DRS

[fishardansin]

But isn't the very notion of 'using the DRS' bringing a tactical element to the game that was never present? I understand why the limits are in place, but isn't it counter to the whole philosophy to it introduction? In that, to rid the game of howlers? I dislike the implementation of it for many reasons, but most of all decisions like the Broad one can stand. That to me is farcical. Watson might be a knob, we might have use it badly, but that non decision is the very reason why it's there.

This is because they have the wrong philosophy. It should be done by the umpires not the players, i.e. the Rugby League way not the tennis way.

This isn't footy the game has stopped so can wait for an umpire to get the call right.

I'd like to see:

1. Players appeal to umpire for decision and he consdiders it as has been the traditional way.

2. If there is something the umpire is unsure of he does the TV signal and tells the umpire up there what it is. For example an LBW decision he may say "I think that's out but not sure if it pitched in line" and the third umpire takes that information and works with a person experienced in television production and check out that query quickly and get back to the umpire.

3. If the DRS shows a clear answer they pass that on to the umpire and if there is not a clear answer the third umpire passes that on and the on field umpire can see on the big screen what the technology is showing. The conversation between the on field umpire and the third umpire is audible to TV, that way teams have the right of appeal.

4. The viewing of tech and replays has to be finished in 1 min.

5. With the information given to him from the third umpire, plus his original reaction, the on field umpire makes the call.

This way the umpire out on the ground still has control of play and the technology is there to assist them in getting the best decision. So two decisions that would be different from last night would be the Kawaja and the original LBW appeal against Rogers.

Against Kawaja the umpire would refer that and say "I think he hit it what does the evidence say". The third umpire would say "hotspot is clear" "sound seems to be at a different time to ball past bat" "I think there is a gap between ball and bat but that isn't clear". Umpire on the field could say not out.

Against Rogers the umpire could say I think it's going down leg and he may have nicked it. I'm not sure on either can you please check. Third umpire says "doesn't hit it" and "there is 49% chance he'll strike the middle of leg stump and isn't going over". Umpire could over rule himself there.

As was mentioned by Chappell last night there should be two experts in the little room. One is an expert on the rules of cricket and the other an expert on the use of video. It would also be useful if they had an understanding of the other ones task.

It would be great if they trained up to 30 video guys how to quickly get up the stuff that an umpire would want. It would also be great if every umpire was given detailed training on how the technology works. There should be training every time new technology is available and a rehash of everything at the beggining of a test match. That is all umpires.

 

[FRUMPY]

This is because they have the wrong philosophy. It should be done by the umpires not the players, i.e. the Rugby League way not the tennis way.

This isn't footy the game has stopped so can wait for an umpire to get the call right.

I'd like to see:

1. Players appeal to umpire for decision and he consdiders it as has been the traditional way.

2. If there is something the umpire is unsure of he does the TV signal and tells the umpire up there what it is. For example an LBW decision he may say "I think that's out but not sure if it pitched in line" and the third umpire takes that information and works with a person experienced in television production and check out that query quickly and get back to the umpire.

3. If the DRS shows a clear answer they pass that on to the umpire and if there is not a clear answer the third umpire passes that on and the on field umpire can see on the big screen what the technology is showing. The conversation between the on field umpire and the third umpire is audible to TV, that way teams have the right of appeal.

4. The viewing of tech and replays has to be finished in 1 min.

5. With the information given to him from the third umpire, plus his original reaction, the on field umpire makes the call.

This way the umpire out on the ground still has control of play and the technology is there to assist them in getting the best decision. So two decisions that would be different from last night would be the Kawaja and the original LBW appeal against Rogers.

Against Kawaja the umpire would refer that and say "I think he hit it what does the evidence say". The third umpire would say "hotspot is clear" "sound seems to be at a different time to ball past bat" "I think there is a gap between ball and bat but that isn't clear". Umpire on the field could say not out.

Against Rogers the umpire could say I think it's going down leg and he may have nicked it. I'm not sure on either can you please check. Third umpire says "doesn't hit it" and "there is 49% chance he'll strike the middle of leg stump and isn't going over". Umpire could over rule himself there.

As was mentioned by Chappell last night there should be two experts in the little room. One is an expert on the rules of cricket and the other an expert on the use of video. It would also be useful if they had an understanding of the other ones task.

It would be great if they trained up to 30 video guys how to quickly get up the stuff that an umpire would want. It would also be great if every umpire was given detailed training on how the technology works. There should be training every time new technology is available and a rehash of everything at the beggining of a test match. That is all umpires.

