Decision Review System

[Underdog]

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?

Exactly, like my previous example of a player knowing they knicked it onto the pads or caught behind, but it not showing up on hotspot as often is the case. They'd lose their referral despite the batsman KNOWING he wasn't out. No abuse of the system there...

The system is shit. Players should NOT have to adjudicate the game themselves when there are 4 international standard umpires controlling the game.

Lets stop making excuses for incompetent umpires.

 

[grizzlym]

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

That's a flawed comparison in terms of the intent, in my opinion. The intent of the DRS is to eliminate bad decisions - it's about improving the quality of umpiring by using technology. Unfortunately, through necessity mind you, it's been implemented where the teams control it. And that's what I have an issue with. I agree that speculating over a decision is poor form and an abuse, but I think if any system that's in place doesn't pick up on the stinkers what's the point?

Personally, I'd be happy to go with the umpires making the calls. Unless, of course, someone has a way that this could work. I just think it's half-arsed now.

 

[1989]

Leaving it up to the umpires will basically mean that the video will be umpiring the game and that play will be stopped all the time. The umpires will go to the video even when they're 99.9% sure, just like they do with every run out now. They won't run the risk of copping criticism for getting one wrong and not using the technology when it was available. Give each team two referrals per innings.

 

[Lensen]

That's a flawed comparison in terms of the intent, in my opinion. The intent of the DRS is to eliminate bad decisions - it's about improving the quality of umpiring by using technology. Unfortunately, through necessity mind you, it's been implemented where the teams control it. And that's what I have an issue with. I agree that speculating over a decision is poor form and an abuse, but I think if any system that's in place doesn't pick up on the stinkers what's the point?

Personally, I'd be happy to go with the umpires making the calls. Unless, of course, someone has a way that this could work. I just think it's half-arsed now.

Yeah, I guess it really depends on why they brought it in to reduce howlers.

You seem to be arguing on the basis that it was brought in almost holistically to simply increase the overall standard of umpiring - if that's the case then yes, the player referral system doesn't really work that well. But outside of referring everything, I'm not sure there's a better way anyway.

However I'm of the view (and if categorically wrong, happy to be corrected) that it was brought in to reduce the disadvantage of howler calls - so a terrible decision wouldn't impact the result of a match. In that instance the DRS works - teams can keep it up their sleeve for a definite wrong decision or tactically use it for a 50/50. In that instance the comparision with the AFL's sub rule is apt IMO.

 

[Scotland]

Yep, the people in the 'leave it to the umpires' camp don't seem to understand the onus that would be placed on the 3rd umpire and the slowing effect it would have on the game.

 

[1989]

Let Channel 9 run a poll on each decision. Stop the play for ten minutes. If, after this time has elapsed, more than 50% of the home viewers have given the batsman out, he's out. Just to make sure, hook him up to a lie detector and make him swear on the Bible while the poll is taking place.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Let Channel 9 run a poll on each decision. Stop the play for ten minutes. If, after this time has elapsed, more than 50% of the home viewers have given the batsman out, he's out. Just to make sure, hook him up to a lie detector and make him swear on the Bible while the poll is taking place.

Then sell memorabilia based on each decision.

 

[1989]

Then sell memorabilia based on each decision.

It's a win-win.

 

[Scotland]

OUT: DRS

IN: Vodafone Viewers' Verdict

Hell, just get rid of Simon Taufel and Aleem Dar and replace them with Joel and Benji Madden

 

[King Elvis]

Just give them out based on how loudly Slater and Healy yell.

 

[Father Jack]

The current system is fine, there is no need to change it. What does need to change is the perception in the minds of players, commentators and spectators that the players have failed if they don't review a decision even if it was narrowly wrong. If the batsmen or the fielding team have to have a think about whether or not to review, then they are using it wrong, it pretty much has to be instantaneous, otherwise the decision is clearly not a howler. If it turns out that the ball was just missing leg stump then and the batsman wasn't out, so be it. If it turns out that there was a slight edge and the bowler has missed a wicket, so be it. If teams don't use it this way then howlers will get missed. It's quite simple.

 

[Les Norton]

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

When it pitches outside leg or hits the player outside the line of the stumps. Not the case in Clarke's though. I can understand him reviewing it as the Bowler had been swinging the ball into right handers significantly. Clarke may have thought that it hit him outside the line or the ball was going down leg.

 

[grizzlym]

Let Channel 9 run a poll on each decision. Stop the play for ten minutes. If, after this time has elapsed, more than 50% of the home viewers have given the batsman out, he's out. Just to make sure, hook him up to a lie detector and make him swear on the Bible while the poll is taking place.

Fango?

 

[grizzlym]

Yeah, I guess it really depends on why they brought it in to reduce howlers.

You seem to be arguing on the basis that it was brought in almost holistically to simply increase the overall standard of umpiring - if that's the case then yes, the player referral system doesn't really work that well. But outside of referring everything, I'm not sure there's a better way anyway.

However I'm of the view (and if categorically wrong, happy to be corrected) that it was brought in to reduce the disadvantage of howler calls - so a terrible decision wouldn't impact the result of a match. In that instance the DRS works - teams can keep it up their sleeve for a definite wrong decision or tactically use it for a 50/50. In that instance the comparision with the AFL's sub rule is apt IMO.

It's a very good question, actually. What is the intent behind its introduction? I don't know the answer. I've always been of the opinion that it was to remove umpire error. Not that I think that needs to be done, mind you. I think it's half-arsed at the moment and it shouldn't be a tool the players use.

 

[Partridge]

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.

It's never going to happen. As soon as it was introduced captains and batsmen will do what they've always done and always will do - take advantage of it. They're never going to not challenge a decision, especially where a recognised batsman is concerned. Too much money, too much at stake.

And you can't blame the umpires, they're terrified of making the wrong decision now. It doesn't lead to better officiating.

 

[King Elvis]

grizz, I thought they'd made it clear it was designed to prevent the howlers?

 

[Underdog]

grizz, I thought they'd made it clear it was designed to prevent the howlers?

Even then, that's a pretty subjective criteria.

 

[Lensen]

grizz, I thought they'd made it clear it was designed to prevent the howlers?

that doesn't answer the question of why - to improve umpiring decision making or to eliminate the disadvantage a howler can have on a team?

two very different reasons IMO

 

[iluvparis]

I believe it was the latter Leonard.

 

[King Elvis]

I don't see how it could improve the umpiring; they would've reviewed their decisions after the game anyway, and been aware of the mistakes they were making.

 

[Lensen]

I believe it was the latter Leonard.

so do I

 

[1989]

Fango?

Or Channel 9 could poll everyone at the ground, like the studio audience in Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Although that wouldn't work in Tassie.

 

[grizzlym]

that doesn't answer the question of why - to improve umpiring decision making or to eliminate the disadvantage a howler can have on a team?

two very different reasons IMO

How do you mean improve umpire decision making? As in using it as a tool to evaluate?

 

[Lensen]

How do you mean improve umpire decision making? As in using it as a tool to evaluate?

no, i mean using it to get more decisions right than without DRS, at its most simple. as in; is it trying to correct every single wrong decision, or is it there only to try and lessen the disadvantage of human error when at its most influential?

 

[grizzlym]

no, i mean using it to get more decisions right than without DRS, at its most simple. as in; is it trying to correct every single wrong decision, or is it there only to try and lessen the disadvantage of human error when at its most influential?

Yes. Then I totally agree with you - they are two very different beasts. My problem, I think, is that its in the hands of the players. And the current implementation, which is obviously a balance between keeping the game moving and making sure the players don't rort it, risks not ridding a game of holwers depending on how the referral was used. It introduces a tactical element to an umpires' decision which is totally in the hands of the players.

I mean, as a raw example, that Warner LBW is exactly the sort of decision that DRS should overturn. But if umpires were the sole decision makers and they got that wrong I'd just say 'that's cricket and it will even out'. When the DRS is in play, but it can't be used to overturn a blatantly bad decision, I question why it's there.

As I said, I don't know the answer, only to muse that perhaps how it's been for 100 or so years might be the best way.