Decision Review System

[Kane McGoodwin]

Hardly a comparison really.

Sure don't change something if it is woriking OK, but if you can improve something with technology, why wouldn't you? The world doesn't stay the same & doesn't change the game.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Australia only ran out of reviews due to reviewing a plumb LBW. Their own fault and I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. System actually worked perfectly well on that occasion. Interestingly, Wade did the same thing in the very next match, so perhaps teams need to realise that they may get on the wrong side of a marginal one every now and then. Either way, reviewing every single decision that goes against the batsman will end up like runouts and stumpings, where if the stumps get hit with the batsman anywhere within two metres of the crease it goes upstairs.

Current system is about as good and workable as it gets i reckon.

Plumb? Only just hit the top of middle stump. Plumb is half-way up middle stump.

1 review is not enough IMO.

 

[Father Jack]

Plumb? Only just hit the top of middle stump. Plumb is half-way up middle stump.

1 review is not enough IMO.

Of course it's enough, if you want to waste them by reviewing them in the hope that its missing then too bad. IF Clarke thought that was a howler then just about every LBW is a howler.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Of course it's enough, if you want to waste them by reviewing them in the hope that its missing then too bad. IF Clarke thought that was a howler then just about every LBW is a howler.

The issue was that it was a smidgeon from missing - certainly not plumb though also not a howler.

So having wrong decisions made we should just accept when we have the technology to fix it? Imagine if runouts were still decided by the naked eye...

Players careers can be decided by a poor decision.

 

[krisholio14]

Sure don't change something if it is woriking OK, but if you can improve something with technology, why wouldn't you? The world doesn't stay the same & doesn't change the game.

But that's my point.

It really hasn't improved anything.

 

[Scotland]

To me, there is no ambiguity as to the purpose of the DRS - to eliminate howlers, rather than to overturn iffy ones (this illustrated by the fact that teams only get a very limited number of reviews. If players want to manipulate that and try to take advantage, then they can't complain if things go against them later.

I think the '50% of the ball' and 'umpires call' factors are there so the system is for overturning howlers rather than iffy decisions more so than each team only having two reviews per innings, which I'd say are there to keep the game flowing. You don't want each close decision/non-decision reviewed or you'd only get 50 overs a day in.

If Hawkeye shows the ball just pitching inside leg stump and just clipping the top of the bails then it's not really a howler if you're given out or not out. Players need to learn that the current system is not there to overturn every incorrect decision, just the ones that are blatantly wrong. If you look at Warner vs SL from last week or Mitchell Johnson vs Ian Bell in the 2009 Ashes you're looking at blatantly wrong decisions, where you watch it live and say 'how the hell did they get that wrong???'. With Clarke's decision against SL which was not overturned you'd expect to see it given out some times and not out others - so it's not a howler.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But that's my point.

It really hasn't improved anything.

92% to 96% has halved the poor decisions - surely that is an improvement?

Why not try & get it closer to 100%? Would that not make it fairer?

 

[Father Jack]

92% to 96% has halved the poor decisions - surely that is an improvement?

Why not try & get it closer to 100%? Would that not make it fairer?

Not worth it at the expense of having to review everything. Batsmen know the difference between 'definitely not out' and 'I'm not 100% certain that I'm out'. So do the bowlers.

 

[krisholio14]

92% to 96% has halved the poor decisions - surely that is an improvement?

Why not try & get it closer to 100%? Would that not make it fairer?

They are never going to get it to 100%. And unless they do, there is always going to be squealing about bad decisions. i prefer to see players suck it up like Clarke did on Tuesday.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

They are never going to get it to 100%. And unless they do, there is always going to be squealing about bad decisions. i prefer to see players suck it up like Clarke did on Tuesday.

Clarke didn't have a problem as he got to review - Warner didn't look as impressed & gather Henriques wasn't happy with a shocker when he is trying to make the most of his selection.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Not worth it at the expense of having to review everything. Batsmen know the difference between 'definitely not out' and 'I'm not 100% certain that I'm out'. So do the bowlers.

I'm not suggesting reviewing every ball - just evey wicket. How long would it take to review all the wickets in a game - not much in the scheme of things.

There are other things which slow the game down more - like Captains forever making field changes.

 

[krisholio14]

I'm not suggesting reviewing every ball - just evey wicket. How long would it take to review all the wickets in a game - not much in the scheme of things.

There are other things which slow the game down more - like Captains forever making field changes.

So why have umpires on the ground at all? I'm sure the ICC could commission some very nice hat racks to stand at either end while someone sits in the box and pores over tape of every single delivery.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So why have umpires on the ground at all? I'm sure the ICC could commission some very nice hat racks to stand at either end while someone sits in the box and pores over tape of every single delivery.

Still need them to control the game, just like they have since calling for reviews on run-outs. Also, need them to decide when there is likely a wicket, otherwise would be reviewing every ball!

 

[krisholio14]

Still need them to control the game, just like they have since calling for reviews on run-outs. Also, need them to decide when there is likely a wicket, otherwise would be reviewing every ball!

Yes but if you want perfection, that's the point we are getting to here.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yes but if you want perfection, that's the point we are getting to here.

There is a bit of difference between reviewing 10 wickets + say 5 incorrect reviews, than 300 balls!

 

[Stig O'Hara]

The LBW law is one of the great things about cricket, it is a theory law, it doesn’t actually happen.

Unique in any sport.

To me, it has been ruined with endless replays and .5 of a mm technology Hawkeye crap.

Someone sort it out, as I haven't a frigging clue anymore.

 

[krisholio14]

There is a bit of difference between reviewing 10 wickets + say 5 incorrect reviews, than 300 balls!

I'm being extreme of course, but then you're also being a bit simplistic.

I don't know how much domestic cricket you've watched this season, but if you've watched any you'd know how cumbersome an umpire driven review system is. They pretty much look at everything that isn't regulation.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'm being extreme of course, but then you're also being a bit simplistic.

I don't know how much domestic cricket you've watched this season, but if you've watched any you'd know how cumbersome an umpire driven review system is. They pretty much look at everything that isn't regulation.

In the domestic comp, they keep changing the DRS rules, particularly if a coach/player complains. Too much is now left to the players, when should be with the 3rd umpire.

 

[Balony_pony16]

so you mean having the batsman refuse to walk, so the 3rd ump views the replays. as per in the domestic review system.

No a player walks or faces a fine

 

[nick1408]

Why not go back to early last century with uncovered pitches...

When I was playing Adelaide Turf Cricket Association in 2010 they were still playing on uncovered wickets. "Early this century" may be more accurate...

 

[madmug]

No a player walks or faces a fine

That assumes the player is fully aware that he hit it or it was caught. Thats not always the case. I know it looks silly when a player obviously nicks it to 2nd slip & stands their, but its the players right to get the umpire to decide.

 

[1989]

If you automatically reviewed every batsman's dismissal you'd have to give the bowling team at least ten reviews to make it fair.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

When I was playing Adelaide Turf Cricket Association in 2010 they were still playing on uncovered wickets. "Early this century" may be more accurate...

I was referring to 1st class cricket

 

[Underdog]

Just thinking out loud...how about the following system?
Teams get X reviews.
Teams get to retain their review should the DRS deem it 'umpire's call'.
Should a team exhaust their allotted reviews and they still wish to review a call, they can do so. However, if the review is not in their favour, their side is penalised Y runs.

I'm thinking of a similar penalty to Indoor Cricket...

Surely an actual penalty for incorrect usage of a review is an appropriate way to further ensure they are used in the manner for which they are intended.

It will still be abused to an extent but it at least penalises the side for doing so.