No DRS - why bother?

[Wallaby]

I don't think I'll watch anymore non-DRS tests. The number of errors by umpires (not their fault, these things can sometimes only be picked up via DRS) mean that basically a close test comes down to who gets the lucky decisions. Crapshoot. Flip a coin - hey, we win (or lose).

So far - just in this innings - 2 of the 4 dismissals are wrong, and at least 2 of the not-out decisions have proven to be wrong. It's no good saying 'well, two-all evens out' - I want to see the match decided by the skill of the cricketers. OK - there's sometimes a bit of luck involved there - Kohli bunts one straight up in the air to silly point - who isn't there at the time. That happens - that's a decision made by the players.

But luck involving the umpires shouldn't be a part of the game when we have technology to significantly reduce errors.

Whatever the result of this test, the main talking point will be the umpiring and the fact that DRS would have made a difference. I accept DRS is not perfect - but it's a hell of a lot better than the situation we have now.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Power, money and corruption. In that order.

 

[Blue1980]

Can't bribe DRS

 

[Hamingja]

Can't bribe DRS

The match up of snicko to live pictures is about as dodgy as it gets.

 

[Gough]

Cricket is an imperfect game, I don't see why everybody wants to change that. I far prefer the game without DRS, players make mistakes all the time and yet we expect the umpires to be perfect, if they keep getting it wrong they suffer the same fate as players and lose their spots.

 

[happy_eagle]

The ICC need to buy the technology and implement it in all grounds and all matches
One of the reasons the Indians dont want it, is becuase of the incosistency of its use worldwide. The broadcasters in the sub-continent for example I dont think have Hotspot

 

[sherb]

I don't think I'll watch anymore non-DRS tests. The number of errors by umpires (not their fault, these things can sometimes only be picked up via DRS) mean that basically a close test comes down to who gets the lucky decisions. Crapshoot. Flip a coin - hey, we win (or lose).

That's always been the case though.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Oh please, we had no DRS for 100 years, we will live

 

[happy_eagle]

Oh please, we had no DRS for 100 years, we will live

I never quite understood this logic. Same people will try and tell you that the world would be a better place without computers or anything modern

The fact is we have a system that allows us to account and correct 99% of human error, so why not use it

 

[damochandler]

the umpires have got to get it right on many levels.
first priority is the no ball

 

[Wallaby]

Cricket is an imperfect game, I don't see why everybody wants to change that. I far prefer the game without DRS, players make mistakes all the time and yet we expect the umpires to be perfect, if they keep getting it wrong they suffer the same fate as players and lose their spots.

No one experts umpires to be perfect - but that's what we want in an ideal world. If a combination of umpires and technology brings them closer to perfection, why not use it?

Some sports have got rid of human umpires or judges entirely - with Photo finishes we no longer rely on human eyes for close finishes in races (ok, we still have to interpret the photo, but that's on an infinitely finer scale). We use plasticene to help adjudicate on long jump fouls. No one misses those judges.

 

[Gough]

No one experts umpires to be perfect - but that's what we want in an ideal world. If a combination of umpires and technology brings them closer to perfection, why not use it?

Some sports have got rid of human umpires or judges entirely - with Photo finishes we no longer rely on human eyes for close finishes in races (ok, we still have to interpret the photo, but that's on an infinitely finer scale). We use plasticene to help adjudicate on long jump fouls. No one misses those judges.

I don't want cricket to be a perfect game, a Test match is as much of a mental challenge for all those involved as a physical one, it's what makes it close to the ultimate sporting contest and human frailty plays a big part in that.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Umpires make mistakes in cricket... so I guess you are new to the sport... (or any sport for that matter)

For mine - DRS needs to be an ICC initiative - not a host broadcaster one.

Either the ICC mandates it for all tests and funds it - or it shouldn't be in place IMO

Countries shouldn't elect for or against it. Imagine countries saying - nah we'll bowl 8 ball overs

 

[frankrizzo]

Why allow some technology that allows multiple views and slowmo's into tests then?

it's alright to use technology to check the front foot or on a stumping/run out or if a ball carried to a fielder but not to see if batsmen edged it onto his pads when you gave him lbw?

