Remove DRS LBW

[Topkent]

There used to be a magic waiting for the umpire to raise his finger to the road of the crowd and now it's just a dick tease to begin a tedious process at best.

The DRS should only overturn LBWs for edges or no balls. Hawkeye should not be able to overturn an out decision or vice versa.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

There used to be a magic waiting for the umpire to raise his finger to the road of the crowd

That shouldn't be the basis of a rule change.

 

[Scotland]

No. It's been good overall for the game, even with teething troubles.

I'm not convinced with the ball tracking (which cannot and will not be 100% accurate, it's a projection) but front foot, pitch of the ball and impact of the ball are very accurate. Damien Martyn middled one onto his pads in 2005 and was given out. We want those sort of decisions overturned.

I like the change to umpire's call with ball tracking.

 

[frankrizzo]

You just can't go back now anyway, if you got two or three shockers in a test people arent just going to forget there used to be that drs thing that could fix it.

 

[Lensen]

They need to change the in line umpires call rule - either way is fine but has to be consistent

Part of the ball hits Smith on the pad outside the line with part in line and it's umpires call. Part of the ball bounces in line with leg stump with part outside the line and it's a flat outside leg? Just no

 

[Scotland]

They need to change the in line umpires call rule - either way is fine but has to be consistent

Part of the ball hits Smith on the pad outside the line with part in line and it's umpires call. Part of the ball bounces in line with leg stump with part outside the line and it's a flat outside leg? Just no

Not sure this is even clear in the LBW law.

36.1 Out LBW

The striker is out LBW if all the circumstances set out in 36.1.1 to 36.1.5 apply.
36.1.1 The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball
36.1.2 the ball, if it is not intercepted full-pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker’s wicket
36.1.3 the ball not having previously touched his/her bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full-pitch or after pitching, with any part of his/her person
36.1.4 the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails,
either is between wicket and wicket or
if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with the bat, is between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump.
36.1.5 but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-36-leg-before-wicket/

Is 49% of the ball pitching in line with the stumps and 51% pitching outside the line of the stumps on the leg side, pitching outside leg - or pitching inline?

If the umpire gives the batsman out, at what point do we want the technology overuling the decision on each basis? And vice versa for batsmen given not out.

It's meant for howlers but players still roll the dice more often than not. Steve Smith can't claim either his successful or unsuccessful reviews today were howlers.

 

[Deanismyhero]

DRS seems a bit ridiculous ATM , it was brought in for the "howler" what ever that means.. But now its just roll the dice and will only get worse given you have the chance to retain your review if its an umpires call.

 

[Outshined]

Should be reduced down to 1 review per 80 overs imo. Eliminates the standard speculative review of a plumb lbw or clear edge that comes with most innings.

No issue with the technology for mine, but I have to agree that the way it's being used by captains/batsmen is tedious.

 

[Topkent]

Not sure this is even clear in the LBW law.



https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-36-leg-before-wicket/

Is 49% of the ball pitching in line with the stumps and 51% pitching outside the line of the stumps on the leg side, pitching outside leg - or pitching inline?

If the umpire gives the batsman out, at what point do we want the technology overuling the decision on each basis? And vice versa for batsmen given not out.

It's meant for howlers but players still roll the dice more often than not. Steve Smith can't claim either his successful or unsuccessful reviews today were howlers.

It's not over ruling bowlers it's being used as 50/50 shout to overturn umpires. Eventually there won't even be a field umpire because the technology will be quick enough to tell you ball tracking immediately ... snore.

What about like the guy above said and only 1 review. So if you edge it you would call for it or else your out if the umpire says.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

All outs should be automatically reviewed. Teams should have 3 challenges for not outs.

 

[Wallaby]

I'll say it again - it's not the technology - it's the implementation. We have removed so many howlers that used to occur in the game. DRS Ball tracking is infinitely superior to the umpires trusting their eyes. Analysts watching on TV, criticising the technology should just shut up. Or say 'Well, from up here, 150 metres away, watching a replay from one angle on a TV screen, it looked out, but now I see the accurate, computer-driven analysis, I was wrong'.

Take it away from the players, and give it solely to the 4th umpire. He's got a mike, he talks with the on-field umps. Everyone else, shut up.

 

[corbies]

People seem to forget how much of our time we spent talking about umpiring decisions pre-DRS. There is a lot more talk about the cricket now and it can only be a good thing.

 

[Topkent]

People seem to forget how much of our time we spent talking about umpiring decisions pre-DRS. There is a lot more talk about the cricket now and it can only be a good thing.

People will complain no matter what. Point is its such a mood killer when you see an lbw and then everyone refers and we wait 15 minutes for them to say it was the umpires decision.

They should only over turn the ones that are inside edges or no balls. It ruins the atmosphere of the game.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

People will complain no matter what. Point is its such a mood killer when you see an lbw and then everyone refers and we wait 15 minutes for them to say it was the umpires decision.

They should only over turn the ones that are inside edges or no balls. It ruins the atmosphere of the game.

It's a minor inconvenience at best compared to incorrect decisions altering matches and careers.

 

[FRUMPY]

People will complain no matter what. Point is its such a mood killer when you see an lbw and then everyone refers and we wait 15 minutes for them to say it was the umpires decision.

They should only over turn the ones that are inside edges or no balls. It ruins the atmosphere of the game.

its a couple of minutes at best and we are getting more correct decisions and less howlers. People just love to complain

 

[the_interloper]

The one Anderson had turned down the other day by DRS was plumb in my opinion, should have been given. I think it's good for picking up inside edges and whether it pitches outside leg, not as sure about the ball tracking for hitting the stumps.

 

[dogs105]

The one Anderson had turned down the other day by DRS was plumb in my opinion, should have been given. I think it's good for picking up inside edges and whether it pitches outside leg, not as sure about the ball tracking for hitting the stumps.

The one that hit Marsh above the knee roll with the big stride forward? Or the one that hit the thigh pad?

 

[the_interloper]

The one that hit Marsh above the knee roll with the big stride forward? Or the one that hit the thigh pad?

The knee roll one, looked out to me, I would have had no issue with that been given (which it was).

 

[Gough]

its a couple of minutes at best and we are getting more correct decisions and less howlers. People just love to complain

Really noticeable this Test how quick the DRS reviews have been, they seem to have got the protocols around it all sorted and it really doesn't feel like the game is being too interrupted. For a long time so many of the reviews were taking way too long.

 

[dogs105]

The knee roll one, looked out to me, I would have had no issue with that been given (which it was).

Looked high from side on live. Then the replay looked high and a long way forward, then ball tracker showed high. I had no issue with it.

 

[dogs105]

Really noticeable this Test how quick the DRS reviews have been, they seem to have got the protocols around it all sorted and it really doesn't feel like the game is being too interrupted. For a long time so many of the reviews were taking way too long.

Yep. Now hear them saying "ball tracker when ready" a lot - they are not spending 5 minutes looking at other things 6 times each. Checking the edge seems much quicker than previously.

 

[Gethelred]

Yep. Now hear them saying "ball tracker when ready" a lot - they are not spending 5 minutes looking at other things 6 times each. Checking the edge seems much quicker than previously.

That's largely due to the lack of line ball LBW; all the LBW's reviewed this series have been reviewed either due to length (is the ball going over the stumps?) or line (is the ball pitching outside leg; was the point of impact in line; was the ball hitting the stumps?), so the edge hasn't really gotten involved.

As for the issue at hand, last night the umpires were entirely too willing to give LBW's, and this is reflected in both Khwaja's and Smith's dismissals (both of them). All three LBW's had significant reasons to be considered borderline, with Khwaja's a sign of good umpiring (that should be out, even if it isn't always given) and both of Smith's being poor - a right arm bowler bowling around the wickets should always have a hard time getting LBW's, and Anderson was bowling wide of the stumps to emphasise the swing. It may've only just been down leg, but there is always a good chance for a bowler bowling around the wicket looking for an LBW to be down leg. The second and upheld LBW decision was an example of how the system is in place to protect umpiring, not the players, from a howler; you should never give that out, and due to the vicissitudes of Hawkeye, Smith had to walk.

Ultimately, I don't trust how accurate Hawkeye is, and am uncomfortable with it being used to determine the outcome of an LBW shout. It's pretty hard to get information on it; I tried for a while over a weekend once, and all I could find was a years old article from the inventor saying that it was only 86% accurate past a certain point. Granted, the technology will no doubt have been improved upon since then, but Hawkeye is intended for the best conditions, not when the thing is whooping and spitting off the deck like it was last night.

I'd be fine with LBW reviews changed to only consider whether or not the ball was pitched in line, and if so whether it is in line at the point of impact. Let whether or not it's hitting the stumps stay with an umpire; it'll give them a bit more confidence to back themselves in, and would lessen the amount of LBW's reviewed.

 

[FRUMPY]

Really noticeable this Test how quick the DRS reviews have been, they seem to have got the protocols around it all sorted and it really doesn't feel like the game is being too interrupted. For a long time so many of the reviews were taking way too long.

Yeah definitely noticeable how much quicker they have been. Seems a very strightline process at present. Not sure if the fact we hear it all from start-finish helps with it seeming faster.

Compare it to baseball video referral and they can take up to 5-10mins for some instances

 

[eth-dog]

Neither were out. Right decisions were made.

 

[PoopingHindi]

i think the use of DRS has been much better so far this series with the new rule changes.
that said, i still dont trust Hawkeye or whatever its called now.