No DRS - why bother?

[LukeParkerno1]

Agree to disagree with percentage I guess
Bat/Pad has nothing to do with Eagle Eye though?

Pad then bat, particularly against spinners. I hate them being given. You won't convince me they should be given.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I wouldn't.

Or do you think that LBWs given where the batsman smashes the ball into his pad should stand?

You need to get rid of the speculative grounds for lbw review (ie ball going on to hit the stumps).

And retain the measurable grounds - ie where the ball pitches, impact with pad and did the batsman hit it first.

That is the inside edges, no issue with them being reversed. I don't see the need for LBWS, meaning Eagle Eye. It isn't 100% accurate.

 

[sherb]

That is the inside edges, no issue with them being reversed. I don't see the need for LBWS, meaning Eagle Eye. It isn't 100% accurate.

FYI.

LBW does not mean Eagle Eye.

They are two separate things.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

FYI.

LBW does not mean Eagle Eye.

They are two separate things.

Then get rid of Eagle Eye, it is rubbish. Too often 50/50 decisions are being overturned. These are NOT howlers if they are 'just' in the strike zone.

 

[Badesumofu]

There is nothing subjective in the LBW law and it isn't a matter of opinion. It referees to things like western the ball is outside the line of off stump and whether the ball would go on to hit the stumps. Those aren't subjective questions.

 

[Fat Nyfe]

I don't think I'll watch anymore non-DRS tests

See ya. For the record, I think the DRS is common sense but cricket survived for a long time without it and we'll survive this 4 match series without it. Just sick of people throwing their toys out the cot.

 

[swampy]

I think there are two main issues with DRS:

1) Use in LBWs
I agree with posters who say Hawkeye/Eagle-eye should NOT be used! It's a computer projection of "what would have happened" that can never be validated, has proven errors (see recent Pakistan Test where the Eagle-Eye company admits the projection was wrong), and encourages speculative reviews.

I would not allow teams to challenge the umpire's opinion on two subjective elements of the LBW law:

1. Would the ball have hit the stumps or not?
2. Was the batsman offering a shot (if hit outside the line)?

I would allow teams to challenge the three other objective elements:

A. Did the ball pitch outside leg stump?
B. Did the ball hit bat first?
C. Did the ball hit in line (if the umpire adjudged that the batsman was offering a shot)?​

To work in practice, the umpire would have to supply more information after an appeal, e.g.

• "Out" (reviewable by batsman for A/B/C above)
• "Out - no shot offered" (reviewable by batsman for A/B)
• "Not Out - not hitting stumps" (not reviewable)
• "Not Out - pitched outside leg" (reviewable by fielding team for A)
• "Not Out - hit bat first" (reviewable by fielding team for B)
• "Not Out - hit outside the line and shot offered" (reviewable by fielding team for C)

I don't think this is a big burden for umpires - for most appeals, the umpire could just say "Not out - not hitting" and that's the end of it, for a smaller proportion of appeals that are hitting the stumps but not LBW for other reasons, they'd have to explain the decision (which is not a bad thing)

2) Inconsistent use / availability of technology to assess edges (live snicko, hotspot etc):

Agree with other posters who say the ICC needs to step in and ensure all Tests have equal access to the DRS technology, it's farcical if it depends on the host broadcaster. We're lucky in Australia that we have access to the latest and greatest but can't blame poorer countries for not ponying up the big $$ to implement hotspot or whatever.

The guidelines for overturning a caught behind decision/non-decision where there's nothing on Hotspot but a faint sound on snicko also needs to be worked out - those are extremely contentious.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Until the system is 100% perfect then I'd rather back the umpires. I am not a fan of LBW's being subject to DRS.

Nothing will ever be 100% perfect.

That expectation is ridiculous

Even run outs/stumping a which have been used for decades aren't 100%.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Nothing will ever be 100% perfect.

That expectation is ridiculous

Even run outs/stumping a which have been used for decades aren't 100%.

Then stick with the umpires decisions. It has worked for 100 years (and more), it will work for many years to come. Happy to use technology for inside edges or when a batsman misses the ball and is given out caught behind, BUT leave LBW's to the on field umpires.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Then stick with the umpires decisions. It has worked for 100 years (and more), it will work for many years to come. Happy to use technology for inside edges or when a batsman misses the ball and is given out caught behind, BUT leave LBW's to the on field umpires.

