DRS

Remove this Banner Ad

I have an issue that no balls are only checked if a wicket is taken. Now while I understand that batsman should not be given out if it’s a no ball the problem is that if you are not going to check every ball then you should not be checking wicket balls.
Don’t mind the DRS in general but hate the review situation. Players should be left out of it. If the third umpire thinks a decision is wrong he should intervene and go through his process.
 
Run n Spread said:
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.
Click to expand...
There was a trial in 2013 where fixed cameras were set up for a test match to judge no balls. ICC said that it was cost prohibitive for all other tests.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Run n Spread said:
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.
Click to expand...
It may appear that way with the bounce but I don’t think it over estimates it significantly. Especially with a guy like Lyon when the batsmans forward it’s unlikely to be hitting.
 
Has reduced wrong decisions from 1 in 10 to 1 in 40.
 
Why does cricinfo keep talking about kohli being angry about an overturned decision?

I thought it was a not out for caught behind and without conclusive evidence stayed as it was, kohli whinging doesn't mean a mistake was made and india did not suffer from an overturned call.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
I have an issue that no balls are only checked if a wicket is taken. Now while I understand that batsman should not be given out if it’s a no ball the problem is that if you are not going to check every ball then you should not be checking wicket balls.
Don’t mind the DRS in general but hate the review situation. Players should be left out of it. If the third umpire thinks a decision is wrong he should intervene and go through his process.
Click to expand...



"could" have been the difference in the Edgbaston '05 or Adelaide 92/93 tests and warnie would've had a test ton.
 
So the DRS is a talking point again, a couple of days have passed that we lost a test we should of won. More by our own mistakes than the umpires but we would of got the result we wanted if we didn't have a failed DRS system.

The system was introduced into cricket to get rid of the bad decisions out of the game.
It has turned into a tactical skill when captains use there reviews and is really only there to confirm umpires decisions.
They need to take the players out of DRS, no challenges. just simply left to the umpire and the third umpire.

Lets just take the Lyon non LBW call in the last test as an example. Umpire gives it not out, third umpire immediately tells the umpire he is going to look at this and the third umpire gets the call right. Players cannot challenge a decision it is simply left to the umpires. No soft calls, ball is either hitting the stumps or not. Either they believe in the system or they don't.

There is no need at all for any captain to have to worry about how many times he can challenge, or when to challenge. Take it out of their hands. It's a bloody joke at the moment that the system is not being used for what it's initial purpose was for.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
Lets just take the Lyon non LBW call in the last test as an example. Umpire gives it not out, third umpire immediately tells the umpire he is going to look at this and the third umpire gets the call right. Players cannot challenge a decision it is simply left to the umpires. No soft calls, ball is either hitting the stumps or not. Either they believe in the system or they don't.

There is no need at all for any captain to have to worry about how many times he can challenge, or when to challenge. Take it out of their hands. It's a bloody joke at the moment that the system is not being used for what it's initial purpose was for.
Click to expand...
This system blows up when the captain wants to challenge but the third umpires just goes with the on field umpires call, only to find out later the batsmen would have been out.

The obvious solution is the third umpire looks at every call, but over rates would plummet even further than the joke levels they are currently at.
 
I'm surprised there's not more DRS discussion on this forum...

the contents of this article contains refreshing viewpoints from Aleem Dar and Billy Bowden about DRS being debut'd back in November 2009

Decision Review System set for debut: Cricket Next

The tried and tested new umpires review system will come into effect with the first cricket Test between New Zealand and Pakistan starting in Dunedin from Wednesday. , Live cricket match scores, commentary, statistics, match analysis and news 24X7 online coverage from india and around the world...
web.archive.org
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Oct 30, 2012 had the first changes to DRS's "tracking" decision making... from my own personal memory, before this date all DRS decisions were exactly as the tracking showed. e.g. if any of the ball is hitting any of the stumps it's out.

web.archive.org

ICC paves way for Day-Night Tests

web.archive.org web.archive.org

"On DRS (Test and ODIs)
An amendment has been made to the LBW protocols. The margin of uncertainty applicable to the point of impact with the pad has been increased so that it is the same as provided for determining the projected point of impact with the stumps. For example, if the centre of the ball is shown to be impacting in line within an area demarcated by a line drawn down the middle of the outer stumps (and the bottom of the bails), then the decision will always be out.
If the whole of the ball is shown to be impacting outside the line of the stumps, then the decision will always be not out. If there is anything in between, the original on-field decision will stand. "

centre of the ball lined up with the centre of the off-stump or leg-stump (depending on the scenario) and centre of the ball lined up with the bottom of the bails and out to any percent of the ball hitting the stumps at all is umpire's call in that scenario (everything else as you'd expect is either "out" for hitting more than that, or "not out" for completely missing"...
 
From approx 1st October 2016, it changed again...

web.archive.org

ICC Annual Conference concludes in Edinburgh

ICC Annual Conference concludes in Edinburgh
web.archive.org web.archive.org


"DRS – Umpire’s Call

During its meetings, the ICC approved a change to the DRS playing condition relating to the LBW “Umpire’s Call”. The size of the zone inside which half the ball needs to hit for a Not Out decision to be reversed to Out will increase, changing to a zone bordered by the outside of off and leg stumps, and the bottom of the bails (formerly the centre of off and leg stumps, and the bottom of the bails).

