issues), but I'm more concerned about the feeling of watching the game. I find watching a bad decision with DRS infinitely more frustrating than an on the spot mistake by the umpire, I miss the significance of the moment of the umpire's verdict, which is one of the most exciting parts of cricket, and so on. Yeah maybe those things would be worth it if the results were conclusive, as with run outs for example, but to bother going through all that for the decisions today just hurts the experience of watching the game significantly for no real benefit.

Imagine watching football if every goal was sent to video review with a 50% chance of being overturned on some random technicality. Ignoring the time and the accuracy of the decisions and everything, obviously that would reduce the excitement of a goal being scored, you'd just be waiting on the replay. That's essentially how DRS feels to me as a spectator. Bad umpiring decisions never bothered me that much, though.