DRS is utter nonsense.

[Vilander]

There we go so cheeky Eng can use drs better but are they better in cricket?  Do you want to see a team playong drs better well cant help it. Indian team will learn

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, philcric said:

This is a brilliant idea. This way at least batsmen won't be declared out incorrectly almost 100%.

 

There will be some subjectivity and strategy of using DRS from the bowling side's perspective which I guess can't be avoided, as every appeal from the bowling side cannot be reviewed by the 3rd umpire. Having 3 reviews instead of 2 every 80 overs for the bowling team can help a bit in this regard.

 

I feel this is the best solution so far ..

 

Batting team - 0 Reviews - All OUT decisions to be reviewed by the 3rd umpire.

Bowling team - 3 Reviews every 80 overs.

 

This is good batting team has 10 wickets so 10 reviews simple. Every out decision should be reviewed and bowling team can get a few more reviews.

[cowboysfan]

I would go with the baseball way,cut down the referral to 1 per inning but give the players and coaches more time to review  the video footage,maybe 45 seconds.

[sandeep]

DRS has changed how umpires look at legbefores.  Makes it more bowler friendly now.  I view that as a good thing.  OP has weirdo expectations about DRS - it doesn't guarantee that wrong decisions will be extinct.  Just gives both teams a few opportunities to overturn howlers.  Mistakes can and still will happen. 

 

 

[putrevus]

Something is wrong here In case of  Jadeja's dismissal he was playing forward but he was at the crease and the ball tracking showed it was missing leg. Moen Ali came down the wicket but ball tracking says it was hitting the stumps.It is really weird how this tracking works.I am assuming since umpire was the same it is the same end at which both these dismissals happened.

 

Dharmasena in my book did not do anything wrong in either one. Jadeja was out and Ali was not out.

[WeStMiDz]

I quite enjoy the tactical element of DRS. The game is changing in such a way that it is no longer just a game of bat v ball. We have bowling consultants, fielding consultants, batting consultants, analysts all trying to help provide an edge. In the same way, DRS is an evolving strategic process. It also adds a bit more drama to the game.

 

The only thing I'd change is if it is umpires call, you don't lose your review. 

[cric_fan]

Pujara's dismissal last match and now Jaddu proves that DRS is shit.

Don't worry..this is new technology to India. They will get the hang of it eventually hehe

[Brainfade]

15 hours ago, MCcricket said:

My problem with DRS who do we only have 2 referrals per 80 innings, if not successful, even outs given not out are deemed as back to umpires call so? Yes it keeps umpires honest but still DRS should not be a ploy but a measure to give correct decisions, Dave Richards was saying 98% , my foot I would say in this test alone we will have 3 or 4 decisions like Jadeja, so we are talking lower percentage

Hope you meant 80 overs, not 80 innings :-)!

[bowl_out]

16 hours ago, Lannister said:

What they should do is any on-field 'out' decisions should be re-checked irrespective of the availability of referrals. There is no need to give referrals to the batting side as they won't be needing it, giving 2-3 referrals only to fielding sides will be enough. 

Looks good on paper, but would be chaos when implemented.

 

There would be a lot more dismissals given 'Out' by on-field umpires this way.. Even if there is slight doubt, the umpire would prefer to give it out rather than not out, cause it is going to be reviewed anyway. When the third umpire reviews, all marginal decisions will stay out, and the benefit of doubt will mostly go the bowler and umpire, not the batsman..

[MCcricket]

3 hours ago, Moth2Flame said:

Hope you meant 80 overs, not 80 innings :-)!

Obvious I meant 80 overs per innings

[Lannister]

3 hours ago, bowl_out said:

Looks good on paper, but would be chaos when implemented.

 

There would be a lot more dismissals given 'Out' by on-field umpires this way.. Even if there is slight doubt, the umpire would prefer to give it out rather than not out, cause it is going to be reviewed anyway. When the third umpire reviews, all marginal decisions will stay out, and the benefit of doubt will mostly go the bowler and umpire, not the batsman..

The marginal calls are still the same with the current protocol, except the fielding side will lose a review. There is no such problems if the third umpire does it on his own accord. 

[chewy]

Good or bad, DRS keeps the Test game exciting

no more coming forward frequent blocking and  padding

also umpires more willing raise fingers on those 50-50 decisions

 

On these slow wickets DRS is a must

[New guy]

lol, this is like tesr fans complaining when odis were introdiced. it will ruin the game, etc. time has changed. alk big tournaments will have drs. yoy either adapt or get left behind

[Texan]

On 11/18/2016 at 4:13 AM, rkt.india said:

how will it slow down the match? Like a batsman when gets retired hurt and can come back later to bat. Same way a batsman is given out by on-field umpire. Third umpire can later review that decision and it is not out on DRS, he should come back to bat later again once a wicket falls. 

Now, you are changing a fundamental way in which the game is played. When a batsman is out and returns to the pavilion and it is marked in all the record books that he is out, then he cannot come back and continue his innings. What you are suggesting will bring in too much uncertainty where even when you have taken a wicket, you do not know for sure if you have really got that wicket. Scorecard might show a score of say 50/5, but all of those could get overturned and all those batsmen would keep coming out to bat as soon as another imaginary wicket falls. What you are suggesting is slowing the game down even more than doing it real time and will make it ludicrous for a fielding team.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

We are utter useless with DRS reviews.And FFS stop listening to Ashwin.

[tweaker]

Ashwin has wasted his reviews

[jalebi_bhai]

The first review was out. Umpire's call is rubbish when the margin is touch-n-go.

[jalebi_bhai]

1 minute ago, Stumped said:

Don't seen to remmeber you coming and posting the same thing when Kohli was given not out on an umpires call...?

I've always held this view about DRS. Your memory problems aren't my concern.

[urbestfriend]

DRS is ok but shouldn't reduce the no of reviews for umpire's call. In that way team is not penalised for asking for a review which they think out/not out but it stays umpire's call.

[_ramkumar]

2 hours ago, tweaker said:

Ashwin has wasted his reviews

I am ok with the first review being turned down because of umpires call on hitting the wicket... but the second review shouldn't have been turned down just because the impact was on umpires call. I fail to understand the logic behind the protocol established to favour umpires call on impact. Ball tracking doesn't extrapolate the trajectory of the ball before impact it only does after the impact, so review should have been in the favour of the bowler.