Remove this Banner Ad

DRS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hand
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Are you a fan of the DRS?

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

has anyone kept a tally of how many times weve been given out when we were not out, but couldnt review because we didnt have any review?
 
Grimwood said:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on those ones. I can't honestly see why you'd think they were bad calls.
Click to expand...

They're "bad" calls in the sense that the DRS overturned the original decisions based on minimal evidence.

DRS isn't there to get every decision 100% right, otherwise it would be applied to every decision.

DRS is meant to eliminate decisions which are clearly wrong. Sure, if Watson reviews an LBW that is plumb and we lose a review then that's shit cricket by Watson, but when a batsman is given not out by the standing umpire, the decision is reviewed by the bowling captain, hot spot shows nothing and there is barely any sound you have to scratch your head when the decision is overturned after numerous others have reverted to "umpire's call".
 
Scotland said:
They're "bad" calls in the sense that the DRS overturned the original decisions based on minimal evidence.

DRS isn't there to get every decision 100% right, otherwise it would be applied to every decision.

DRS is meant to eliminate decisions which are clearly wrong. Sure, if Watson reviews an LBW that is plumb and we lose a review then that's shit cricket by Watson, but when a batsman is given not out by the standing umpire, the decision is reviewed by the bowling captain, hot spot shows nothing and there is barely any sound you have to scratch your head when the decision is overturned after numerous others have reverted to "umpire's call".
Click to expand...


The Agar one? Sure. You wouldn't find me disagreeing.

However, that has little to do with Haddin, Smith, et al reviewing only for Hot Spot to show up a nick.
 
Grimwood said:
The Agar one? Sure. You wouldn't find me disagreeing.

However, that has little to do with Haddin, Smith, et al reviewing only for Hot Spot to show up a nick.
Click to expand...

Haddin in the first test was given not out. DRS overruled it. Likewise Hughes LBW.

Smith in this test was given out. There was a small mark on the bat. All DRS has to do is show he didn't belt the ground or his pad etc. while the ball was miles away from the bat and the decision stands - that's how it is meant to work.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Scotland said:
Haddin in the first test was given not out. DRS overruled it. Likewise Hughes LBW.

Smith in this test was given out. There was a small mark on the bat. All DRS has to do is show he didn't belt the ground or his pad etc. while the ball was miles away from the bat and the decision stands - that's how it is meant to work.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm afraid that we're not going to find an agreement here. I don't see how you can feel hard done by on those kind of decisions.
 
Grimwood said:
Yeah. I'm afraid that we're not going to find an agreement here. I don't see how you can feel hard done by on those kind of decisions.
Click to expand...

It's not the decisions, it's the fact that they were overturned.

Without DRS, if Hughes is given out LBW or Haddin out caught behind you say 'bugger, might get those our way another day' and move on.

With DRS, if Hughes is given out LBW or Haddin out caught behind and DRS doesn't show a glaring mistake by the umpire you say 'bugger, might get those our way another day' and move on.

With DRS, if Hughes is given not out LBW or Haddin not out caught behind and DRS doesn't show a glaring mistake by the umpire and the decision is overturned you say 'errr, WTF?' and vent on BigFooty.
 
I was a fan of it, but I just cannot understand how they can overturn a decision on no evidence as they did with Agar. There was no hotspot, I didn't see any deflection yet somehow it can be overruled? If Erasmus had given him out caught behind, I could live with the decision being upheld, but I can't fathom how they can overturn it and completely discount the umpire in the middle?

It's meant to be a supplement to the umpire - kind of like an appeals board - the decision has been made, they are meant to ask is the decision reasonable? If the answer is yes, then the umpires call stands or if it is not a reasonable decision then overturn it. If the evidence is inconclusive or insufficient then you go with the umpire out in the middles call. Why isn't it that simple?

If it isn't going to be used like that then I don't want the system.
 
Grimwood said:
Agar's dismissal - just a completely incorrect application of DRS that should not happen at the highest level. Ironically, it may have been the correct decision, but there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the on field call.
Click to expand...

i don't understand how they can consistantly use it incorrect? surely there is a check book.

1) Is there a hot spot? If no, umpires call.
 
Scotland said:
Nah, I would say the Hughes LBW and Haddin caught behind in the first test were hardly 'successes' of the system.

The notion of umpire's call seems to come and go on a decision by decision basis.
Click to expand...

Umpires Call should be changed to "benefit of the doubt" in the use of DRS. The original umpires decision should have no impact on the DRS result as that is the whole point of challenging it. If the hawkeye system thinks a ball is just clipping the stumps on replay, it should be not out - benefit of the doubt every time. Not this stupid sometimes out, sometimes not out depending on who the on field umpire likes more ;)

It's a quick, simple solution to this problem and surely it's just common sense.
 
Citizen Erazed said:
Umpires Call should be changed to "benefit of the doubt" in the use of DRS. The original umpires decision should have no impact on the DRS result as that is the whole point of challenging it. If the hawkeye system thinks a ball is just clipping the stumps on replay, it should be not out - benefit of the doubt every time. Not this stupid sometimes out, sometimes not out depending on who the on field umpire likes more ;)

It's a quick, simple solution to this problem and surely it's just common sense.
Click to expand...

Quoted for absolute truth.

Plus, since when was audio a greater indication of an edge than Hotspot?

How many things can create the sound of a nick on an outside edge? Bat hitting pad, bat hitting ground, bat hitting toe, squeaky handle, ball hitting thighpad ...

How many things can create a Hotspot on an outside edge? One. The ball.
 
DRS is to help UMPIRES - not players. The technology is good.

I trust the umpires. Let them make the on-field decisions. If the bloke in the box sees something seriously amiss - a howler - eg Broad - he can call in. But only if it is clear - eg - don't want him reviewing every LBW or snick to keeper.

Take it out of the hands of the players. Getting correct decisions should NOT be a tactical part of the game.
 
It's been awful, which is surprising.

As has been said, the subjectivity and inconsistency is what makes it so frustrating. It's actually introduced a whole further gray area rather than making things clearer.

The other thing which I find annoying is it has introduced a new captain's skillset to the game. Over the 4 innings, how well teams use DRS probably counts for plus or minus 3-4 wickets a match, which means it is about as important to the result as an average strike bowler- certainly if Australia had managed DRS the way England did at Trent Bridge and vice versa, we would have won that match by a couple of wickets.

That just strikes me as insane, yes it takes skill and presence of mind for a team to get the best out of the system, but how well a team can game a review system has nothing to do with cricket- it makes as much sense as saying that at lunch each day the captains will play a hand of Texas hold'em, and the winning captain will be awarded an extra wicket.

If they want it, the rule should be as follows.

Immediately following every decision or refused appeal, the umpire should be able to to seek a review of a decision on his own discretion, or where the other on field umpire or the third umpire requests that should occur, on the basis they think there is any doubt regarding the decision. Neither team should have any role in that decision.

Where a review occurs, the third umpire should have no more than 1 minute to review the audio and video footage and make a decision. Where after that review he considers there is no doubt whatsoever the decision was incorrect, the decision should be reversed.

That's it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Great technology - exposed by home-town umpiring decisions, poor use (primarily Watson) and a couple of head-scratching decisions. Also some concern over the hawkeye prediction method reliant on the accurately placed markers for impact - markers placed by the television network, not the umpires.

Personall I think we should go all in. Solitary umpire who does little more than keep time, count deliveries, and "call" the game. Provides a focus for appeals.

Technology is there for all decisions, and used often.

LBW - hot spot, super slo-mo, (and super zoom) used to find impact points (ground, pad). Marked by umpire. Hawkeye then calculates trajectory and gives result. "Umpire's call" is made not out.

Catches - hot spot, snicko (with audio brought one frame forward to match video), super slo-mo, super zoom all available to umpire.

No-Ball/Stumped/Runout/Shortrun - 90 degree cameras cover the line from both sides.
 
Total_Juddshanks said:
It's been awful, which is surprising.

As has been said, the subjectivity and inconsistency is what makes it so frustrating. It's actually introduced a whole further gray area rather than making things clearer.

The other thing which I find annoying is it has introduced a new captain's skillset to the game. Over the 4 innings, how well teams use DRS probably counts for plus or minus 3-4 wickets a match, which means it is about as important to the result as an average strike bowler- certainly if Australia had managed DRS the way England did at Trent Bridge and vice versa, we would have won that match by a couple of wickets.

That just strikes me as insane, yes it takes skill and presence of mind for a team to get the best out of the system, but how well a team can game a review system has nothing to do with cricket- it makes as much sense as saying that at lunch each day the captains will play a hand of Texas hold'em, and the winning captain will be awarded an extra wicket.

