Decision Review System

[golions]

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.

Yeah, fair enough, I see your point.

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.

What I meant by "having it both ways" was that it seemed that you were criticising the DRS for not correcting a howler, but overlooking the reason that happened - ie DRS couldn't overturn the decision because it was deliberately manipulated by a player. If the system was used as it was intended, rather than being manipulated, then it would have functioned correctly.

I'm ok with player controlled DRS for a number of reasons:
-umpires have a tough (I'd say virtually impossible) job as it is. DRS adds an element of support
-it has been shown that umpire controlled DRS doesn't work
-players are the most affected by DRS and some are the loudest to complain about umpire decisions (either on the field or after the fact), so putting a little bit of onus on them to use the system properly is not a bad thing
-it doesn't slow the game too much

and most importantly, when used correctly, it has been shown to affect the results of games for the better (as judged by the fact that no one really complained about the umpiring in such matches)

 

[sherb]

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.

You are not going to get the perfect system. You can find flaws in any suggestion that is made.

Maybe it has to be a combination of different options for some sort of workable system to eventuate.

Until then however, the players are just going to have to be smarter.

 

[1989]

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

Yep. It would be unworkable. The third umpire can't just say "I'll intervene, because that's a howler", but ignore God knows how many other potential outs / not outs. If a fast bowler's bowling, there's more time to intervene compared to if a spinner's on. Too messy.

 

[grizzlym]

Some really interesting reading in the UK press about this subject. It seems that the incidence of LBWs favouring bowlers is through the roof and the effective 'target' for the wicket is significantly larger. Sorry, no source, on iPhone now.

One proposal being mooted was that the bowling side got two referrals, and that each wicket - i.e. contentious catches, LBWs and runouts - were automatically scrutinised.Argument being that the bowling side is the one being significantly advantaged by DRS and that it wouldn't take long to look at dismissals in this situation.

Another was that the batting side didn't lose their referrals for line-ball calls, but did for speculative claims. Additionally, that a batting side didn't lose a call if it was an umpires decision etc.

So there seems to be alternatives out there at the moment to the way it's currently set-up.

Have a look for the LBW article though - it's interesting reading.

 

[golions]

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.

Ah, thank you.

Yeah, SL's use of the DRS has been abysmal. IMO it actually contributed to them losing (rather than drawing) the test in Hobart.

 

[golions]

Some really interesting reading in the UK press about this subject. It seems that the incidence of LBWs favouring bowlers is through the roof and the effective 'target' for the wicket is significantly larger. Sorry, no source, on iPhone now.

Sounds interesting, wouldn't mind reading the article when you get a chance to link it.

I find it interesting that LBWs favoured bowlers. The ones that stick out in my mind are plumb LBWs that are not given, especially to left handers. Can't think of too many the other way (except the odd famous one, such as Ponting on debut)

One proposal being mooted was that the bowling side got two referrals, and that each wicket - i.e. contentious catches, LBWs and runouts - were automatically scrutinised.Argument being that the bowling side is the one being significantly advantaged by DRS and that it wouldn't take long to look at dismissals in this situation.

I find it really interesting that that article would say the DRS favours bowlers. From what I've seen (anecdotal of course), it seems to favour batsmen.

Also what does 'favour' mean in this instance? does it mean that if a batsman who is given not out initially, but given out on review by the fielding team, then it is deemed to be favouring the fielding side? Because I wouldn't call that 'favouring' the fielding side. It's just the correct decision being made.

If not, what does favour mean?

Another was that the batting side didn't lose their referrals for line-ball calls, but did for speculative claims. Additionally, that a batting side didn't lose a call if it was an umpires decision etc.

this is venturing even further away from the 'eliminate the howler' objective that the DRS designed for as it would be open to even more misuse/manipulation. Batsmen would adopt a 'near-nothing to lose' attitude and review a dismissal (other than obvious bowled,caught etc) in the hope that even if it doesn't overturn the decision, it at least comes up as "umpire's call" and they don't lose a referral.

So there seems to be alternatives out there at the moment to the way it's currently set-up.

I think rather than drastic changes, small tweaks are needed, such as the TV umpire checking all crease no balls so that the on field umpires can just look straight up the pitch (I think this will assist umpires in making better LBW calls)

also, chopping and changing too much will cause frustration and confusion. keep it as it is, let the players learn that manipulating the system has consequences, and just make small tweaks to help out the on-field umpires as much as possible.

 

[grizzlym]

Here's the link from the Telegraph re 'the wicket getting bigger'

"Well yes. With good reason. The increasing use of technology in lbw verdicts has actually made the wicket significantly higher and wider. Or more precisely, the umpire’s perception of the wicket is larger than it was. The introduction of Hawk-Eye to help adjudicate lbws has enabled, even persuaded umpires to give batsmen out when the ball was predicted to barely graze the top or outside of the stumps. Stuart Broad and Kevin Pietersen both suffered such a fate in Dubai. Both reviewed their dismissal, believing they had tried legitimately to work a ball that was missing the leg stump only for Hawk-Eye informed us that the ball was clipping the top of the leg bail by 2mm. The batsmen looked aggrieved, but they had to go."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...ew-System-made-wicket-70-per-cent-bigger.html

 

[1989]

Here's the link from the Telegraph re 'the wicket getting bigger'

"Well yes. With good reason. The increasing use of technology in lbw verdicts has actually made the wicket significantly higher and wider. Or more precisely, the umpire’s perception of the wicket is larger than it was. The introduction of Hawk-Eye to help adjudicate lbws has enabled, even persuaded umpires to give batsmen out when the ball was predicted to barely graze the top or outside of the stumps. Stuart Broad and Kevin Pietersen both suffered such a fate in Dubai. Both reviewed their dismissal, believing they had tried legitimately to work a ball that was missing the leg stump only for Hawk-Eye informed us that the ball was clipping the top of the leg bail by 2mm. The batsmen looked aggrieved, but they had to go."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...ew-System-made-wicket-70-per-cent-bigger.html

Very interesting article. Umpires these days definitely seem more prepared to fire blokes out LBW, especially when height might be an issue.

 

[1989]

Another selfish top order review. It seems all the top order batsmen are worried about is having enough evidence to convince their mate up the other end to give the review the go ahead through his approval. Just because you get given out LBW doesn't mean you automatically have a right to keep batting. If they didn't learn after Clarke's stuff up the other day they never will.

 

[nick1408]

The only thing I don't like about the current DRS is that one delivery can have two different outcomes depending on the umpires decision. If less than half the ball is going to hit the stumps and the umpire give it out it stays out. If the very same delivery is given not out it stays as not out. I feel that the decision needs to be the same no matter of what the umpire on field says. It is either out or not out, not somewhere in the middle depending on how the on field umpire sees it.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

The only thing I don't like about the current DRS is that one delivery can have two different outcomes depending on the umpires decision. If less than half the ball is going to hit the stumps and the umpire give it out it stays out. If the very same delivery is given not out it stays as not out. I feel that the decision needs to be the same no matter of what the umpire on field says. It is either out or not out, not somewhere in the middle depending on how the on field umpire sees it.

Disagree; the umpires call is a good thing in my opinion, as it allows for the fact technology isn't 100% accurate and it backs up the point of the DRS that it is there to eliminate howlers and not close ones the umpire has judged.

 

[Mateyman]

There was 1 thing I was confused about last night with DRS. I saw a review and it said
"PITCHING: UMPIRES CALL"??
I thought there was no umpires call for where it pitched, which is why Faf survived in Adelaide. Can someone clarify this for me/did anyone else see this?
Also, on the topic of the Adelaide test, I think that showed the upside of DRS. Faf had a shocker which was changed, and without that, we would've won. However, I don't think that the system should have overturned his second review on the bowling of Clarke. I know 51/100ths of the ball may have been pitching outside leg, but it looked completely plumb live and on replay, and I also think that any part of the ball pitching in line with the stumps should be enough, especially if you are leaving the ball

 

[Wallaby]

Here's the link from the Telegraph re 'the wicket getting bigger'

"Well yes. With good reason. The increasing use of technology in lbw verdicts has actually made the wicket significantly higher and wider. Or more precisely, the umpire’s perception of the wicket is larger than it was. The introduction of Hawk-Eye to help adjudicate lbws has enabled, even persuaded umpires to give batsmen out when the ball was predicted to barely graze the top or outside of the stumps. Stuart Broad and Kevin Pietersen both suffered such a fate in Dubai. Both reviewed their dismissal, believing they had tried legitimately to work a ball that was missing the leg stump only for Hawk-Eye informed us that the ball was clipping the top of the leg bail by 2mm. The batsmen looked aggrieved, but they had to go."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...ew-System-made-wicket-70-per-cent-bigger.html

It's good - finally bowlers are getting some reward. Commentators - and probably umpires - were always far too keen to judge 'missing the stumps', 'too high' or 'going down leg' when they were viewing on the TV. Umpires also get a fore-shortened view from their position.