If we had no tv technology available such as what i listed above and the ICC suddenly wanted to bring it now for 2014 we all know the BCCI would shoot it down as this whole thing has turned into a political mess.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I never quite understood this logic. Same people will try and tell you that the world would be a better place without computers or anything modern

The fact is we have a system that allows us to account and correct 99% of human error, so why not use it

Until the system is 100% perfect then I'd rather back the umpires. I am not a fan of LBW's being subject to DRS.

 

[happy_eagle]

Until the system is 100% perfect then I'd rather back the umpires. I am not a fan of LBW's being subject to DRS.

Thats why we have umpires call though on Eagle Eye?
If it is within a margin of doubt, then the umpires original decision stands. Anything that shows hitting in my oppinion is totally solid

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Thats why we have umpires call though on Eagle Eye?
If it is within a margin of doubt, then the umpires original decision stands. Anything that shows hitting in my oppinion is totally solid

Or we can just not use it for LBW's. Simple. Happy to remove the howlers- e.g. inside edges and the ball missing the bat. LBW's are subjective. No need for DRS on them.

 

[happy_eagle]

Or we can just not use it for LBW's. Simple. Happy to remove the howlers- e.g. inside edges and the ball missing the bat. LBW's are subjective. No need for DRS on them.

But I dont think LBW's are subjective with the umpires call allowance
If more than half the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps, I think that takes into account more than any error that could occur

 

[LukeParkerno1]

But I dont think LBW's are subjective with the umpires call allowance
If more than half the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps, I think that takes into account more than any error that could occur

They are subjective, these pad/bat LBWS that are being overturned are ridiculous. They go against everything that is about cricket. We don't need eagle eye. Just use hot spot for the edges.

 

[happy_eagle]

They are subjective, these pad/bat LBWS that are being overturned are ridiculous. They go against everything that is about cricket. We don't need eagle eye. Just use hot spot for the edges.

You keep on telling me they are subjective but you havent told me why
Blah Blah blah tradition of cricket etc..
What is wrong with Eagle Eye and its use of the Umpires Call to alleviate error

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You keep on telling me they are subjective but you havent told me why
Blah Blah blah tradition of cricket etc..
What is wrong with Eagle Eye and its use of the Umpires Call to alleviate error

They don't allow for enough for the umpires. They don't remove howlers, and too often captains are having a dart board shot at a LBW. Get rid of the LBW from DRS. Everyone would be happy with that.

 

[happy_eagle]

They don't allow for enough for the umpires

How?
The umpires decision is only questioned and reversed if it is inconclusive
Anything greater than 50% of the ball hitting the stumps is conclusive

They don't remove howlers

When? (doesnt include teams that run out of reviews, thats just poor management)

and too often captains are having a dart board shot at a LBW

And if most of the ball is hitting the stump, it is given out as it should be

 

[LukeParkerno1]

How?
The umpires decision is only questioned and reversed if it is inconclusive
Anything greater than 50% of the ball hitting the stumps is conclusive

When? (doesnt include teams that run out of reviews, thats just poor management)

And if most of the ball is hitting the stump, it is given out as it should be

Khawaja in England for one. That was enough of a howler, even with DRS it was botched. 50% is not enough, it should be 80% or close to 90% of the ball to reverse it. I have an issue with these pad/bat decisions being overturned the most though.

 

[happy_eagle]

Khawaja in England for one. That was enough of a howler, even with DRS it was botched. 50% is not enough, it should be 80% or close to 90% of the ball to reverse it. I have an issue with these pad/bat decisions being overturned the most though.

Agree to disagree with percentage I guess
Bat/Pad has nothing to do with Eagle Eye though?

 

[sherb]

They don't allow for enough for the umpires. They don't remove howlers, and too often captains are having a dart board shot at a LBW. Get rid of the LBW from DRS. Everyone would be happy with that.

I wouldn't.

Or do you think that LBWs given where the batsman smashes the ball into his pad should stand?

You need to get rid of the speculative grounds for lbw review (ie ball going on to hit the stumps).

And retain the measurable grounds - ie where the ball pitches, impact with pad and did the batsman hit it first.