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.

Hand

Hand

Don't think, Do.
Joined
May 19, 2008
Posts
3,907
Reaction score
2,017
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
It needs to go.

I just don't see the good in it. There have been countless times where I have been given out when I wasn't, and have been robbed of a wicket courtesy of some bad umpiring. That's Cricket, though! You win some, you lose some. Its spontaneity is what makes the game so great. We're losing it by implementing this overkill of technology into the sport.

Agree to disagree with me, guys. Share your opinions about the Decision Review System here.
 
I am, but it's delivered some strange calls so far this series. Plus Australia's hopeless use of it, but that's not the fault of the system.

As I said in the match thread, the third umpire role should be a specialist job done by somebody with a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the technology. There's no reason why it needs to be done by someone who is primarily an on-field umpire.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I was totally against it from day dot, and still am. Umpires have lost all confidence in their own decision making, and half the time IMO they are not even concentrating on wtf is happening.
 
Mateyman said:
Is that part of a different package? I thought it might be. Related to the no ball reviews?
Click to expand...

I think of the DRS as only being the use of technology at the behest of the players rather than the umpires. Checking catches has been in the game a lot longer than the DRS system.
 
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The biggest problem with technology in cricket is than 9 and fox have/had it, so even if the umpires dont use it, we will see it and know if mistakes were made.

If we didnt have access to thsi technology as viewers i dont think we would be effected so badly by the mistakes that take place as part of a game, but when you do and its not given out that is the crap part......
 
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.
 
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...

I just hate the 'Schrodinger's dismissal' of it all. The exact same thing can be given out and not out.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

The Agar dismissal is the first time that DRS has 'failed' in the series, insofar as there wasn't a clear weight of evidence that should have lead to the decision being reversed. It serves as a good example of those occasions in which the system has not been used correctly by the umpires.
 
Scotland said:
We have a new contender for worst DRS decision of the series...
Click to expand...

Seems to be different rules for both teams. Umpires and DRS cost Australia the first test and the second test has just been laughable its bordering on cheating. Hughes Smith now Agar all out against everything we understand of the criteria. Complete joke and only going one way.
 
The Finger said:
Complete joke and only going one way.
Click to expand...

Broad's non-dismissal - an egregious failure of umpiring, but one that could not be corrected by DRS due to Australia wasting their reviews.

Smith's catch - should have been out, but is part of a debate that has been going on for longer than DRS has been in use. Part of the debate about technology? Sure, but let's not pretend it doesn't predate the DRS system.

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.

I make that three decisions that went against Australia without any ability for them to challenge.
 
Grimwood said:
The Agar dismissal is the first time that DRS has 'failed' in the series, insofar as there wasn't a clear weight of evidence that should have lead to the decision being reversed. It serves as a good example of those occasions in which the system has not been used correctly by the umpires.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...


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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom