Decision Review System

[MG MG]

Australia were robbed twice from LBW's with Warner and Henriques given out LBW after inside edging onto their pads.

For Warner, he may have been robbed of a much needed ODI hundred while Henriques possibly his spot in the side.

After Clarke used up the one review, Warner and Henriques couldn't review and had to walk off, both showing there distaste.

I agree with Mark Taylor that it should be just that the umpires should umpire and if there is a clear mistake then the 3rd umpire should say "hang on a minute". That way Australia would be in a much better position then they are now, and they shouldn't be.

What are your thoughts on the DRS and those decisions?

 

[frankrizzo]

Some third umps would check if it's lbw every time the ball touches the pad, some would ignore obviously doubtful decisions and let them stand, It would be god awful an it's already failed when tried at domestic level..

teams need to stop reviewing in hope and actually save reviews for clearly wrong and easily reversible decisions, the drs isn't perfect but it works when used correctly.

If Australia had used the drs system only for howlers today then the drs would have worked.

 

[BarneyBent]

3rd umpire idea should probably happen. If its clear like that, the decision can be reversed immediately. Wouldn't be opposed to 2 reviews an innings for ODIs either.

Other than that, it really doesn't need to be changed. It's the players that need to change, not the system (although on an unrelated note, the umpire's call needs to refer to the umpire's call regarding that particular element of the call, not overall).

 

[Gough]

I wish they would trying stop making an imperfect game perfect. Human error has been part of cricket lore as long as it's been played.

 

[CQSUN]

I don't like the idea of it being on the hands of the third umpire, it will just end up really messy with batsmen who are clearly out hanging around in the hope of the decision overturned or batsmen halfway off the field and being recalled. I also think that umpires will give each decision out by default knowing that the decision will be checked anyway.

In my opinion the DRS should remain in the players hands although instead of having 1 review per innings in the case of an ODI, each team should have 2 reviews for the game. That way if a batsman wastes a review they are taking one that could be used by the entire team in the bowling innings. In test matches each team should have 3 reviews for the first two innings and 3 reviews for the second two innings. (poorly explained I know).

 

[Speck]

Yeah it was poorly used today. In ODIs if you are given out LBW you should never review unless you hit it or something is 100% wrong, not a hopeful thing like Clarke had. Especially with umpires call the way it is.

 

[The_Reaper]

Australia were robbed twice from LBW's with Warner and Henriques given out LBW after inside edging onto their pads.

For Warner, he may have been robbed of a much needed ODI hundred while Henriques possibly his spot in the side.

After Clarke used up the one review, Warner and Henriques couldn't review and had to walk off, both showing there distaste.

I agree with Mark Taylor that it should be just that the umpires should umpire and if there is a clear mistake then the 3rd umpire should say "hang on a minute". That way Australia would be in a much better position then they are now, and they shouldn't be.

What are your thoughts on the DRS and those decisions?

Blame Clarke for using it so poorly.

 

[OrdinaryJoel]

Blame Clarke for using it so poorly.

This. It's the Captains duty to use it wisely. Instead, he misused it and as a result, his two chances to review actual 50/50 cases are gone.

 

[grizzlym]

I hate it.
From the re-writing of rules i.e. has to hit 50% of a stump, to the stupidity of the referrals introducing a tactical element into the game.

Why is it there in the first place? To eliminate bad decisions from the game, presumably. Well, that clearly failed today.

Indeed, for me, the Warner dismissal illustrates perfectly how inadequate it all is.

I'd be more than happy to go back to the umpires controlling the game entirely.

 

[grizzlym]

I don't see why you put a system in place that can eliminate bad decisions, yet you make it conditional on 'having an appeal in the bank'.

Why allow any referrals if you're only going to implement it conditionally? It seems counter to the idea of why it's there in the first place.

 

[placebo]

If they're dead set on it being a part of the game, then 2 an innings for Tests/ODI's and if you screw it up, too bad, your own fault. Not a big deal or issue.

 

[sherb]

I don't see why you put a system in place that can eliminate bad decisions, yet you make it conditional on 'having an appeal in the bank'.

Why allow any referrals if you're only going to implement it conditionally? It seems counter to the idea of why it's there in the first place.

To prevent being overused by the players I guess. Else they would be referring literally everything.

 

[Russian]

1) 1 unsuccessful review per team per match in all formats, reviews not lost where the technology isn't able to do it (e.g. when only evidence of 'no edge' is hot spot because some morons said you can't use snicko, or when LBW hits outside that dodginess distance, not for a Hawkeye 'umpires call').
2) No committee meetings/hanging around or you lose the option.
3) Allow them to be called from the rooms (within 30 seconds). The idea being that the players on the field will only call them for edges, in the rooms they'll get a look at at least a front on replay before having to decide on whether an LBW is a howler.

