DRS Dilemma

[Warnest]

At first glance, the revised DRS system where teams retain reviews for umpire's call verdict seems like a good change. But on closer inspection, this change actually gives umpires significantly more power, and more importantly, start promoting umpire bias towards the side who have used up their reviews. First off, umpires do not want to be criticised for their decisions, so in their opinion, marginal calls would go in favour of the team with no reviews left to avoid making a shocking decision, since the team with reviews left can always review and also not lose a review if it shows up as umpire's call. But because all DRS umpire's call decisions remains with the umpire's onfield call, this means the umpires suddenly wield significantly more power and bias then ever before. Previously teams would lose a review for umpire's call, meaning the umpire's get a strike against their call so umpires are far less likely.to favor one team over the other.

So what does this mean? As long as one team have used up their reviews and the other team still has reviews left, they can start appealing excessively for all marginal calls and more likely then not, the umpires would give all those calls in fear of making a howler - until the other team have used up their reviews (which might take forever since they can keep reviewing unsuccessfully but still keeping their review when it shows up as umpire's call).

 

[Warnest]

Case in point: Australia with no reviews left on day 5, a total of 3 appeals, all 3 given out, and can all be considered marginal calls, even as an Aussie.

 

[cnerd123]

You think very poorly of Elite umpires if you think their decision making is motivated by the number of reviews a team has left

First off, umpires do not want to be criticised for their decisions.

Like this is a straight up false assumption

 

[Warnest]

Motivated no, but surely plays in the back of their minds when they make a decision. Like the Woakes edge and caught behind: Aleem Dar who isn't your average day Bucknor, took about 10 seconds to decide, indicating that he wasn't 100% sure of the decision - but gave the benefit of the doubt to the side with no reviews left, in case he made a shocking decision. If he was sure of an edge, Aleem usually takes about 1-2 seconds most.

 

[Spark]

Neither of those reviews were "marginal" in the sense that you could argue there was reasonable grounds to give it out on the evidence. Both were clearly not out, the second in particular given the pattern of LBWs throughout the game. The (final) Smith LBW and the Moeen LBW, okay, I could see those being marginal in the sense of reasonable doubt, but not those.

The grand irony is that people who don't like DRS, in their calls for traditionalism, are railing against such new-found inventions such as "LBWs probably shouldn't be given when the batsman is hit above the knee-roll on bouncy pitches" and "if you hear a nick and the bat has gone by to the ball with no other possible source of noise, he's hit it"