Decision Review System

[1989]

When the DRS is in play, but it can't be used to overturn a blatantly bad decision, I question why it's there.

But it could have been used to overturn the Warner decision, had the Aussies not been greedy earlier on. The Warner one penalised the team, but the team had rolled the dice earlier on a silly challenge. The end result was fair on the team.

 

[grizzlym]

But it could have been used to overturn the Warner decision, had the Aussies not been greedy earlier on. The Warner one penalised the team, but the team had rolled the dice earlier on a silly challenge. The end result was fair on the team.

Well, what if the first appeal wasn't frivolous and there was genuine doubt, then would it have been a fair result on the team?

So only overturn howlers if the batting team guess right first up?

 

[1989]

Well, what if the first appeal wasn't frivolous and there was genuine doubt, then would it have been a fair result on the team?

So only overturn howlers if the batting team guess right first up?

Give them two incorrect ones per innings, like in test matches. One is a bit hit and miss.

 

[grizzlym]

Lenny29

Dunno whether you saw this - just read it myself - but its interesting in light of the DRS generally improving umpiring line of thought. Or, more accurately, the right decisions being made, which is entirely different from improving the performance of the umpires.

Malcom Conn article from today:

"While India opposes the DRS for all the wrong reasons, questioning technology that is more accurate than the human eye, the system fails to remove blatant mistakes from the game.

International Cricket Council studies have found that decision-making has improved from 92 percent to 96 percent with the DRS.

It was introduced to get rid of the “howler” however batting teams have just two unsuccessful challenges against umpiring decisions in Test matches and only one unsuccessful challenge in 50-over cricket."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...gainst-sri-lanka/story-e6frectl-1226557760818

Interesting that they are reporting an increase in overall decisions being right though.

 

[grizzlym]

Give them two incorrect ones per innings, like in test matches. One is a bit hit and miss.

But, but, I just think it's actually in there to get rid of howlers - stuff the line balls, the batsmen conning etc - I want to see it remove the truly awful errors of human judgment. To me, that's why it exists.

 

[1989]

But, but, I just think it's actually in there to get rid of howlers - stuff the line balls, the batsmen conning etc - I want to see it remove the truly awful errors of human judgment. To me, that's why it exists.

I think we all agree on that, but it's how you go about achieving it. Leaving DRS in the hands of the umpires would result in them checking every decision / non-decision just to make sure, like they do now with run outs.

 

[The_Reaper]

Leave it to the coach.

 

[grizzlym]

I think we all agree on that, but it's how you go about achieving it. Leaving DRS in the hands of the umpires would result in them checking every decision / non-decision just to make sure, like they do now with run outs.

I dunno the answer. But, as a starting point, I would have thought if the third umpire reviewed a dismissal after it was given, then had the power to overturn it, then these sorts of howlers would have been picked-up without too much bother or at risk of blowing a game out. But I really don't know. It just seems absurd that we have technology in place, which due to its implementation and the rules around it, allow genuine howlers to stand.

 

[grizzlym]

Leave it to the coach.

How about getting Gieschen involved?

 

[Father Jack]

Well, what if the first appeal wasn't frivolous and there was genuine doubt, then would it have been a fair result on the team?

So only overturn howlers if the batting team guess right first up?

There has to be more than genuine doubt for it to work properly, you have to be pretty much certain, otherwise the decision wasn't a howler in the first place (btw, is 'howler' now an official cricketing term?). I tend to think that the first thing a batsman thinks is 'can I justify blowing a review here' the second he is given out.

So either you use the referral speculatively and risk not having it there for the howler, or you leave it for the howler and risk being given out on a marginal call, or even worse, ending the innings with an unused review

The other point is that the current system is currently the best one we have available.

 

[grizzlym]

The other point is that the current system is currently the best one we have available.

Why is that?

 

[Father Jack]

Why is that?

I don't think that third umpire involvement would work as there would be inevitable controversy about which decisions ended up being reviewed (assuming they all weren't, which would waste even more time), and I think the Indian approach is a bit silly when we do have the technology there ready to go, which can erase the really bad decisions. The batsmen, bowler, keeper and maybe infielders will have the best idea of whether a decision is really bad (and are the most directly affected) and so they should decide. I can't think of any other practical way of doing it.

I don't mind the tactical side of it either, if they want to risk blowing reviews on a hope and a prayer, good luck to them as it will inevitably bite them on the arse.

 

[1989]

I dunno the answer. But, as a starting point, I would have thought if the third umpire reviewed a dismissal after it was given, then had the power to overturn it, then these sorts of howlers would have been picked-up without too much bother or at risk of blowing a game out.

One issue with this is that it favours the batsman too much. The batsman nicks one and is given not out, keep batting. Next ball he gets given out LBW. Hawkeye shows that it was going over the top, come back and keep batting. A 'howler' can hurt the fielding team too.

 

[grizzlym]

One issue with this is that it favours the batsman too much. The batsman nicks one and is given not out, keep batting. Next ball he gets given out LBW. Hawkeye shows that it was going over the top, come back and keep batting. A 'howler' can hurt the fielding team too.

Yep, that's why I prefaced it with 'dunno' and 'as a starting point'.

 

[grizzlym]

I don't think that third umpire involvement would work as there would be inevitable controversy about which decisions ended up being reviewed (assuming they all weren't, which would waste even more time), and I think the Indian approach is a bit silly when we do have the technology there ready to go, which can erase the really bad decisions.

But it didn't erase the really bad decision the other night. We got exactly the same result as if we played under the Indian rules.

 

[1989]

Yep, that's why I prefaced it with 'dunno' and 'as a starting point'.

Fair enough. I'm just not sure that's part of the best solution. If you reviewed every dismissal you'd also need to review every potential dismissal.

 

[Father Jack]

But it didn't erase the really bad decision the other night. We got exactly the same result as if we played under the Indian rules.

And that was purely the fault of the Australian batsmen. On this occasion we got exactly the same result if the game was played under the Indian rules, but that hardly equates to their being a problem with the system. The question here isn't really whether we should utilise the available technology, it's how to utilise that technology. I'm not against having two reviews per IDO innings, but the fact remains that if you use them for decisions you aren't sure about, then you run the risk of missing out later. At the end of the day Australia had the opportunity to overturn the decision, but they blew it.

 

[golions]

Leaving it in the hands of the umpires has been shown to be an unmitigated disaster. You know when a system is scrapped half way through it's trial that it must be pretty bad.

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'.

You are using the argument that the DRS is there to "eliminate the howler" to criticise the DRS, and yet you are using the "enough doubt, can't blame Clarke for reviewing" argument to defend Clarke. Clarke's decision was not a howler, yet you are defending his use of it.

You can't have it both ways.

The DRS is there to eliminate howlers. If you abuse it, then you run the risk of howlers going against you. It's pretty simple.

Fact is, no system is going to be foolproof even at the best of times. If anyone starts abusing any system, then it's going to be even less useful. Currently, a lot of players are abusing the DRS and it's coming back to bite them. Rightly so.

BTW, if that poster earlier in the thread is correct that Clarke basically publicly implied that Warner was responsible for the review (and tried to save his own skin by saying that he himself thought it was plumb) then that is very poor, especially from a captain.

 

[grizzlym]

You are using the argument that the DRS is there to "eliminate the howler" to criticise the DRS, and yet you are using the "enough doubt, can't blame Clarke for reviewing" argument to defend Clarke. Clarke's decision was not a howler, yet you are defending his use of it.

You can't have it both ways.

The DRS is there to eliminate howlers. If you abuse it, then you run the risk of howlers going against you. It's pretty simple.

Fact is, no system is going to be foolproof even at the best of times. If anyone starts abusing any system, then it's going to be even less useful. Currently, a lot of players are abusing the DRS and it's coming back to bite them. Rightly so.

BTW, if that poster earlier in the thread is correct that Clarke basically publicly implied that Warner was responsible for the review (and tried to save his own skin by saying that he himself thought it was plumb) then that is very poor, especially from a captain.

Having it both ways?

I'm talking in principal about the DRS; the notion that a decision like Warner's can stand. What Clarke did or didn't do is incidental really to my central point. I've also discussed the notion that players mightn't be scamming and genuinely think something is not out - i.e. their intentions are pure as such - yet they take the 'chance' with the DRS. But I agree that players use it to try to seek an advantage, and that's an issue with implementation. But that's really an aside.

My point is simple: I believe that the DRS is in place, or should be in place, to get rid of howlers. And it didn't in the case of Warner. It frustrates me that the wrong decision was made, that the technology was in place to make the right decision, but it can't be used because the 'opportunity' was burnt earlier under the current system.

I don't know what the solution is. I just find the current system frustrating in many ways.

 

[grizzlym]

Leaving it in the hands of the umpires has been shown to be an unmitigated disaster. You know when a system is scrapped half way through it's trial that it must be pretty bad.

Hahaha they can't even schedule the Shield Competition at the moment.

 

[sherb]

BTW, if that poster earlier in the thread is correct that Clarke basically publicly implied that Warner was responsible for the review (and tried to save his own skin by saying that he himself thought it was plumb) then that is very poor, especially from a captain.

That was me. I was paraphrasing, but I am sure I got Clarke right.

He basically said that he initially thought he was pretty plumb, but Warner thought it might have been going over or that there may have been an inside edge.

So he decided to review.

I still hold Clarke responsible for the review though, it's his choice as the striker and he is the one who made the decision to review based on "mights" and "maybes".

And that is where the mistake was made. With only one review, you are gambling on getting a very iffy review go your way otherwise any howlers further in the innings can't be overturned.

Mind you, as I pointed out before as well, Sri Lanka made exactly the same mistake. Their review was equally as awful as Australia's, if not worse. It's just that it wasn't accentuated by howlers down the track.

 

[evdo1706]

It's pretty easy to remove howlers. To me a howler is one that is apparent from normal TV replays. Give the third umpire powers to overturn such decisions, again based only on evidence from TV replays, otherwise stick with the on field call.

 

[sherb]

It's pretty easy to remove howlers. To me a howler is one that is apparent from normal TV replays. Give the third umpire powers to overturn such decisions, again based only on evidence from TV replays, otherwise stick with the on field call.

That's an interesting point.

In the two cases last night, the batsman wouldn't have been that far towards the pavilion before the decision was overturned.

It would have taken one replay and a message from the third umpire to the on-field umpire.

 

[1989]

It's pretty easy to remove howlers. To me a howler is one that is apparent from normal TV replays. Give the third umpire powers to overturn such decisions, again based only on evidence from TV replays, otherwise stick with the on field call.

But what happens when the batsman nicks one, is given not out, but the next ball's already been bowled by the spinner before the third umpire has a chance to intervene? Situations like this would happen, as would instances where a bowler purposely wastes time before the next delivery in the hope the third umpire will intervene before he bowls the next ball. And if the third umpire has the power to intervene for 'howlers', then he's obligated to look at everything.

 

[Kram]

That's about it, I mean where do you draw the line?