I'm apathetic to DRS. I don't really care one way or another.

So Damien Martyn smashes one onto his pad and Buckner fires him... But he can't review that inside edge.

But he inside edges it and caught behind and that can be reviewed.

Seems a little half pregnant

Hot spot, hawk eye, snick are all great tools... None are perfect but as a combination are more accurate than an umpire. But ultimately it needs to be funded and mandated by the icc. If that isn't to be the case - throw the lot out

The Australian hawk eye is significantly more accurate than some of the overseas technology as they have more frames per second, hence more data and less margin for error.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm apathetic to DRS. I don't really care one way or another.

So Damien Martyn smashes one onto his pad and Buckner fires him... But he can't review that inside edge.

But he inside edges it and caught behind and that can be reviewed.

Seems a little half pregnant

Hot spot, hawk eye, snick are all great tools... None are perfect but as a combination are more accurate than an umpire. But ultimately it needs to be funded and mandated by the icc. If that isn't to be the case - throw the lot out

The Australian hawk eye is significantly more accurate than some of the overseas technology as they have more frames per second, hence more data and less margin for error.

You can review any inside edge. You can use hot spot. You SHOULD NOT be able to use a silly computer projection on an LBW. That is all Eagle Eye/Hawk Eye is. It is purely a projection. Your last line is exactly the reason why Eagle Eye should never be used, countries have different versions, some which are nowhere near accurate enough. Use the other tools- hot spot and snicko even, but leave Eagle Eye out. Takes out a lot of the uncertainty.

 

[Wallaby]

Have you guys actually studied how the Hawk-eye projection works? It's not some bloke scratching his head and going 'Yeah, nah, bit more bounce on that one, mate'. Go here http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/ and read up on it.

The error in the recent Pakistan test was basically caused by operator error - the wrong data was entered. Like any computerized system, enter garbage data in...........

Tennis seems to have been fine with Hawkeye for years. It's going to be put into soccer. The same rules apply as cricket - they will only overrule IF a definite mistake has been made - otherwise the call on the field stays. NRL uses it. Lots and Lots of sports use video replays of all sorts.

I DONT WANT umpiring errors and inconsistencies to be a 'just a part of the game' - umpires only exist in sport to keep the game flowing and adjudicate on issues where the opponents cant agree. You don't need an umpire to adjudicate when the ball is hit into the grandstand. You don't need umpires when the stumps are flattened. If it's a fine judgement call - let's use whatever we have to get it right.

The game is played between 22 players - 11 per side. Not 22 players and two umpires.

Either that, or stop showing hi-def, slo-mo replays that just demonstrate the errors. If the technology is not available, of course you use the umpires - because they are the best you have in that case.

 

[swampy]

Have you guys actually studied how the Hawk-eye projection works? It's not some bloke scratching his head and going 'Yeah, nah, bit more bounce on that one, mate'. Go here http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/ and read up on it.

The error in the recent Pakistan test was basically caused by operator error - the wrong data was entered. Like any computerized system, enter garbage data in...........

Tennis seems to have been fine with Hawkeye for years. It's going to be put into soccer. The same rules apply as cricket - they will only overrule IF a definite mistake has been made - otherwise the call on the field stays. NRL uses it. Lots and Lots of sports use video replays of all sorts.

Big difference between use of Hawkeye in cricket and tennis.. in tennis they are using technology to determine WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED (did the ball land in or out), not to create a projection of WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Like I said above - no problem using video to check for inside edges, did he get hit outside the line etc, but NOT to replace the umpire's judgment on whether the ball would hit the stumps or not.

In fact, I'm not aware of *any* other sport that uses technology to review an umpire's judgment calls (e.g. in NFL whether there was pass interference).

 

[sherb]

Have you guys actually studied how the Hawk-eye projection works? It's not some bloke scratching his head and going 'Yeah, nah, bit more bounce on that one, mate'. Go here http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/ and read up on it.

The error in the recent Pakistan test was basically caused by operator error - the wrong data was entered. Like any computerized system, enter garbage data in...........

Tennis seems to have been fine with Hawkeye for years. It's going to be put into soccer. The same rules apply as cricket - they will only overrule IF a definite mistake has been made - otherwise the call on the field stays. NRL uses it. Lots and Lots of sports use video replays of all sorts.

I DONT WANT umpiring errors and inconsistencies to be a 'just a part of the game' - umpires only exist in sport to keep the game flowing and adjudicate on issues where the opponents cant agree. You don't need an umpire to adjudicate when the ball is hit into the grandstand. You don't need umpires when the stumps are flattened. If it's a fine judgement call - let's use whatever we have to get it right.

The game is played between 22 players - 11 per side. Not 22 players and two umpires.

Either that, or stop showing hi-def, slo-mo replays that just demonstrate the errors. If the technology is not available, of course you use the umpires - because they are the best you have in that case.

I actually want Eagle Eye removed from the DRS to lessen the use of LBW reviews as a tactic.

Aka the Watson phenomenon.

So - if the batsman knows he didn't hit it - and he can confirm with his batting partner that he was hit in line - he won't review (assuming it was an lbw involving the ball pitching nowhere near the line of leg stump).

None of this reviewing an lbw decision in the hope it might be missing the stumps by a bee's Richard crap. Leave that call with the umpires.

I've rarely if ever seen an umpire give an LBW when the ball is shown to be going on to miss the stumps by a country kilometre.

 

[sherb]

I think there are two main issues with DRS:

1) Use in LBWs
I agree with posters who say Hawkeye/Eagle-eye should NOT be used! It's a computer projection of "what would have happened" that can never be validated, has proven errors (see recent Pakistan Test where the Eagle-Eye company admits the projection was wrong), and encourages speculative reviews.

I would not allow teams to challenge the umpire's opinion on two subjective elements of the LBW law:

1. Would the ball have hit the stumps or not?
2. Was the batsman offering a shot (if hit outside the line)?

I would allow teams to challenge the three other objective elements:

A. Did the ball pitch outside leg stump?
B. Did the ball hit bat first?
C. Did the ball hit in line (if the umpire adjudged that the batsman was offering a shot)?​

To work in practice, the umpire would have to supply more information after an appeal, e.g.

• "Out" (reviewable by batsman for A/B/C above)
• "Out - no shot offered" (reviewable by batsman for A/B)
• "Not Out - not hitting stumps" (not reviewable)
• "Not Out - pitched outside leg" (reviewable by fielding team for A)
• "Not Out - hit bat first" (reviewable by fielding team for B)
• "Not Out - hit outside the line and shot offered" (reviewable by fielding team for C)

I don't think this is a big burden for umpires - for most appeals, the umpire could just say "Not out - not hitting" and that's the end of it, for a smaller proportion of appeals that are hitting the stumps but not LBW for other reasons, they'd have to explain the decision (which is not a bad thing)

You've pretty much nailed it there brother. Kudos.

I particularly agree with trying to eliminate speculative (or tactical) reviews. I strongly believe that the DRS should be there to eliminate major stuffups and not as a vehicle for batsmen to review in hope.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

We got along fine for many thousands of years without toilets, why do we need them now?

 

[Mateyman]

I wouldn't.

Or do you think that LBWs given where the batsman smashes the ball into his pad should stand?

You need to get rid of the speculative grounds for lbw review (ie ball going on to hit the stumps).

And retain the measurable grounds - ie where the ball pitches, impact with pad and did the batsman hit it first.

They are subjective, these pad/bat LBWS that are being overturned are ridiculous. They go against everything that is about cricket. We don't need eagle eye. Just use hot spot for the edges.

Look at the Vijay pad up to the ball which was smashing into middle yesterday. You don't see anything speculative about that. It's just out, and should be given 99% of the time. Nothing subjective about it

 

[Mateyman]

Then stick with the umpires decisions. It has worked for 100 years (and more), it will work for many years to come. Happy to use technology for inside edges or when a batsman misses the ball and is given out caught behind, BUT leave LBW's to the on field umpires.

Hmmm...bullet proof armour isn't 100% effective. Wars have been fought without it for many years.
Logical conclusion:
I won't use bullet proof armour and will just rock up in shorts and a t-shirt to a warren

 

[Mateyman]

Have you guys actually studied how the Hawk-eye projection works? It's not some bloke scratching his head and going 'Yeah, nah, bit more bounce on that one, mate'. Go here http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/ and read up on it.

The error in the recent Pakistan test was basically caused by operator error - the wrong data was entered. Like any computerized system, enter garbage data in...........
.

