Decision Review System

[Lensen]

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.

i've not come across a workable third system. i'm all ears if there is but as it stands there is:
1- give players X amount of chances to overturn howlers. if they want to risk it on howlers thats their call but comes with the consequences that they may not be able to overturn future howlers
2- have the 3rd umpire review every decision or non-decision - which to me is unworkable, removes the human element and can't be 100% accurate and controversy-free anyway

 

[grizzlym]

i've not come across a workable third system. i'm all ears if there is but as it stands there is:
1- give players X amount of chances to overturn howlers. if they want to risk it on howlers thats their call but comes with the consequences that they may not be able to overturn future howlers
2- have the 3rd umpire review every decision or non-decision - which to me is unworkable, removes the human element and can't be 100% accurate and controversy-free anyway

Then why do we have it? To introduce a new tactical element into the game?

 

[Jaymin]

My preferred option would be:-

Review every wicket
Fielding side gets 2 reviews to use.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

India have got it right. They refuse to have DRS, and the reason they refuse to have it is because they know their players would waste the review the first time any decision didn't go their way.

 

[grizzlym]

From The Australian just now:

"The situation involving the DRS, which has been a bone of contention since it was first introduced, will continue to be a source of controversy for cricket officials. There is a strong line of thought that the system, which was brought in to rid the game of umpiring howlers, is clearly being abused by batsmen."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...gainst-sri-lanka/story-e6frg7rx-1226557734039

How can the current system 'rid a game of howlers'? It just makes the situation more ridiculous when the technology is actually in place but it can't be used.

 

[ptrg]

"put it in the hands of the umpire"... So are we going to spend 5minutes reviewing EVERY lbw given out, and a fair few of the close ones not given out? Completely unfair to bowlers if only the "outs" are reviewed, and even that will take a millennia.

The guy above points out EXACTLY how it should be used, whether he meant it or not.. It's there for the absolute howlers. Those who say you only have "one review" are dead wrong. You have an unlimited amount of reviews for the howlers. just keep using it on the decisions that are mistakes.

Challenging ANY* lbw, on the basis of thinking it may miss the stumps (this excludes edges etc) is completely allowable, but downright stupid, unless a) you are the last recognized batsmen left or b) it hit you outside leg and is going down even further..

To challenge an lbw that was in the vicinity of the stumps is selfish. Maybe not "on the spot" selfish, but from a risk vs reward point of view, it's selfish.

The system would have completely looked after Warner and Moses if used correctly as intended. It's up to the players to screw it up- just like umpires do with their decisions.

 

[Underdog]

If the system is designed to eliminate the howlers and it's not eliminating the howlers, then the system is shit.

How players use the system is irrelevant. Some players might see an incident as a howler despite it still being given out. Like a minor knick that doesn't show up on hotspot - they KNOW they hit it. It's very subjective.

The sad thing is that the umpire's pathetic performances are being shrouded by the DRS controversy when they were at fault and started it.

On Clarke, they thought it was going over and thus reviewed it. It was close but they were incorrect, it happens. It's not like Sri Lanka's which was miles away. If you think a batsmen is not out, it makes sense to review it.

 

[Balony_pony16]

pretty simple...a third umpire is getting paid and sits up in a box with access to replays...he can review. for it is the many replays that undo or expose "bad decisions" these days...so use that to the advantage in getting the right decision made

 

[nickrebellious]

My preferred option would be:-

Review every wicket
Fielding side gets 2 reviews to use.

This. Confirm every wicket is indeed a proper dismissal while giving the fielding side a chance to rectify a dismissal missed by an umpire. Today's game would not have been impacted by a review every wicket. Hughes, Hussey, Bailey, Wade, Johnson & McKay's wickets were obvious and would have been a "Yep, that's out" from the third umpire. Clarke's would have been looked at for half a minute and remained unchanged, while Warner & Henriques dismissals would have been overturned.

 

[Scotland]

The system is allegedly in place to eliminate howlers, which essentially comes down to caught behind and LBW dismissals as it's pretty hard to **** up a batsman being caught at point or having his stumps knocked over.

