India may finally adopt DRS

[Adelaide Hawk]

So the DRS should be given to the umpires only. They can decide when to use it, and what element(s) to use as many times as they damn well please. The players should get no say.

In theory yes, in practice, possibly not. I agree it should be taken away from the players, or at least restricted to 1 review per innings, but just think what may happen if you left it to the umpires. They've demonstrated their will to leave decisions to the third umpire by calling for no-ball checks after EVERY damned wicket. Can you imagine how it would be on one of those days where a lot of appeals are made, as players will do. They'd be calling for reviews every damned over and we'd be lucky to see 50 overs in a day.

There's a place for some electronic intervention, run outs, stumpings, even snicko, but when it comes to LBW, I'd rather accept the umpire's call than Hawkeye. Too many times I've seen Hawkeye guessing where the ball was going and there is no way that was what was happening. As I said, no two balls do exactly the same thing, so how can Hawkeye know where the ball was going?

 

[Blue1980]

I think it's fine now with 2 reviews which reset after 80 overs. It's not perfect but a hell of a lot better than not using it when the technology is there.
I'm fine with hawkeye, takes any human interpretation out.

 

[Craze]

That's a very good decision because Symonds is a mile down the wicket. Hawkeye spot on also. Don't see the issue.

 

[robiecampbellbrown]

That ends with every wicket being checked to the utmost degree and 10 minutes being spent on every appeal.

Not necessarily. The umpires get to decide which to review and which not. They may choose to ask only one question eg was there an edge? Some appeals are so obviously out or not out there is no need to review.

My point is that the umpires should be in control, rather than have teams use DRS tactically.

 

[SherbertLemon]

I don't understand the "it's not 100% accurate argument".

Yeah, we get that - that's why it sticks with the umpires call. When it's too close to call it sticks with the original decision.

Essentially the only time when common sense doesn't prevail is when some dumbarse 3rd umpire overturns a really dubious caught behind.

'there's a slight flicker derp derp derp'

Therefore no howlers. It's a system that works fine. Every bad decision against india is poetic justice.

 

[robiecampbellbrown]

In theory yes, in practice, possibly not. I agree it should be taken away from the players, or at least restricted to 1 review per innings, but just think what may happen if you left it to the umpires. They've demonstrated their will to leave decisions to the third umpire by calling for no-ball checks after EVERY damned wicket. Can you imagine how it would be on one of those days where a lot of appeals are made, as players will do. They'd be calling for reviews every damned over and we'd be lucky to see 50 overs in a day.

There's a place for some electronic intervention, run outs, stumpings, even snicko, but when it comes to LBW, I'd rather accept the umpire's call than Hawkeye. Too many times I've seen Hawkeye guessing where the ball was going and there is no way that was what was happening. As I said, no two balls do exactly the same thing, so how can Hawkeye know where the ball was going?

We will have to agree to disagree then. I agree the no ball check after every wicket is laughable, but that should just be dropped. If the umpire cannot call a no ball in real time, then the ball stands as legitimate. As for multiple appeals: so what? The umpires still get to decide when and what to review.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

We will have to agree to disagree then. I agree the no ball check after every wicket is laughable, but that should just be dropped. If the umpire cannot call a no ball in real time, then the ball stands as legitimate. As for multiple appeals: so what? The umpires still get to decide when and what to review.

I was using the no-ball situation as an example of what would probably happen should we leave the DRS entirely up to umpires. Not everyone is a Richard Kettleborough, most umpires seem to lack confidence to make their own decisions these days for fear any mistake they make will be highlighted over and over again.

I can see a Test where bowlers are getting the ball to move around, and there will be a lot of playing and missing, balls hitting pads, clicking off thigh pads, etc. The umpire will want to sure he makes the correct decision, so upstairs he will go ... every freakin' time, just like they don't take a fielder's word for it that he wasn't touching the rope when he fielded the ball. I don't know about you, but that's something I'd rather like to avoid. Imagine being a batsman having to endure countless reviews each day, you'd be as nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

We tend to look at any innovation in technology as improvement just because it's new. Experience tells us that ain't necessarily the case. There is no way known I will ever accept that Hawkeye can accurately predict where the ball would have finished.

 

[sherb]

We tend to look at any innovation in technology as improvement just because it's new. Experience tells us that ain't necessarily the case. There is no way known I will ever accept that Hawkeye is 100% fool proof.

It can't be foolproof, as it is predictive.

I'd take Hawkeye out of the DRS altogether to be honest.

But it won't happen now as there is too much money involved in the technology. That alone will ensure it stays.

Sums our game up perfectly these days. Look at what money has spawned in the 20/20 product.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It can't be foolproof, as it is predictive.

I'd take Hawkeye out of the DRS altogether to be honest.

But it won't happen now as there is too much money involved in the technology. That alone will ensure it stays.

Sums our game up perfectly these days. Look at what money has spawned in the 20/20 product.

Mate, I've said it more times than I care to remember, especially in relation to football. Once you make money your prime reason for existence, you fail.

 

[sherb]

Mate, I've said it more times than I care to remember, especially in relation to football. Once you make money your prime reason for existence, you fail.

Which is why I am far more interested in local footy these days.

The Sydney local club I am involved with doesn't pay players, so people are involved because they want to be.

It's still fun as a result.