This amendment will come into effect from 1 October (or from the start of any series using DRS that commences just prior to this date). "


This means basically the "umpire's call" was reduced by a half of leg-stump and off-stump, meaning the centre-line of the ball had to line up with the edge of the stump instead of the middle of the stump. The height attributes remained the same.



this link has some interesting facts:
www.espncricinfo.com

ICC approves changes to DRS playing conditions

The ICC has approved changes to the umpire's call with respect to not-out lbw decisions under the DRS
www.espncricinfo.com www.espncricinfo.com

"a recommendation had been made to reduce the margin of umpire's call on the DRS. Jayawardene had said the proposal was to reduce the margin from 50% of the ball hitting the stumps to 25%. However, the ICC release stated that "half the ball" would still need to hit the stumps."
 
The current incarnation of DRS comes in approx October 2017

www.hindustantimes.com

Cricket to change, new rules on run-outs, bat size, poor behaviour from Sept. 28

The International Cricket Council has announced the implementation of new playing conditions from September 28 across all formats of international cricket
www.hindustantimes.com www.hindustantimes.com

"Teams will also not lose any review due to ‘umpire’s call’, said cricket’s world body, adding that it was doing away with DRS appeal top-ups in Test cricket after 80 overs in an innings."

Basically the same as previously just with a differeing "retention/topup" system.
 
I seem to have some memories of weird stuff whereby the "umpire's call" amount differed depending on different scenario's in the tracking pathway, e.g. pitching/impact/hitting... I'll see if I can find something out about it in the morning/arvo.
 
I’m not a fan. I’m sure others will disagree but like most video refereeing in sport it was meant to eliminate the howler but has only added another layer of human incompetence to the mix while holding up the game itself. Not to mention contravening the spirit of accepting that the umpires’ call is final. I’d rather watch the game than a slow circle jerk over an umpires’ call. Also why should there only be a mulligan for umpiring mistakes? Shouldn’t Pat Cummins or his teammates be able to challenge his poor decision to bowl a short pie with the game on the line?
 
corbies said:
If people can watch the 1st Test Match of this Ashes and think Test matches without DRS would be better I really don't know what to say.
Click to expand...

It is not about getting rid of DRS, it is about using it for what it is for which is to eliminate the howlers, you should never have a situation that a howler can't be sorted because a side has run out of challenges. Take the players out of it and just let the umpires and third umpire do what they have to do to get the dicsions right, no soft calls, no challenges. Let the umpires sort it.
 
k31th said:
Oct 30, 2012 had the first changes to DRS's "tracking" decision making... from my own personal memory, before this date all DRS decisions were exactly as the tracking showed. e.g. if any of the ball is hitting any of the stumps it's out...
Click to expand...
k31th said:
I seem to have some memories of weird stuff whereby the "umpire's call" amount differed depending on different scenario's in the tracking pathway, e.g. pitching/impact/stumps...
Click to expand...
turns out the memories I was referring to were pretty close to correct, as you'd expect at least a few inaccuracies for being approx 10 years ago haha

found this archived ICC rules

About ICC - Rules and Regulations

The home of international cricket - www.icc-cricket.com.
web.archive.org
"Review of Umpiring Decisions" <-- this link has a PDF that's no longer accessible at that website under the name of "umpire-decision-review-system-playing-conditions.pdf" but I found it here -> http://www.communicatejesus.com/wp-...A2F335D543EF937F162F837_1257924398353_687.pdf (the date of upload matches the dates of the introduction of DRS)


The key section to read in that PDF is section 3.

Here's the parts I thought there were interesting to point out and/or discuss (I'll check the relevant points later if they have been changed in the latest ICC regulations documentation):

- "A player may request a review of any decision taken by the on-field umpires concerning whether or not a batsman is dismissed, with the exception of ‘Timed Out’ (Player Review) " -- To me this means even catches are rewiewable by players, but I've never seen such a thing happen in a game..

- "...only the captain (or acting captain) of the fielding team may request a Player Review of a ‘Not Out’ decision" -- interesting if it contrasts with current regs.
- "The total time elapsed between the ball becoming dead and the review request being made should be no more than a few seconds." -- interesting wording before the current 15sec timer came in. Umpire discretion seemed to be the only factor before this.

- "captain may consult with the bowler and other fielders or the two batsmen may consult with each other prior to deciding whether to request a Player Review ... such consultation will need to occur almost instantly and be very brief. " -- had to laugh at the "almost instantly" wording here. It's only ever instant if there's no consultation

- "signals from the dressing room must not be given. " -- this is the one Smith got in trouble for once for looking up at the balcony once.
- "No replays, either at normal speed or slow motion, should be shown on a big screen to spectators until either the next delivery has been bowled or the players have left the field." - I'm glad this was changed to be the complete opposite

- "does not preclude a player seeking a Player Review of a separate incident from the same delivery. The Player Review request may be made after the Umpire Review provided it is still within the timescale" -- separate incidents can be reviewed by the players after an umpire review takes place... something else I haven't seen happen...

