Decision Review System

[Wallaby]

It doesn't work. As plenty have said - either use it for all decisions, or don't use it at all. Having 'referrals' is silly, as we have seen today - a correct decision should be made irrespective of what has gone on before. Every test match wicket is now reviewed for a no-ball.

But - I don't want the whole game held up for minutes every time there is a decision made. If it can't be implemented quickly - don't have it.

My thought is that reviews are there for howlers - and by tradition, in cricket, howlers are when the batsman is given out and he wasn't - if the batsman gets a life - well, that's just cricket. Umpire says not out - suck it up. So I am happy to review every dismissal for no ball, edges, where the ball pitched, and did the catch carry. Most dismissals won't require a review - today there would have only been 3 (the LBWs) and would only have taken 30 secs each, as it is pretty clear what had to be reviewed.

 

[grizzlym]

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

What do you think is the intent behind the current implementation?

What do you think it should be?

 

[sherb]

What do you think is the intent behind the current implementation?

What do you think it should be?

I have no idea what the intent is, it wouldn't surprised me if they looked at tennis and thought "that's a good idea".

I'll have to have a think about how it should be. But somehow I would like to see the players taken out of the equation.

While they are part of it, as I said, I don't believe it is possible for the system to be used just to eliminate the howler.

 

[DrVanNostrand]

If Clarke wasn't such a selfish prick, Warner could have reviewed, and Moises could have reviewed. Simple really. Don't blame the system when you have NFI how to use it.

 

[King Elvis]

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.

If you aren't certain you weren't out, you shouldn't refer it though.

Clarke obviously didnt KNOW he wasn't out, because he was out; so he shouldn't have referred it.

 

[Lensen]

you have one chance to review. it is in place to remove obvious errors

if you decide to use the chance to review an iffy one that's a chance you make as a team. stiff shit if you get it wrong. it's not a perfect game and has never been adjudicated perfectly

 

[sherb]

The gist of what Clarke said to the ABC interviewer was that Warner was the one who helped him make the decision to refer, because he (Warner) thought there may have been an inside edge and also because it may have been going over.

Clarke said he himself thought he was pretty plumb.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

The gist of what Clarke said to the ABC interviewer was that Warner was the one who helped him make the decision to refer, because he (Warner) thought there may have been an inside edge and also because it may have been going over.

Clarke said he himself thought he was pretty plumb.

Make of that what you will.

Well then he's even stupider to review it then. If there had been an inside edge, Clarke would have known it.

 

[DrVanNostrand]

The gist of what Clarke said to the ABC interviewer was that Warner was the one who helped him make the decision to refer, because he (Warner) thought there may have been an inside edge and also because it may have been going over.

Clarke said he himself thought he was pretty plumb.

Make of that what you will.

I don't believe that for a second. Taking the non-striker's word that he hit it? This guy will say anything to get the public to like him.

 

[sherb]

I don't believe that for a second. Taking the non-striker's word that he hit it? This guy will say anything to get the public to like him.

I was paraphrasing of course. But I am pretty sure I got it right.

As I said, make of it what you will.

I reckon he got a bit prickly when asked about it though. As if he knew he had stuffed up.

 

[grizzlym]

you have one chance to review. it is in place to remove obvious errors

To me, putting it in the hands of the players is flawed (like Sherb has said above). Getting a review wrong shouldn't mean that obvious errors can then stand.

My simplistic view of things is that the Warner decision is exactly why you'd have a DRS in place. And when it's in place it should remove terrible errors like that from the game.

 

[skipper kelly]

Everyone makes mistakes.

 

[MisterMarcus]

If you aren't certain you weren't out, you shouldn't refer it though.

Clarke obviously didnt KNOW he wasn't out, because he was out; so he shouldn't have referred it.

This.

Clarke would have known that it was very very close at best, if he was not out it could only be by 49% of the ball hitting the stumps! He should not have reviewed because he would have known deep down that it was very likely to be out.

We used it in the wrong way and paid the price. Yes the umps got it wrong but if you screw up your chance to review, you can't really sook about it.

 

[sherb]

This.

Clarke would have known that it was very very close at best, if he was not out it could only be by 49% of the ball hitting the stumps! He should not have reviewed because he would have known deep down that it was very likely to be out.

We used it in the wrong way and paid the price. Yes the umps got it wrong but if you screw up your chance to review, you can't really sook about it.

I agree.

This is the current system in place and it has to be used as wisely as possible.

That didn't happen on our part.

It has to be pointed out that Sri Lanka didn't use it wisely either. Their review was pretty awful, if they had had a howler against them later on they couldn't have reviewed it either.

 

[Furn2]

It doesn't work. As plenty have said - either use it for all decisions, or don't use it at all. Having 'referrals' is silly, as we have seen today - a correct decision should be made irrespective of what has gone on before. Every test match wicket is now reviewed for a no-ball.

But - I don't want the whole game held up for minutes every time there is a decision made. If it can't be implemented quickly - don't have it.

My thought is that reviews are there for howlers - and by tradition, in cricket, howlers are when the batsman is given out and he wasn't - if the batsman gets a life - well, that's just cricket. Umpire says not out - suck it up. So I am happy to review every dismissal for no ball, edges, where the ball pitched, and did the catch carry. Most dismissals won't require a review - today there would have only been 3 (the LBWs) and would only have taken 30 secs each, as it is pretty clear what had to be reviewed.

It was Symonds hitting the cover off it, not being given and going on to make to make 150 that led to India cracking the sads with Bucknor, that led to the call for DRS. Howlers go both ways.

Why should batsman be allowed to get away with being given not out when they are, but if they are given out wrongly they get endless reviews.

If you leave it to the umps discretion, to be fair to batsman and bowlersyou have to fully review every appeal, and they will. Just look at run outs.

T

 

[frankrizzo]

For test matches i would give teams a certain number of reviews for the whole match, top order bats are the biggest culprits when it comes to wasting reviews but if that wasted review was a review they couldn't use when bowling or in their second inning it might make them think twice about using it up when they know they are plumb.

Give a team 4 reviews for the entire match, waste them all in your first dig on plumb lbw's then cry me a river.

 

[1989]

Reviewing every dismissal would make umpires more likely to fire players out, knowing that it was going to be reviewed. Leave it in the hands of the players and give them two per innings. How they use them is their issue. Today it wasn't fair on Warner and Henriques, but it's a team game.

 

[Furn2]

The only solution I can think of is to allow the coach or a staff ump to make the call on whether to review an lbw.

Most wasted reviews for batting and bowling are lbs. it's tough on the non striker because he doesn't want to tell his teammate your out and risk it being not out, especially if he's a less senior player. The non striker also isnt really concentrating on looking for lbw and doesn't have the best angle to see.

Another option would be to give the striker or bowler/ captain a one off full speed replay to decide whether to refer.

 

[King Elvis]

To me, putting it in the hands of the players is flawed (like Sherb has said above). Getting a review wrong shouldn't mean that obvious errors can then stand.

My simplistic view of things is that the Warner decision is exactly why you'd have a DRS in place. And when it's in place it should remove terrible errors like that from the game.

But the Clarke referral shows why you can't just give the players the ability to refer anything in an attempt to save their own skin.

 

[frankrizzo]

The only solution I can think of is to allow the coach or a staff ump to make the call on whether to review an lbw.

Most wasted reviews for batting and bowling are lbs. it's tough on the non striker because he doesn't want to tell his teammate your out and risk it being not out, especially if he's a less senior player. The non striker also isnt really concentrating on looking for lbw and doesn't have the best angle to see.

Another option would be to give the striker or bowler/ captain a one off full speed replay to decide whether to refer.

There is most certainly an ego issue in all this, most top order bats around the world would rather waste every review than be the guy who chooses not to review and then the technology shows it would have missed the stumps by an inch.

For some reason one mistake in not reviewing is seen as worse than reviewing 20 and getting them all wrong.

 

[grizzlym]

But the Clarke referral shows why you can't just give the players the ability to refer anything in an attempt to save their own skin.

I'm not saying you do. I'm just saying as it currently stands it don't make sense to me.

 

[1989]

The only solution I can think of is to allow the coach or a staff ump to make the call on whether to review an lbw.

Most wasted reviews for batting and bowling are lbs. it's tough on the non striker because he doesn't want to tell his teammate your out and risk it being not out, especially if he's a less senior player. The non striker also isnt really concentrating on looking for lbw and doesn't have the best angle to see.

Another option would be to give the striker or bowler/ captain a one off full speed replay to decide whether to refer.

If the batsman knows it's definitely not out, there's no need for replays, etc. Otherwise, take the punt and deal with the consequences (good or bad). Also, how often would players be able to have a look at a replay to decide whether to refer? They'd be doing it all the time.

 

[Furn2]

If the batsman knows it's definitely not out, there's no need for replays, etc. Otherwise, take the punt and deal with the consequences (good or bad). Also, how often would players be able to have a look at a replay to decide whether to refer? They'd be doing it all the time.

Yeh, but they don't do that. They ask the non striker, who unless he's a senior player is going to say " yeah review it, might have been high etc" and to be fair it's hard to tell for sure if your out lb when batting.

To me it's unfair that non striker has to essentially make lbw decisions. It's very rare a player says sorry mate your out unless the batsman was standing on his stumps and its deadest plumb.

I can only think of Clarke last match, Strauss a couple of times and Kallis (. Wrongly) with Amla.

There's no way a third gamer is telling the captain and or star player to go.

 

[frankrizzo]

Yeh, but they don't do that. They ask the non striker, who unless he's a senior player is going to say " yeah review it, might have been high etc" and to be fair it's hard to tell for sure if your out lb when batting.

To me it's unfair that non striker has to essentially make lbw decisions. It's very rare a player says sorry mate your out unless the batsman was standing on his stumps and its deadest plumb.

I can only think of Clarke last match, Strauss a couple of times and Kallis (. Wrongly) with Amla.

There's no way a third gamer is telling the captain and or star player to go.

All of this is why the criticism with this system should be aimed at those who consistently abuse it(mostly selfish top order bats) or seem to have little understanding of how the system works.

If you need to go and ask your batting partner if it was a howler then it ain't a howler, perhaps when a player goes for a review they could show his strike rate for successful overturns it might guilt a few of them into thinking twice before wasting one.

 

[1989]

Yeh, but they don't do that. They ask the non striker, who unless he's a senior player is going to say " yeah review it, might have been high etc" and to be fair it's hard to tell for sure if your out lb when batting.

To me it's unfair that non striker has to essentially make lbw decisions. It's very rare a player says sorry mate your out unless the batsman was standing on his stumps and its deadest plumb.

I can only think of Clarke last match, Strauss a couple of times and Kallis (. Wrongly) with Amla.

There's no way a third gamer is telling the captain and or star player to go.

I completely agree with that, but it's up to teams to get it sorted.