You can't place the system in the place of the field umpires. Square leg isn't much help adjudicating a caught behind/LBW, and the bowler's end umpire is unlikely to review his own decision.

If you place the system in the hands of the 3rd umpire, you're basically asking him to watch 540 deliveries a day and make a call from the stands quick smart if he thinks his colleagues on the ground made a boo boo, then do his normal job. That's a big ask. If he's there to review each dismissal only then your David Warner/Moises Henriques shockers are eliminated, but do we really want every dismissal reviewed, and your Mitchell Johnson vs Ian Bell shockers don't get reviewed...

If you place the system in the hands of the players you get circumstances exactly like today. Give each team unlimited referrals and he refers his dismissal, as do the all of his teammates. Give him 1 only and he uses it on a decision that looked out to everyone except him and Warner. Likewise every LBW shout goes upstairs and we only get 50 overs a day in before it gets dark...

I think the current system (players review, 2 per innings) is the least worst outcome, but the specifics need to be refined - particularly with regards to LBW dismissals - and better publicised. Every match you'll see Hawkeye show a ball hitting a batsman in line and going on to hit the stumps and the batsman is given not out - and DRS does not overturn the original decision. Then you get frustrated fans complaining about DRS - which is not there to give LBW decisions, it is there to overturn the ones that are glaringly bad.

 

[Phone]

pretty simple...a third umpire is getting paid and sits up in a box with access to replays...he can review. for it is the many replays that undo or expose "bad decisions" these days...so use that to the advantage in getting the right decision made

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

 

[Lensen]

Then why do we have it? To introduce a new tactical element into the game?

No, to eliminate howlers to a degree. But restrictions are in place to keep it from being a time wasting farce. Like the sub in the afl you can use it tactically but it's not there for that. Use it tactically and risk the consequences

 

[Lensen]

This. Confirm every wicket is indeed a proper dismissal while giving the fielding side a chance to rectify a dismissal missed by an umpire. Today's game would not have been impacted by a review every wicket. Hughes, Hussey, Bailey, Wade, Johnson & McKay's wickets were obvious and would have been a "Yep, that's out" from the third umpire. Clarke's would have been looked at for half a minute and remained unchanged, while Warner & Henriques dismissals would have been overturned.

In theory it sounds good

In practice umpires would end up giving everything iffy out just to be sure

 

[Marstermind]

I think it's pretty simple - If you are hoping/guessing that the decision be overturned, then forget it. I think most cricketers could cop a 50/50 decision against them in the past, they should be able to today. Only use the DRS when you know you are right as Warner did yesterday, as Henriques did yesterday, but Clarke was just hoping he'd get a break. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, players will try to get away with what they can and that's where the system falls apart.

The changes I'd like to see: In those LBW calls where it goes back to "Umpire's Call", if you get one of those wrong then you shouldn't lose an appeal. It's an admission that it was pretty close and that the review was legitimate.

Also, the time frame to appeal a decision needs to be made pretty much straight away by either batsman, or by the fielding captain or bowler. If you have to have a massive pow-pow do decide on whether to review or not then it's probably going to go against you and you're wasting everyone's time. The umpires in the middle don't get to have a 20-second meeting before they make their decisions, neither should the players.

 

[1989]

This debate wouldn't be happening if Clarke didn't stuff up. Use the system properly and it's fine. Many of the alternatives thrown up in this thread would result in farcical situations.

 

[Underdog]

This debate wouldn't be happening if Clarke didn't stuff up. Use the system properly and it's fine. Many of the alternatives thrown up in this thread would result in farcical situations.

No. The debate wouldn't be happening if the umpires were competent.

A system designed to eliminate howlers that doesn't eliminate howlers is a shit system.

The emphasis on players to adjudicate the game over the 4 professional umpires is absolutely absurd.

 

[Gough]

I assume most here have actually played a bit of cricket, ever get a bad decision? It's part of the game, like chasing a loose ball and getting caught behind, or dropping a catch.
Also agree with the Clarke-f*****-up school of thought, and call for his ritual disembowelment.

 

[kenneje]

I really do think if it was used the way it was intended, there would be no problems. If teams want to take a risk on using their only appeal on some 50/50 situation, then **** them, it was their choice, they knew the repercussions if they got it wrong. It's like cricketers want to be able to do whatever they want but not take responsibility when it doesn't go their way. They've made a decision and they know what the consequences are.

 

[1989]

No. The debate wouldn't be happening if the umpires were competent.

A system designed to eliminate howlers that doesn't eliminate howlers is a shit system.

The emphasis on players to adjudicate the game over the 4 professional umpires is absolutely absurd.

It eliminates howlers if players don't abuse it. If Clarke cops his LBW on the chin, no problems arise. Leaving it in the hands of the umpires would result in them calling upon technology for every decision, just to make sure - look at how run outs are adjudicated.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Quite happy for umpires to check for a nick on lbws, just to eliminate the howlers.

Those 2 yesterday would have been sorted in 30 seconds.

 

[King Elvis]

From The Australian just now:

"The situation involving the DRS, which has been a bone of contention since it was first introduced, will continue to be a source of controversy for cricket officials. There is a strong line of thought that the system, which was brought in to rid the game of umpiring howlers, is clearly being abused by batsmen."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...gainst-sri-lanka/story-e6frg7rx-1226557734039

How can the current system 'rid a game of howlers'? It just makes the situation more ridiculous when the technology is actually in place but it can't be used.

But, as the article suggests, if the batsmen weren't abusing the system, it wouldn't be an issue.

According to a poster on here, Clarke thought he was plumb, but Warner thought he might've nicked it and wasn't sure on the height (pathetic of Clarke to disclose this as well, way to try and blame Warner for your decision).

Clarke would've known he didn't hit it, and not being certain on the height isn't grounds for a referral - especially when he thought he was out.

Last night was a perfect example of the DRS, IMO; if players want to use it properly, it'll be to their advantage; be a smart-arse with it, and you risk screwing your team over.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

But, as the article suggests, if the batsmen weren't abusing the system, it wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly. If Clarke had just walked off as he should have, the system would have saved two batsmen (in theory) yesterday and we all would have been singing the praises of the very system that is now being attacked.

I love the human element of the game. Clarke screwed up, we got hurt. It seemed like poetic justice.

 

[grizzlym]

But, as the article suggests, if the batsmen weren't abusing the system, it wouldn't be an issue.

According to a poster on here, Clarke thought he was plumb, but Warner thought he might've nicked it and wasn't sure on the height (pathetic of Clarke to disclose this as well, way to try and blame Warner for your decision).

Clarke would've known he didn't hit it, and not being certain on the height isn't grounds for a referral.

Last night was a perfect example of the DRS, IMO; if players want to use it properly, it'll be to their advantage; be a smart-arse with it, and you risk screwing your team over.

But what about players who do use it properly, genuinely don't think they're out, and use it under those circumstances. Then they're given out. So in that circumstance howlers can stand because they should have known not to challenge?

 

[King Elvis]

Keeping in mind I believe they should retain the referral if it reverts to Ump's Call; what circumstaneces would they know they're not out, yet they'd be given out anyway?

 

[Lensen]

But what about players who do use it properly, genuinely don't think they're out, and use it under those circumstances. Then they're given out. So in that circumstance howlers can stand because they should have known not to challenge?

compare it to the AFL sub rule

it was brought in to eliminate disadvantage due to injury. teams can either keep it up their sleeve in case of injury or tactically use it to try and get an advantage

if they bring on fresh legs 20 mins into the third quarter then cop an injury just before 3/4 time which leaves them with 2 on the bench, stiff shit that's their fault for taking the risk. in that instance it doesn't eliminate disadvantage but it only doesn't eliminate disadvantage due to the team's fault

the referral rule is the same. it can eliminate definite howlers, but if it doesn't due to tactical use when suck it up and wear it