How many overs do you want bowled in a day? Once an over there would be a 3rd umpire decision. Look at runouts, anything within 2 metres and they call for the 3rd umpire. For LBW's and nicks they would go straight to the 3rd umpire.. Umpires wouldnt want to risk their job on missing out on a decision.

 

[Underarm]

Or they would go the other way, and give it not out, and never want to be reviewed.

The system almost works. Players are still figuring out when tactically they should use their reviews. Players have proven that they aren't the best at judging LBW calls. As such you get situations like Wasting one on Watson, and Not using one on Rogers. The players inevitably use their reviews up and you get actual howlers like Broad that slip through the cracks.

The technology too is almost right. Obviously the Indians have long believed that the technology isn't up to scratch, with hotspot not being able to pick up some edges, snicko too slow, hawkeye not accurate enough. But over time, the technology will become better.

And the Implementation from the umpires is not quite sound either. More than a few times the Commentators have said the decision will be overturned on review, only for the 3rd umpire to back up the on field umpire, much like the Khawaja wicket.

 

[bungwahl]

Why do they insist on making the DRS more complicated than it has to be?

It was an appalling decision against Khawaja which highlighted the fundamental errors with the current DRS.

When reviewing to see whether a batsman has hit a ball we need to completely disregard the on-field umpires verdict and simply see if it can be proven that he hit it. If there is no conclusive evidence that the bat hit the ball, then the benefit of the doubt should go with the batsman. It’s far more difficult to conclusively prove a batsman didn’t hit a ball than to prove he did, so why complicate it?

Of course there will be decisions such as the Steve Smith caught behind appeal off Jimmy Anderson, whereby technology does not give a definite answer. Hotspot said not out, there was no clear deviation, but it sounded like there was a noise. In that case there is clear doubt, so the benefit goes with the batsman. Noise is considered an unreliable indicator, hence why snicko is not used as part of the DRS.

Sure, there may be some tiny feather edges that hotspot doesn’t pick up – but it’s still by far the most accurate technology used.

 

[Scotland]

If standing umpires sent every LBW decision they weren't sure of to the third umpire then we'd see over rates that make MS Dhoni look like Brad Hogg.

 

[Slax]

In the current format I don't like it and support the BCCI stance of not accepting it. My reasoning:

• Front on views have no depth perception and therefore are useless.
• long lenses for catches blur the ground to a point where it is difficult to tell if a hand is under the ball or not, so again useless.
• The people who created hotspot have even said the system is not perfect and therefore should never be relied on by itself.
• Snicko is not permitted to be used. Why not it is actually one of the more reliable methods as an edge will create a noise due to the friction, no noise no edge.
• Hawkeye is a computer generated system that operates under defined variables, it does handle the concept that amount of swing can increase as the ball travels further. Hawkeye should not be used beyond the point of impact, making it only a tool to calculate if a ball has landed in line with the stumps (where applicable) and struck in line with the stumps, the umpire needs to judge height.
• Handing control to players, in particular batsmen lead to the system being abused for the sake of their ego.
• If fielding teams are to call for a review it should be the wicketkeeper not the captain who makes the call. The keeper has a much better idea than the captain as he is in prime position. If this was the case then Australia would not of wasted a review in the first test that lead to Broad being let off from the howler as we would still of had a review. (Look at the reply Haddin said no to the review but Clarke still went ahead with it)

 

[Belnakor]

fairly sure in the return series snicko and hotspot will be aligned which should help with some of this

 

[Bucking Beads]

I just can't believe the 3rd umpire came up with the decision to agree with the umpires decision when everything suggested he did not hit it. Such a farce and one of the worst decisions I have seen. It reeks of mates looking after mates.

 

[Kram]

Conclusive? The ball missed the bat by a bloody inch.

 

[Scotland]

Hawkeye is a computer generated system that operates under defined variables, it does handle the concept that amount of swing can increase as the ball travels further. Hawkeye should not be used beyond the point of impact, making it only a tool to calculate if a ball has landed in line with the stumps (where applicable) and struck in line with the stumps, the umpire needs to judge height.

Agree, but Hawkeye projections aren't linear - they do try to model the expected trajectory of the ball.

 

[fishardansin]

How many overs do you want bowled in a day? Once an over there would be a 3rd umpire decision. Look at runouts, anything within 2 metres and they call for the 3rd umpire. For LBW's and nicks they would go straight to the 3rd umpire.. Umpires wouldnt want to risk their job on missing out on a decision.

I disagree. For example the appeal against Haddin early looked bad live but umpire turned it down. 3rd umpire should have 30 seconds to prove the umpire wrong. It wouldn't take up a lot of the game.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Crazy question - they say Hawkeye is accurate up until the point it hits the pads (and then uses a projection afterwards). This being the case, can Hawkeye technology be used to track the flight of the ball and thus any deviation from say, a nick. Or is it not accurate to do this?

 

[NakedDeadGuy]

Review every single dismissal, whatever the method. Rather than benefit of doubt going with umpire, if any doubt benefit goes to the batsman - like it always has. Therefore no reviews allocated to batting team.
Bowling side gets unlimited reviews - but add 20 sundries each time it's unsuccessful. Bowling team can't be screwed out if an obvious howler because they're out if reviews, but won't frivolously waste them.

 

[lemon chicken]

DRS wasn't the problem with the Khawaja decision it was the idiot watching the screen, can't do anything to fix that.

 

[Scotland]

DRS wasn't the problem with the Khawaja decision it was the idiot watching the screen, can't do anything to fix that.

How many times does it need to be explained that DRS needs an 'idiot' watching a screen?

Just like the TMO in rugby or goal line review in the AFL it requires a person or persons to use the technology available to them.

With LBW decisions Hawkeye will tell you where the ball pitched, where the ball hit the batsman and what they think the trajectory of the ball would have been had the batsman not been there and spits out a decision (out, not out, umpire's call) based on parameters. Whatever it spits out is relayed to the field umpire directly and stands.

For catches, stumpings and run outs a referred decision is just sent to another umpire sitting in front of a TV. He can look at replays from different angles, hot spot, listen to the stump microphone etc. then has to make a call.

There have been numerous **** ups in this series:

• The Trott LBW in the first test needed an angle which was not available due to technical problems
• The Haddin caught behind in the first test was overturned on very minimal evidence
• The Hughes LBW in the first test was overturned on very minimal evidence
• The Agar caught behind in the second was was overturned on very minimal evidence
• The Khawaja caught behind in the third test was not overturned on pretty clear evidence

The system is ****ed because between the technology and the people using it they can't make up their minds what they actually want to achieve. If Khawaja is out on the basis there wasn't enough evidence to clearly demonstrate the field umpire got it wrong then how the hell were the Haddin, Hughes and Agar decisions overturned?

 

[lemon chicken]

How many times does it need to be explained that DRS needs an 'idiot' watching a screen?

No shit. The system failed through human error, nothing can be done to fix that. The technology was not the problem.

 

[Scotland]

No shit. The system failed through human error, nothing can be done to fix that. The technology was not the problem.

In this instance.

DRS has failed throughout this series for various reasons - some technological, some human.

 

[Wallaby]

DRS has failed primarily because of the way it's been implemented -
the issues are:

1. Reviews being called for by teams and being limited. That makes as much sense as limiting appeals to only one or two unsuccessfull per innings.
2. Having the 3rd umpire role reduced to 'Prove the Field Umpire wrong' rather than 'I am in possession of a lot of info here - let me work with the Field ump to get a more accurate decision'.

Technology is there to help UMPIRES - not players. Let them use it whenever they deem appropriate. In all honesty there will only be about 4 or 5 times it is needed per day. Most decisions are pretty clear cut.

People are worrying that that will 'reduce umpire's role' - well, so f&%ing what????? The game's not about them.

We used to have 8 officials line up at the end of the Olympic 100m final and call the finishing positions by eye. We don't do that anymore because WE USE TECHNOLOGY AND IT'S A BETTER SYSTEM.
If there's no technology available (like a School Sports Day) - we use the the 'eye' method and everyone's happy because THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT.

We have million dollar equipment, a multi-million dollar sport that can turn in an instant because of one decision - and we have shit like the Broad, Bresnan and Khawaja.

 

[FRUMPY]

Then there are idiots like Warner who deny they have hit it when blind freddy could see he had hit it. Selfish players like this need to be given a whack around the chops and told to stop playing for themselves. He and Watson are shockers.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Then there are idiots like Warner who deny they have hit it when blind freddy could see he had hit it. Selfish players like this need to be given a whack around the chops and told to stop playing for themselves. He and Watson are shockers.

It's pretty clear that Warner thought he had only hit pad; it showed a lack of judgement rather than being selfish.

 

[smoovy]

It needs fine tuning no doubt about that. But I am not sure how we are better off without it, surely anything that gets more decisions right has to be better.

I'm more concerned about the clowns out on the field and in the box making the decisions. There is no reason now to have neutral umpires when all the decisions are so clearly highlighted. Get the best ones out there.

One thing I would change straight away is that you should not lose a review for something that ends up coming back as umpires call. As your review is not technically wrong, but inconclusive, why should you lose it?