DRS

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Posts
7,448
Likes
5,143
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #1
What does everybody think? Watching the first test everyone is bagging the umps (rightly in the case of No Balls/but which should be up to technology to call or better get rid of the front foot rule and just do back foot) but some of the overturned decisions were bizarre.

1) The LBWs. Hawkeye dramatically over estimates the bounce. How often is a spinner bowling it lands half way down hits the knee roll only to be ruled clearing the stumps. Give me a break.

2) Hot Spot. Snicko. While these are good there is too much emphasis on these. Like the Cummins one. His pad and arms blocked the wrist strap of his golve where the ball hit. Yet the 3rd ump said because there was no hot spot the decision was over turned.

I'd have this like the Goal ump in footy. In that the umpire gives his call it goes upstairs and then the 3rd umpire decides. Either over turned/upheld or back to umpires call. Use any relevant technology but the ultimate call should be the umpires not what the "inaccurate" technology is telling them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
36,169
Likes
36,142
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
#3
One thing I would love with DRS technology is that if its showing the ball hitting the stumps, its always given out, no matter what.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
36,169
Likes
36,142
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
#4
System is perfectly fine as it is and a great addition to the game. Move on
System is fine, which is why I would love for the umpires to give the batsmen out if it shows the ball tracking to hit the stumps.

To the casual follower there must be so much confusion for them when the ball hitting the stumps is given not out for a variety of reasons.
 

LukeParkerno1

Make me an Admin!
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Posts
90,131
Likes
32,409
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
#5
I'd have this like the Goal ump in footy. In that the umpire gives his call it goes upstairs and then the 3rd umpire decides. Either over turned/upheld or back to umpires call. Use any relevant technology but the ultimate call should be the umpires not what the "inaccurate" technology is telling them.
That's the current system mate.

The on field umpire has already made a call. The DS is to conclusively say whether that original decision is wrong, if that can't be proven, the original decision stands.
 

LukeParkerno1

Make me an Admin!
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Posts
90,131
Likes
32,409
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
#6
System is fine, which is why I would love for the umpires to give the batsmen out if it shows the ball tracking to hit the stumps.

To the casual follower there must be so much confusion for them when the ball hitting the stumps is given not out for a variety of reasons.
No, no and no. There has to be some benefit of the doubt, otherwise you are having a ball hitting the stumps by 1mm as being overturned. That's not what the system is for. That wasn't a howler, the system is designed to eliminate the howlers.
 

corbies

Premium Gold
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Posts
2,568
Likes
3,342
Location
Newcastle
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
S'roos, New Jets, WHam, Cronulla
#7
DRS is great. People need to go back to pre-DRS and see how many absolutely ridiculous decisions used to decide games and how much time was spent talking about those decisions. You only have to watch the shield to see how often shit umpiring effects games or ask Matt Renshaw about some of the decisions he's copped this year.

I also think people over-estimate how often a ball will stay low enough to hit the stumps. I'm particularly thinking of the ball Ashwin bowled to Cummins that went through his legs. If that had hit him on the leg, no one would have thought it was going over the top of the stumps.
 

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Posts
7,448
Likes
5,143
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #8
That's the current system mate.

The on field umpire has already made a call. The DS is to conclusively say whether that original decision is wrong, if that can't be proven, the original decision stands.
I mean more the umpire not tech making the call. Take LBs. They basically overturn based on what ball tracking says. Not the 3rd ump ultimately making the call if there is enough. (Blind Freddy can see half the time ball tracking is totally out of whack and should be ignored yet that's what the decision is based on).
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
36,169
Likes
36,142
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
#9
No, no and no. There has to be some benefit of the doubt, otherwise you are having a ball hitting the stumps by 1mm as being overturned. That's not what the system is for. That wasn't a howler, the system is designed to eliminate the howlers.
The system was initially designed for the howler.

DRS has become much more sophisticated. A ball only needs to be hitting the stumps by 1mm to be out.
 

LukeParkerno1

Make me an Admin!
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Posts
90,131
Likes
32,409
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
#10
I mean more the umpire not tech making the call. Take LBs. They basically overturn based on what ball tracking says. Not the 3rd ump ultimately making the call if there is enough. (Blind Freddy can see half the time ball tracking is totally out of whack and should be ignored yet that's what the decision is based on).
That's why the margin of error comes into it (25% or more has to hit to overturn). It's a good system. Personally I preferred the 50% of a ball to overturn but 25% is good enough. Batsmen should hit the ball.
 

LukeParkerno1

Make me an Admin!
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Posts
90,131
Likes
32,409
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
#11
The system was initially designed for the howler.

DRS has become much more sophisticated. A ball only needs to be hitting the stumps by 1mm to be out.
That's where I disagree. If the on field umpire says out, then that is fair enough...but 1mm should never be enough to overturn. 25% of the ball is a good, reasonable amount.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Posts
7,448
Likes
5,143
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #12
That's where I disagree. If the on field umpire says out, then that is fair enough...but 1mm should never be enough to overturn. 25% of the ball is a good, reasonable amount.
Yet if it just misses by 1mm it can be overturned from OUT to NOT OUT. No Umpires Call there in that circumstance.

I like DRS, the concept and implementation.

Just think Hot Spot doesn't show every time and can be blocked and ball tracking is that inaccurate it shouldn't be relied on or even used.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
36,169
Likes
36,142
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
#13
Australia and India will need to be on guard with their use of DRS in Perth, the ball will be more often than not going over the stumps.

Its a trap.
 

LukeParkerno1

Make me an Admin!
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Posts
90,131
Likes
32,409
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
#14
Yet if it just misses by 1mm it can be overturned from OUT to NOT OUT. No Umpires Call there in that circumstance.