Basic geometry - if the ball is travelling straight (i.e - no deviation off the pitch). If it hits the batsman in front of off-stump, and the batsman is 1 metre forward of the batting crease (2.22 metres from the stumps), the ball would hit the stumps (ignoring height) provided the bowler delivers the ball no wider then 1.7 mtres wide of the stumps at delivery. To give you an idea, the edge of the bowling crease is 1.72 metres wide of the wickets.

Those figures are conservative - I haven't allowed for the width of the ball - if I do so (edge of ball clipping off stump - travelling on to where edge of ball clips leg stump - the bowler can be 2.25 metres wide of stumps on delivery. And that's with a batsman 1 metre down the pitch from the batting crease.

All this talk of 'Bowling arouind the wicket means you can't get an LBW' is rubbish - but it's become a traditional view in cricket. Technology is proving that traditional wrong. It is causing a bit of a change in the game.

 

[FRUMPY]

The only thing I don't like about the current DRS is that one delivery can have two different outcomes depending on the umpires decision. If less than half the ball is going to hit the stumps and the umpire give it out it stays out. If the very same delivery is given not out it stays as not out. I feel that the decision needs to be the same no matter of what the umpire on field says. It is either out or not out, not somewhere in the middle depending on how the on field umpire sees it.

I reckon if you challenge a decision and it comes back as umpires call and the decision isnt over turned you shouldnt lose a challenge. The decision is so line ball that you shouldnt lose a challenge for that.

 

[nick1408]

The only thing I don't like about the current DRS is that one delivery can have two different outcomes depending on the umpires decision. If less than half the ball is going to hit the stumps and the umpire give it out it stays out. If the very same delivery is given not out it stays as not out. I feel that the decision needs to be the same no matter of what the umpire on field says. It is either out or not out, not somewhere in the middle depending on how the on field umpire sees it.

I reckon if you challenge a decision and it comes back as umpires call and the decision isnt over turned you shouldnt lose a challenge. The decision is so line ball that you shouldnt lose a challenge for that.

To be honest, I would be happy with that. While the potential for two different interpratations is there at least you are not penalised for seeing something different to what the umpire saw (for lack of a better term). I like the premise of the DRS, I just want consistant decisions.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

IMO, DRS should be used to review all batsman given out by umpires, to avoid the howlers. Then just need to give the bowling side some reviews.

Yes, the LBW one needs to be changed - if it is half hitting the stumps, it is still hitting the stumps & should removed the bails.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

IMO, DRS should be used to review all batsman given out by umpires, to avoid the howlers. Then just need to give the bowling side some reviews.

Then why bother having umpires? They basically would become superfluous to technology, which would be a shame.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Then why bother having umpires? They basically would become superfluous to technology, which would be a shame.

Because then you would need to review every ball rather than every wicket - big difference!

Also, the umpires do more than make decisions.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Because then you would need to review every ball rather than every wicket - big difference!

Also, the umpires do more than make decisions.

The technology could actually make going off for light etc. more consistent than the umpires!

"Are you Billy Bowden? Come with me if you want to live."

I'd watch that movie.

 

[Father Jack]

IMO, DRS should be used to review all batsman given out by umpires, to avoid the howlers. Then just need to give the bowling side some reviews.

Yes, the LBW one needs to be changed - if it is half hitting the stumps, it is still hitting the stumps & should removed the bails.

Why should the batsmen get the advantage? Or should the umpire just give out everything remotely close and leave it up to the technology?

 

[krisholio14]

Why can't we just let umpires umpire?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Why should the batsmen get the advantage? Or should the umpire just give out everything remotely close and leave it up to the technology?

Umpires were getting it right 92% of the time prior to DRS. This has increased to 96% under DRS. I gather the missing 4% is due to teams running out of reviews like Australia the other night.

Giving the bowling side a few reviews would allow them plenty to capture the shockers.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Why can't we just let umpires umpire?

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

 

[krisholio14]

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

Hardly a comparison really.

 

[Father Jack]

Umpires were getting it right 92% of the time prior to DRS. This has increased to 96% under DRS. I gather the missing 4% is due to teams running out of reviews like Australia the other night.

Giving the bowling side a few reviews would allow them plenty to capture the shockers.

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.