Average punter logic: my eyes are more accurate than a highly accurate computer projection calibrated from many angles

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Look at the Vijay pad up to the ball which was smashing into middle yesterday. You don't see anything speculative about that. It's just out, and should be given 99% of the time. Nothing subjective about it

Yet the other one against Kholi I'm happy for it to be not be given. One mistake doesn't mean a computer projection is right.

 

[Mateyman]

Yet the other one against Kholi I'm happy for it to be not be given. One mistake doesn't mean a computer projection is right.

Pitching on middle, hitting in front of middle, hitting 3/4 of the way up middle. Pretty out looking to me

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Pitching on middle, hitting in front of middle, hitting 3/4 of the way up middle. Pretty out looking to me

Sweeping where there is bounce, 50/50, hitting the top of the stumps with a 'projection'. Umpire said not out, happy for the umpires word on LBWS.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Have you guys actually studied how the Hawk-eye projection works? It's not some bloke scratching his head and going 'Yeah, nah, bit more bounce on that one, mate'. Go here http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/ and read up on it.

The error in the recent Pakistan test was basically caused by operator error - the wrong data was entered. Like any computerized system, enter garbage data in...........

Tennis seems to have been fine with Hawkeye for years. It's going to be put into soccer. The same rules apply as cricket - they will only overrule IF a definite mistake has been made - otherwise the call on the field stays. NRL uses it. Lots and Lots of sports use video replays of all sorts.

I DONT WANT umpiring errors and inconsistencies to be a 'just a part of the game' - umpires only exist in sport to keep the game flowing and adjudicate on issues where the opponents cant agree. You don't need an umpire to adjudicate when the ball is hit into the grandstand. You don't need umpires when the stumps are flattened. If it's a fine judgement call - let's use whatever we have to get it right.

The game is played between 22 players - 11 per side. Not 22 players and two umpires.

Either that, or stop showing hi-def, slo-mo replays that just demonstrate the errors. If the technology is not available, of course you use the umpires - because they are the best you have in that case.

All that work and they admitted that a batsman in the recent Pakistan v NZ test given out by eagle eye when he was originally given not out was wrong.

Use it for where the ball pitched/visible edges. Piss off eagle eye, and I'm really not sure about Hot Spot. If you need an intense thermal camera to see a tiny speck that might be an edge, that should not be overturned.

Also this farce of having reviews reset after 80 overs. You're encouraging sides to review lineball decisions, and therefore basically encouraging controversy.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I enjoyed watching a Test match with no DRS. I can live without team meetings every 2-3 overs to determine whether to challenge the umpire's authority in the hope he may have got it wrong.

I'm not against DRS, I'm just against how it is used. It's there for correction in the case where the umpire has got something horribly wrong, i.e. "The Howler". It could have been used to reverse Dhawan's decision, and the LBW for Vijay that was plumb and given not out. I have no problem with it being used for obvious poor decisions.

However, to see very close decisions challenged all the time, simply in the hope the umpire MAY have been wrong just rubs me up the wrong way. We often see reviews where the umpire was right, so there was obviously no "howler" there.

Either we leave the DRS up to the third umpire, which could mean every second ball being reviewed, or we leave it with the players, but only ONE review per innings. That way, captains wouldn't be so quick to use it.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I enjoyed watching a Test match with no DRS. I can live without team meetings every 2-3 overs to determine whether to challenge the umpire's authority in the hope he may have got it wrong.

I'm not against DRS, I'm just against how it is used. It's there for correction in the case where the umpire has got something horribly wrong, i.e. "The Howler". It could have been used to reverse Dhawan's decision, and the LBW for Vijay that was plumb and given not out. I have no problem with it being used for obvious poor decisions.

However, to see very close decisions challenged all the time, simply in the hope the umpire MAY have been wrong just rubs me up the wrong way. We often see reviews where the umpire was right, so there was obviously no "howler" there.

Either we leave the DRS up to the third umpire, which could mean every second ball being reviewed, or we leave it with the players, but only ONE review per innings. That way, captains wouldn't be so quick to use it.

Notice how quickly everyone moved on without DRS. When 50/50 decisions are reviewed they're argued for days. This Test however everyone seems to have gone "umpire made a mistake, oh well" and moved on. Much more how the game should be played.