India may finally adopt DRS

[Smoooothy]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/c...le-gets-on-board/story-fni2usfi-1226860794281

i think this is a good thing. would rather see everyone use it or no one at all.

 

[Aussie_boy]

About time!! Have it for everyone or don't have it at all is the way I see it.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Shame. They're the only country that have the right idea.

 

[The_Reaper]

Shame. They're the only country that have the right idea.

The DRS really needs to be clarified.

It either sticks to the umpires call unless there is conclusive evidence or the third umpire gets to make his own judgment on the decision. If one of the philosophies was stuck to, most of the problems would be gone.

 

[swingdog]

So soon after Sachin's retirement; what a coincidence.

 

[Phone]

The DRS really needs to be clarified.

It either sticks to the umpires call unless there is conclusive evidence or the third umpire gets to make his own judgment on the decision. If one of the philosophies was stuck to, most of the problems would be gone.

conclusive evidence is subjective tho

 

[Cleavy]

I'll believe it when I see it

 

[The_Reaper]

conclusive evidence is subjective tho

If you have to spend 3-4 minutes reviewing the same footage it isn't conclusive at all.

DRS should only be used for the howlers where it's immediately obvious that someone hit the ball, that someone was plumb etc.

 

[frankrizzo]

Used correctly i think the current drs is the best system we have, but any system is only as good as it's weakest links so while we have arrogant skippers who gamble on drs when they they are desperate for a wicket and poor umpires who can't follow the rules they are mean to it won't work perfectly.

The biggest howler for me was actually giving the players more reviews to waste(80 over reset), give them just 1 per innings and force them to actually use it on something they know instantly is a howler.

Still i will take the current drs over no drs at all, just watch any indian series to remind yourself of how bad it is to have the old system, even used poorly the drs is better than nothing at all.

 

[frankrizzo]

As for india it wouldn't surprise me if in the wake of their successful complete take over of cricket that they give up the drs opposition, i always felt it was more of a muscle flexing exercise than a genuine concern over the system and now that they own us all they don't need to bother with such petty actions.

 

[The_Reaper]

As for india it wouldn't surprise me if in the wake of their successful complete take over of cricket that they give up the drs opposition, i always felt it was more of a muscle flexing exercise than a genuine concern over the system and now that they own us all they don't need to bother with such petty actions.

Nah. Tendulkar was the one against it. Judging by some of his onfield actions I actually always thought Dhoni wanted it.

Now Tendulkar is retired there is no reason to not have it.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Great article by Martin Crowe

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/730311.html

Take a look at an imaginary scenario, of the sort often seen in Tests now (although not necessarily off consecutive balls as described below).

A batsman is hit on the pad and is given out. Knowing it's a 50-50 call, that he is a key batsman, and that his team has two unsuccessful challenges, he decides to review. The ball-tracking predictive path shows the ball clipping the leg stump by a whisker, so with the benefit going to the umpire, and not the batsman, the lbw is upheld. The batsman walks off convinced there was doubt about might have happened. He's convinced if the DRS wasn't in use, he would have been given the benefit of doubt, so he rues the system. The umpire himself learns that it only just clipped the top of the leg stump. He is relieved, yet also perhaps startled at how close it was, and put in two minds, remembering that in the pre-DRS days, it was the batsman who usually got the benefit of any doubt.

With the next ball, the new batsman receives the same delivery. He is hit on the pads, and this time, after much rumination, is given not out by the same umpire. The fielding captain, knowing it's 50-50 and that he has two unsuccessful challenges left, decides to review. The predictive path shows the ball just clipping the leg stump, not inside the "zone of certainty", so the review is turned down, the batsman and the umpire getting the benefit, the fielding side losing a challenge. The batsman previously given out is watching in the dressing room as he undoes his pads. He's fuming.

Next ball, there is another shout for lbw. Again, it looks similar to the one before, so the umpire gives it not out. The fielding captain, knowing he has one unsuccessful challenge left, decides that again it's worth the gamble to remove this key new batsman, so calls for another review. The predictive path shows the ball just hitting leg stump, but a little closer to the middle of the stump. In fact, when it's zoomed in really close, it has hit the leg stump only a fraction inside where the previous ball struck. But as it is hitting the centre line of the stump, and is therefore inside the "zone of certainty", the third umpire must tell the umpire in the middle to reverse his decision and give the batsman out. The umpire in the middle crosses his arms and raises his finger. The batsman and umpire have both been denied the benefit, while the fielding captain is utensil-a-hoop because his gamble has paid off. On top of that, he keeps his one remaining challenge alive.

In three balls you have a snapshot of the ridiculous system the ICC has hung its hat on. Zone of certainty? For something that never happened, was simply predicted? No wonder so many players think it is flawed - though they rarely say it out loud in case of retribution. Also, it is little wonder the fans think it's madness, because it's confusing, complex and often contradictory.

 

[Marshland]

Nah. Tendulkar was the one against it. Judging by some of his onfield actions I actually always thought Dhoni wanted it.

Now Tendulkar is retired there is no reason to not have it.

For example?

 

[Smoooothy]

So, what the * ever have happened to this?

 

[Slax]

India have painted themselves into a corner and until there is something new with DRS they won't change their stance

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I think India have a point. Where's the proof the DRS is 100% effective? I also think Shane Warne has a point. It's either all in or all out. You can't have some matches using it and others not using it.

For me, I've really enjoyed watching players just getting on with it rather than holding committee meetings every 2 or 3 overs. Unless something was obviously wrong, then get on with it.

I liked a comment from Ian Chappell last summer when Joe Root felt wronged by an umpire's decision and was walking around with that look he has of a baby pouting because he's had his rattle taken away. He walked to his team mate to discuss it, and Chappell said "Well, if it's a bad call, just refer it". I agree.

The things that are being reviewed sometimes are only hopes that an umpire has made a bad call, and that is NOT what the DRS was introduced to address. Anything that needs to be discussed for 15 seconds or more is NOT a howler.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The biggest howler for me was actually giving the players more reviews to waste(80 over reset), give them just 1 per innings and force them to actually use it on something they know instantly is a howler.

Agree. It should be one per team per innings. And the reason for only one is if the review is for an obviously incorrect call, then they will still have that one review in the bank. Waste it, then it's gone. It will stop all these ridiculous reviews and tactics captains use to get a wicket.

 

[04 Durif]

There is footage somewhere of Bill Lawry saying hawk eye must have spent the arvo in the pub. Some of the trajectories the ball takes are fascinating. Channel nine don't criticise it but you can tell when they don't agree.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Hawk-Eye officials have admitted that their review technology made an error in a decision to give Pakistan opener Shan Masood out in the second Test against New Zealand in Dubai last month.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/809021.html

 

[Cleavy]

I think India have a point. Where's the proof the DRS is 100% effective? I also think Shane Warne has a point. It's either all in or all out. You can't have some matches using it and others not using it.

Ideally, the ICC should be running/administrating the game and technologies, not the BCCI.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

There is footage somewhere of Bill Lawry saying hawk eye must have spent the arvo in the pub. Some of the trajectories the ball takes are fascinating. Channel nine don't criticise it but you can tell when they don't agree.

Yep, there have been a few where I've watched hawkeye predict the trajectory of the ball and I've thought, "no way". That's not to say it was wrong, but sometimes you really question just how accurate it really is.

 

[swampy]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/809021.html

this is the massive problem with DRS. Hawkeye is a load of s**t. I'd be all in favour of DRS minus the "projection" rubbish. I.e use it to test if something actually happened (e.g. did he nick it or not, did he get hit outside the line or not), but NOT whether it "would have" hit the stumps or not. Let the umpire decide that (the most difficult/subjective part) and use technology to assist with the other, more objective elements.

 

[PrideOf]

Should be a 90-second time limit. If you need 500 replays to confirm an edge, it's not conclusive.

It was brought in for the howler only. Let's start using it that way.

 

[ioppolo]

They had a few shockers in this test, maybe they'll finally adopt it.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Ideally, the ICC should be running/administrating the game and technologies, not the BCCI.

With help from CA and the ECB, the BCCI are running/administering the ICC. So even if the ICC did run the game, its only the BCCI in dusguise.