I like DRS, the concept and implementation.

Just think Hot Spot doesn't show every time and can be blocked and ball tracking is that inaccurate it shouldn't be relied on or even used.
You won't see me saying otherwise- there should be a margin both sides. That's why I like the 50%. Provides more of a margin. We only need howlers being overtunerd.
 

flamethrower

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
6,376
Likes
2,287
Location
Parkville Medical Precinct
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
LA Angels, LA Rams
#15
My biggest issue with DRS is that the rules are different for the various modes of dismissal - with no restriction on how may decisions are referred per innings.

Run outs, stumpings, catches close to the ground, catches on the boundary and hit wicket reviews are initiated by the 2 umpires.
LBW, caught behind and caught at the wicket (eg bat pad) reviews are initiated either by the 2 batsmen (if given out) or the 11 fielders (if given not out) - with a limit of 2 incorrect referrals per innings.

I believe that this puts way too much pressure on the players (especially the batsmen) who are there to bat, bowl and field, not to umpire. We have 3 umpires paid handsomely to make decisions.

I would make 2 fundamental changes to DRS.

1. All dismissals are automatically reviewed. When given out the 3rd umpire can quickly review the dismissal and if there is doubt, keep the batsman on the ground until a full DRS is performed (as they do now with no balls). This would remove the farcical situation where a batsman doesn't/can't call for a review on a close dismissal (later proven to be not out) to save reviews, or when a team has already used its 2 reviews.

2. To even things up for the fielding team, give them unlimited reviews - but penalize them 5 runs for every frivilous review (equivalent to current "lost" reviews now eg LBW missing the stumps or caught behind off the pad).
 

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Posts
25,496
Likes
17,178
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
#17
I mean more the umpire not tech making the call. Take LBs. They basically overturn based on what ball tracking says. Not the 3rd ump ultimately making the call if there is enough. (Blind Freddy can see half the time ball tracking is totally out of whack and should be ignored yet that's what the decision is based on).
Lol u wut m8?

People that don't think the ball tracking is accurate probably shouldn't be allowed a say on DRS.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 5, 2016
Posts
15,947
Likes
16,374
AFL Club
Geelong
#18
My biggest issue with DRS is that the rules are different for the various modes of dismissal - with no restriction on how may decisions are referred per innings.

Run outs, stumpings, catches close to the ground, catches on the boundary and hit wicket reviews are initiated by the 2 umpires.
LBW, caught behind and caught at the wicket (eg bat pad) reviews are initiated either by the 2 batsmen (if given out) or the 11 fielders (if given not out) - with a limit of 2 incorrect referrals per innings.

I believe that this puts way too much pressure on the players (especially the batsmen) who are there to bat, bowl and field, not to umpire. We have 3 umpires paid handsomely to make decisions.

I would make 2 fundamental changes to DRS.

1. All dismissals are automatically reviewed. When given out the 3rd umpire can quickly review the dismissal and if there is doubt, keep the batsman on the ground until a full DRS is performed (as they do now with no balls). This would remove the farcical situation where a batsman doesn't/can't call for a review on a close dismissal (later proven to be not out) to save reviews, or when a team has already used its 2 reviews.

2. To even things up for the fielding team, give them unlimited reviews - but penalize them 5 runs for every frivilous review (equivalent to current "lost" reviews now eg LBW missing the stumps or caught behind off the pad).

THIS

THANK YOU.

That’s the phrase I’ve used since this system was brought in. Players have had three skills - evolving, but at their core still the same - since the game began.

A limited use system is asking them to add a fourth.
That’s the only beef I have with it. That by limiting it to a certain number of challenges, you’re asking them to become umpires. My suggestion has always been to add 10 extras to the opposition total per incorrect referral. It would deter sides from using them frivolously but ensure that even if they’d made some incorrect reviews, they can still go upstairs later on when a batsman hits fresh air but gets given out
 

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Posts
7,448
Likes
5,143
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #19
Lol u wut m8?

People that don't think the ball tracking is accurate probably shouldn't be allowed a say on DRS.
OK so next time it bounces half way down the track is on its way down and hits below the knee roll and ball tracking has it going over the top I'll trust in the technology.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 5, 2016
Posts
15,947
Likes
16,374
AFL Club
Geelong
#20
OK so next time it bounces half way down the track is on its way down and hits below the knee roll and ball tracking has it going over the top I'll trust in the technology.
I defy you to find literally any example like the one mentioned above. Any.

For starters, in the rare instance that any international batsman would be shit enough to miss a ball that is actually on its way down when it gets to them, they would be experienced enough not to review it. You know, having most likely played cricket their whole life and all.
 

Belnakor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
18,214
Likes
8,817
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
#21
I'd have this like the Goal ump in footy. In that the umpire gives his call it goes upstairs and then the 3rd umpire decides. Either over turned/upheld or back to umpires call. Use any relevant technology but the ultimate call should be the umpires not what the "inaccurate" technology is telling them.
they tried this in the early days and the umpires referred basically everything.

The new system has added a tactical element to it's use, which is ok. If they want it just for the howlers it would need to go down to 1 per innings but that will never happen.
 

JONKOK

All Australian
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Posts
607
Likes
676
AFL Club
Adelaide
#22
DRS has been great but I still don't trust the ball tracking. E.g I remember Mitch Marsh getting out on review to an apparent leg spinner from Rabada in 2016.
 

G Mus

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Posts
5,343
Likes
4,910
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Juventus
#24
The issue is the graphical representation, not the DRS result

What we should get is the hitbox with % chance
 
Top Bottom