- "third umpire must then work alone, independent of outside help or comment, other than when consulting the on-field umpire. " & "consultation should be on points of fact, where possible phrased in a manner leading to yes or no answers " & "third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire’s questions... third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. " -- funny how this process is seemingly not followed specifically in the case of the two-way nature of hte process. The umpires are basically never shown to be indicating anything or asking/answering questions other than standard soft signals; perhaps this has changed in the current regs.

- "if... third umpire is unable to answer with a high degree of confidence a particular question posed by the on-field umpire, then he should report that the replays are ‘inconclusive’. The third umpire should not give answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities. " -- seems this process is out the window or never really followed strictly that I can remember

- "If a Player Review and an Umpire Review occur from the same delivery and the decision from the Umpire Review renders the Player Review unnecessary, then the Player Review request will be ignored and not be counted as unsuccessful." -- this bit explains why a player review like when Root reviewed recently to check if Labuschagne was out caught behind (discussion from here https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...22-27-august-headingley.1226362/post-62479289), umpire part of the review concluded it was a no-ball so the review was retained (at least that's how I interpreted it)


Here's the parts relevant to LBW tracking that indicate that this was the beginning method of deduction:

- "to determine where the ball pitched, the third umpire should refer to the “point” (or centre) of the ball. Therefore if at least 50% of the ball pitches outside the line of leg stump, then no LBW dismissal is possible." -- this indicates to me that it's in line with the current rules of "the line of leg stump" here meaning the "outside of leg stump" and not the "middle" as per impact/stumps points below, but without umpire's call being considered so it's a solid yes/no when comparing to the on-field decision.

- "With regard to the point of impact ... for 'not out' review; the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball at the moment of interception is between wicket and wicket ... for 'out' review; the evidence provided by technology should show that no part of the ball at the moment of interception is between wicket and wicket." -- this also tells me that with "impact" it's the "outside of leg and off stump" and not the "middle".

- "With regard to determining whether the ball was likely to have hit the stumps: ... for 'not out' review; evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps. ... for 'out' review; evidence of the technology should show that no part of the ball would have made contact with any part of the stumps or bails. " -- this tells me that it being worded differently to "pitching" and "impact" means that "hitting" is the only measurement where the "centre of ball, centre of off/leg stump and bottom of bails" is specifically considered at this time.



There's no mention of "umpire's call" but the differentiation between the "hitting stumps on a not out" call and the "hitting stumps stumps on an out call and impact on both not out and out" clearly favours the umpire's decisions of "out" and is only overturned on fairly tighter constraints in comparison when the onfield umpire decides "not out". This is why I probably remembered so may more umpire decisions being favoured by DRS over the "not out" calls being overturned as this system clearly is not perfect and it also deserved to be replaced down the line.
 
Last edited:
Richard Pryor said:
The ball tracking seems to s**t itself pretty often when the ball hits both pads. Even completely crashed once in the most recent test because of it from memroy.
Click to expand...
Its probably developed with one deflection in mind, but struggles to discern which one to use when there are two sudden changes of trajectory. Especially if the first one is a relatively small change.
This is not such an issue when its bat first because snicko/hotspot (which is a crock itself, or at least poorly used) have normally already been used before ball-tracking. But I daresay ball tracking likely would have the same issues then if we saw it.

Somehow, it needs to be out of the hands of the players. But without umpires referring everything, like they do for very obvious run outs and stumping calls. That would just kill the game, over-rate wise.
 
corbies said:
If people can watch the 1st Test Match of this Ashes and think Test matches without DRS would be better I really don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
That’s not strictly a DRS issue. Dar and Wilson are both crap umpires. Perhaps their decision making would be better if they were made more accountable for their performance or lack there of, if they didn’t have technology constantly bailing them out of their bad decisions?
 
Johnny Karate said:
That’s not strictly a DRS issue. Dar and Wilson are both crap umpires. Perhaps their decision making would be better if they were made more accountable for their performance or lack there of, if they didn’t have technology constantly bailing them out of their bad decisions?
Click to expand...
I dunno, you go watch some cricket from the 80s and tell me their decision making is improved by a lack of technology bailing them out.
 
corbies said:
I dunno, you go watch some cricket from the 80s and tell me their decision making is improved by a lack of technology bailing them out.
Click to expand...
But how do we know that teams wouldn’t have used up their challenges and not copped the howlers in the 80s?

I still don’t really get why there is such acute focus on umpiring mistakes in the context of the batsman being out or not. There’s likely plenty of no balls missed per game. Furthermore, even though I think technology is great in assisting umpires for run outs, there’s a fair chance they are missing short runs by not getting in position.

Human error is part of being human. If an umpire is consistently terrible they should get the arse instead of mulligans.

Technology was supposed to eliminate the howler, all it has seemingly done is add another layer of human error to the mix and hold up the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

11kgm
BBL and WBBL to finally have DRS; Bash Boost and X-Factor scrapped
Replies
7
Views
749
corbies
corbies

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top