 

[aussie1st]

The 3rd umpire option definitely is best in theory, but how it was used in the Big Bash was a mess from what I saw the players had no idea that system was in place.

Other option mentioned by Russian in having the people in the changing room calling it would also get rid of some of the stupid reviews being made lately.

 

[King Elvis]

Blame Clarke.

Players shouldn't refer unless they KNOW they aren't out; if they didn't that, Clarke wouldn't have, Warner would have.

Our own fault - nothing wrong with the system.

I'm glad it happened, it might wake people up to the fact that it was introduced to eliminate howlers, not for players to just have a guess and see what happens.

Give each team one referral per innings, BUT, make it so they don't lose it if they revert to Umpire's decision because it wasn't 100% definitive.

 

[Underdog]

Blame Clarke for using it so poorly.

I would have thought blaming the umpires for shit decisions would be more appropriate then having a go at Clarke for a fairly borderline, albeit incorrect result.

Both of these were thick edges, I think that cricket sides should have faith in international umpires to call these.

 

[Underdog]

Give each team one referral per innings, BUT, make it so they don't lose it if they revert to Umpire's decision because it wasn't 100% definitive.

I like this

 

[King Elvis]

Sorry, but when has a delivery that would've knocked middle stump out of the ground ever been 'borderline' ??

It's like Gillard being 'young and naive' when she was 32.

 

[grizzlym]

To prevent being overused by the players I guess. Else they would be referring literally everything.

Of course. But then you end up with this strange hybrid in place, which has become a tactical element in the game - just read back 'it was Clarke's fault for referring earlier in the innings' - where you have to 'know when to use it'. And when you don't, we get lumped with shocking decisions like the Warner one.

I ask myself: why is it in place in the first place? What are they trying to achieve with it? Because as it stands, it's 'get the right decision some of the time'.

 

[Phone]

I agree with Mark Taylor that it should be just that the umpires should umpire and if there is a clear mistake then the 3rd umpire should say "hang on a minute".

Mark Taylor got the system he wanted installed in domestic cricket

"It's just shocking, it's embarrassing"
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/594004.html

 

[Underdog]

Sorry, but when has a delivery that would've knocked middle stump out of the ground ever been 'borderline' ??

It's like Gillard being 'young and naive' when she was 32.

Half of the ball was hitting the very top of the stump when the ball bounced well outside the line and was high. Clarke reviewed with Warner and they agreed it was worth a challenge. I think they had reasonable grounds to.

 

[grizzlym]

I'm glad it happened, it might wake people up to the fact that it was introduced to eliminate howlers, not for players to just have a guess and see what happens.

Then it must annoy you seeing Warner go out like that.

 

[King Elvis]

Then it must annoy you seeing Warner go out like that.

Yes and no; the system is in place to prevent that, we misused it. Our fault.

Bad decisions will always be part of cricket, we all know that, I think most of us are comfortable with us - the LB Clarke referred was a 100% correct decision by the umpire, no ambiguity at all; it shouldn't have been reviewed.

I'm happy for 50/50 decisions to go with the umpire, swings and roundabouts and all of that, but not ones we're the batsman is just trying to fluke another life.

Like I said, one review, they don't lose it for Umpire's decision calls; it's their for the howlers (as designed), if the players want to be smart arses or gamble, then it's on their head if it bites them on the arse.

 

[grizzlym]

Yes and no; the system is in place to prevent that, we misused it. Our fault.

Bad decisions will always be part of cricket, we all know that, I think most of us are comfortable with us - the LB Clarke referred was a 100% correct decision by the umpire, no ambiguity at all; it shouldn't have been reviewed.

I'm happy for 50/50 decisions to go with the umpire, swings and roundabouts and all of that, but not ones we're the batsman is just trying to fluke another life.

Like I said, one review, they don't lose it for Umpire's decision calls; it's their for the howlers (as designed), if the players want to be smart arses or gamble, then it's on their head if it bites them on the arse.

I dunno. Warner urged Clarke to review that decision. From the naked eye there was enough doubt there to do so. But, to my mind, I didn;t have a problem with that being given out. But for anyone to suggest Clarke shouldn't have, or imply it was ego, is off the mark. That was a reasonable decision to play the 'get out of jail free card' on. They both might have thought, 'nah, that wasn't out'.

Yet with Warner that was a clear mistake. A shocking decision. And to my mind that's exactly why DRS's in there. Rather than for the lineballs, to ascertain the maybes, but to prevent the absolute howler. You shouldn't have to make a call on those sort of decisions, it should just be done.

I dislike the conditionality of it all. How it's become a tactical element. Of when to play it.

 

[sherb]

While the decision to refer is in the hands of the players, the system will never be used solely to eliminate the howler.