If they want it, the rule should be as follows.

Immediately following every decision or refused appeal, the umpire should be able to to seek a review of a decision on his own discretion, or where the other on field umpire or the third umpire requests that should occur, on the basis they think there is any doubt regarding the decision. Neither team should have any role in that decision.

Where a review occurs, the third umpire should have no more than 1 minute to review the audio and video footage and make a decision. Where after that review he considers there is no doubt whatsoever the decision was incorrect, the decision should be reversed.

That's it.
Click to expand...

That would be unwatchable on a fifth day pitch with two spinners bowling. The umps will refer every appeal llike they do with stumping and runouts. There would be 100+ referrals a day and decisions like the agar reversal would still happen.
 
I'm usually not fussed, but the Agar decision last night was a joke. The main problem is the people behind it.
 
Total_Juddshanks said:
The other thing which I find annoying is it has introduced a new captain's skillset to the game. Over the 4 innings, how well teams use DRS probably counts for plus or minus 3-4 wickets a match, which means it is about as important to the result as an average strike bowler- certainly if Australia had managed DRS the way England did at Trent Bridge and vice versa, we would have won that match by a couple of wickets.
Click to expand...

agree 100%.

This bullshit where after every appeal the captain calls forward every man and his dog, scratches his chin, talks for a bit and then decides yes/no is a debacle. they should have 15 seconds. tops. Its a howler or its not.
 
Belnakor said:
agree 100%.

This bullshit where after every appeal the captain calls forward every man and his dog, scratches his chin, talks for a bit and then decides yes/no is a debacle. they should have 15 seconds. tops. Its a howler or its not.
Click to expand...


Seems like the Indians weren't so far off the mark after all.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Furn2 said:
That would be unwatchable on a fifth day pitch with two spinners bowling. The umps will refer every appeal llike they do with stumping and runouts. There would be 100+ referrals a day and decisions like the agar reversal would still happen.
Click to expand...

On day 5, at the moment, you still have that level of consultation, it just happens between captains/bowlers/wickies arguing about whether to review every appeal.
 
ManWithNoName said:
BF when India don't use DRS: What a joke! They should be made to. BCCI running the game their way AGAIN. Pathetic.

BF when Australia can't use DRS properly: What a shit system. Adds nothing to the game but confusion and unfairness. Get rid of the system, nobody ever liked it.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the endless amount of times India were referred to as cheats for not using the system. Many people ignoring the fact they had a very similar experience to what we're seeing now in the ashes when they played Sri Lanka in test series a number of years ago. Hence their stance on it.
 
I am in favor of a review system to remove howlers from the game but I am against the current setup. IMO it defeats the original purpose of DRS. DRS should not be a tactical weapon and the process of correcting howlers should not depend on how well a captain uses DRS.
 
Should be 1 review, 15 seconds to call or not. That way you get the "massive inside edge" or "pitched outside leg" type LBWs out of the game. You don't get decisions like the Agar one.
 
Whatever way you do it there is always going to be issues and grey areas with DRS. It currently just creates as many problems as it solves and holds up the game plus the tactical angle BS.

Just shitcan it and go back to letting the onfield umpire do their job and put up with the odd bad decision.
 
Overall I like the system, although there are some weird quirks to it.

For one, I have no idea why 50% of the ball has to pitch in line with the stumps or hit the batsman in line with the stumps when they are reviewing LBW decisions. That's not in the law. I understand why they do it when it comes to the ball hitting the stumps - that's using predictive technology. But Hawkeye is able to track the ball (as far as I know) pretty much 100% accurately until it hits the batsman. Tennis have no problems using it see if a ball was out by a millimetre, yet we can't do that in cricket for some reason.

If I were captain, this is how I would tell my team to use the system:

- If you are given out caught behind swinging at the ball away from your body, and there was a noise, don't review. Even if you know you didn't hit it. Trying to prove that you didn't hit the ball with your bat when there was nothing else around is practically impossible when there's a noise.

- Don't review LBWs unless you hit it, unless the non-striker is 100% sure it was going to miss. You may get unlucky at times, but it's too wasteful to gamble reviews on the predictive element.

- When bowling, only review if the bowler, keeper and captain are in agreement. If anyone doubts, don't review.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom