Remove this Banner Ad

Remove DRS LBW

  • Thread starter Thread starter Topkent
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Topkent said:
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.
Click to expand...

Used to totally agree with this, being a mood killer.

But I have come around a bit. It has added new dimension to the drama. Now, not only can you enjoy getting an opponent out, but you can really rub it in when they waste a review.

The act of the umpire raising his finger is not without consequence either; if it is close and ends up an "umpire's call" then it is of great importance.

It would be nice to see some calibration results of the technology but at the end of the day it need not be perfect, just significantly better than unassisted umpiring.
 
Anybody that is Like me and has a large collection of highlights from pre drs should be in favour of this system, it really was shocking how many truly awful calls were made and how much they then dominated the talk during the match.

Drs ain't perfect but it's light years ahead of what came before it.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I'd go with just 1 review for the batting team. Shouldn't be the umpires fault that he gives the batsman out. The batsman has a bat, he might as well use it. Although I'd have two reviews for the bowling team. I prefer to favour the fielding sides, makes the game more interesting.
 
frankrizzo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's right unfortunately. Can't unbake the cake.

Which is a shame because I preferred things without DRS. Have now lost the immediacy of the umpire's decision. Plus cricket was a great parallel for life - life's not fair, cricket's not fair. Character building - have to accept the umpires decision, walk off the ground, get on with it. It will all come out in the wash. Win some you lose some. Etc.

That's all gone. Now if you don't get the decision you want just whinge at the top of your lungs until it gets changed.

Though I wonder if it will ever get to the stage that the process they go through for DRS now (front foot, snicko, hot spot, ball tracking etc) can happen in real time?
 
frankrizzo said:
Anybody that is Like me and has a large collection of highlights from pre drs should be in favour of this system, it really was shocking how many truly awful calls were made and how much they then dominated the talk during the match.
Click to expand...
Yet cricket survived. The great players were still great, the great teams were still great.
 
kickazz said:
Forgot to mention the best thing about DRS: It has more or less gotten rid of excessive / intimidating appealing. That could get ugly. Now, if you really think it's out, put your money where your mouth is and use a review.
Click to expand...

Good point .
 
Topkent said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh? It's overturning decisions. Umpire's make decisions, not bowlers or batsmen.

If you are given LBW and think the ball pitched outside leg or you were hit outside the line, at what point do we want to see that decision overturned? 100% of the ball pitching outside leg, 100% of the ball hitting outside the line? The law itself isn't doesn't go into detail of percentage of ball in line. I don't mind the 50/50 thing for both. If the umpire says the ball pitched in line and it's 50% in line then that's good enough for me. Others might want to see 100% of the ball outside the line, and some will be happy for 1% of the ball to be outside the line.

I think 2 per innings is fair enough. The fewer teams have, the more conservative they'll be. Give each player their own review and you'd see 22 per innings.

I'd also be happy trialling a system where only dismissals were reviewed and not non-dismissals. Take it out of the players' hands and review every LBW, caught behind etc.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Yet cricket survived. The great players were still great, the great teams were still great.
Click to expand...

Agreed but it was still tedious having to listen to the constant whinging about cheating umps screwing over such and such a team, this system is at least consistent which means more talk post match on who did what rather than which ump is a dirty cheat.

As others have pointed out it also seems to have improved things between the players and the umpires.
 
frankrizzo said:
Anybody that is Like me and has a large collection of highlights from pre drs should be in favour of this system, it really was shocking how many truly awful calls were made and how much they then dominated the talk during the match.

Drs ain't perfect but it's light years ahead of what came before it.
Click to expand...
steve buchnor - the single reason DRS was brought in

he had a highlight reel of his own
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Yeah, that's right unfortunately. Can't unbake the cake.

Which is a shame because I preferred things without DRS. Have now lost the immediacy of the umpire's decision. Plus cricket was a great parallel for life - life's not fair, cricket's not fair. Character building - have to accept the umpires decision, walk off the ground, get on with it. It will all come out in the wash. Win some you lose some. Etc.

That's all gone. Now if you don't get the decision you want just whinge at the top of your lungs until it gets changed.

Though I wonder if it will ever get to the stage that the process they go through for DRS now (front foot, snicko, hot spot, ball tracking etc) can happen in real time?
Click to expand...

This is a fair post.

Since cricket has been played there have always been arguments that 'he knicked that' or 'now way was that going on to hit the stumps' etc. but I am glad we have DRS even though it isn't perfect. The ambiguity over umpire's call and the accuracy of the ball tracking are probably people's biggest bugbears.

The two Steve Smith LBWs in the second innings are classic Bill saying it was going over, Tony saying it was out decisions. Smith rolled the dice because he knows that if the technology says the ball pitched 51% outside leg or the tracker says it would've gone over by 1mm then the decision will be overturned.

I think it was the 2009 Ashes where Mitchell Johnson had a couple of the plumbest LBWs you'll ever see turned down. Pitched 100% in line, hitting 100% in line, hitting middle half way up, bat nowhere in sight sort of affair. You don't want to see those sort of non-decisions, and you don't want to see bowlers pitching an inch outside the line of leg stump, hitting the batsman above the knee roll when he's forward in the crease then the decision being out LBW. The system needs tweaking, not being thrown out.
 
Topkent said:
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.
Click to expand...
There used to also be a stack of batsman incorrectly given out
 

Remove this Banner Ad

kickazz said:
Forgot to mention the best thing about DRS: It has more or less gotten rid of excessive / intimidating appealing. That could get ugly. Now, if you really think it's out, put your money where your mouth is and use a review.
Click to expand...

anyone who is old enough to have watched the '01 series in India would never, ever dispute how bloody good DRS is for the game.

I would say during that series (60 wickets) we got at least 10 dubious LBWs. If not more. Gilchrist was given out to a ball that pitched a foot outside leg stump and he smashed into his pads.

And i would put alot of it down to home town umpiring and over appealing. Frankly the new system we don't even need neutral umpires.
 
Belnakor said:
anyone who is old enough to have watched the '01 series in India would never, ever dispute how bloody good DRS is for the game.

I would say during that series (60 wickets) we got at least 10 dubious LBWs. If not more. Gilchrist was given out to a ball that pitched a foot outside leg stump and he smashed into his pads.

And i would put alot of it down to home town umpiring and over appealing. Frankly the new system we don't even need neutral umpires.
Click to expand...
The 2001 series in India is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time
 
If ever I find myself cursing the occasIonal frustrations with DRS (and they definitely exist), I simply hark back to some of the shockers we've seen over the years like Martyn in 2005 or even Symonds in 2008 and check myself.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
The 2001 series in India is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time
Click to expand...

it was obviously a great series but the over appealing from the Indians + dubious decisions were definitely a negative. The famous mumbai test we should have made 500-600 instead of 450 for example.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Even the great 2005 Ashes had some absolute howlers in it. That series was won 2-1, with England winning a test by 2 runs and us drawing a test 9 down. I swear I've heard Freddie Flintoff say that Kasprowicz missed it by a mile when he was caught behind down the leg side in the second test.
 
Well, live I thought it was clearly going own leg.
 
Scotland said:
Even the great 2005 Ashes had some absolute howlers in it. That series was won 2-1, with England winning a test by 2 runs and us drawing a test 9 down. I swear I've heard Freddie Flintoff say that Kasprowicz missed it by a mile when he was caught behind down the leg side in the second test.
Click to expand...

iirc he had his hand off the bat anyway
 
The Kasprowicz dismissal is one of most interesting from a pre-DRS perspective. There's no doubt he hit it - Kasper even said so later, and knew as soon as he did.

What is interesting is that technically he wasn't out. In real time - sure, looked out, no argument, no reason not to think it was out. Nobody objected at the time, nobody bothered with the replay at the time, because they were celebrating the close finish.

But the slow-mo showed the ball hit Kasper's glove while it was not in contact with the bat. He's ducking for his life against a Harmison bouncer (oh, sorry, England never bowl intimidatory stuff at tail-enders:rolleyes:), and flails the bat at it desperately in self-defence. But he had let go of the bat before the ball hit his glove.

DRS would have overturned it. And wouldn't that have created a storm.....................................
 
I like Chuck. He's good fun, gets excited and doesn't talk too much bull-shit.

But he's obviously never heard of this fantastic new invention called 'The Interwebby-net Thingy'.

Seriously, just google 'How does ball-tracking work?". You will get pages of results. REad the articles - some by technicians, some by critics. Learn something.

At the moment, he's just spouting 'I don't understand, so it must be wrong!". He sounds like a religious fundy complaining about evolution because 'It's too complicated!".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom