Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rkt.india

DRS is utter nonsense.

Recommended Posts

I think it will take some time to get used to DRS as well. Cook didnt review a decision in first test which was not out and England team is more used to DRS than any other team.

 

Sometimes on the field you go with your gut instinct and decide not to waste a review and you only have maybe a minute to decide. We just have the benefit of replays and it looks dumb in hindsight.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

Third umpire should have the power to overturn 'incorrect' LBW decisions. If an on-field umpire can not judge it properly, it's unfair to blame it on batsmen by saying they 'should've' used it. DRS (especially 'LBW' decisions), at it's current stage is still an incomplete product. 

Edited by Lannister

Share this post


Link to post
that is the problem "using." It should not depend on using. Why cannot third umpire declare Jaddu not out now and let him come to bat after the wicket goes down?

It is not a review system if you are not "using". Third umpire right now is someone you escalate to, so the onus is on the players to escalate to him .

The fact that we still have on field umpires shows that technology is not good enough to replace them outright. That's why DRS was introduced to eliminate howlers, not each and every decision.

If the player feels he has received a howler, he should review. It's quite simple really. Everyone is over complicating DRS when it's purpose is actually very simple.

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

that is the problem "using." It should not depend on using. Why cannot third umpire declare Jaddu not out now and let him come to bat after the wicket goes down?

That will slow down the entire match in a sport already considered to be slow. The point is if you don't believe that you are out, you appeal.

Share this post


Link to post

RKT you are answeing yourself here and talking about two different things.

 

Even without DRS there should be a common sense that a bad decision by an on field umpre should be reverted by tv umpire, regardless of DRS being available or not. 

 

 

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

that is the problem "using." It should not depend on using. Why cannot third umpire declare Jaddu not out now and let him come to bat after the wicket goes down?

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Texan said:

That will slow down the entire match in a sport already considered to be slow. The point is if you don't believe that you are out, you appeal.

Perhaps not every decision, but there is a case for overturning a howler such as an lbw where ball is missing stumps or if there is an inside edge or in case of catches where it turns out there is nothing on snicko. A howler should be overturned irrespective of how many referrals are available.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Lannister said:

Third umpire should have the power to overturn 'incorrect' LBW decisions. If an on-field umpire can not judge it properly, it's unfair to blame it on batsmen by saying they 'should've' used it. DRS (especially 'LBW' decisions), at it's current stage is still an incomplete product. 

absolutely agree.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Texan said:

That will slow down the entire match in a sport already considered to be slow. The point is if you don't believe that you are out, you appeal.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 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. 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes 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.

 

But this way there will be a huge pressure on 'on-filed' umpires , especially the likes of Dharmasena will have mental break-downs seeing how sh!t they are. The matches should be officiated by 2 set of umpires, each set to look after every 50 overs and rotated. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 :-)!

Share this post


Link to post
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..

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

DRS is just fine. I was surprised when Pujara - the guy who has a compact technique and knows exactly where his stumps are - aided by Vijay at the other end, didn't review in the last match! Jadeja has turned into a hopeless slogger. India are still new to this. We will take one more series to completely understand the system.

Share this post


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

When the margin is touch-n-go that means it was not a howler and DRS shouldn't have been used so sticking with the on field umpire's decision makes sense.

DRS doesn't tell you what the 'umpire's call' actually was, or rather the reason for it, and this is a flaw in DRS. I'll still take it though.

 

 

Umpire's call is either out or not out? Not sure what you mean here.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, moniker said:

When the margin is touch-n-go that means it was not a howler and DRS shouldn't have been used so sticking with the on field umpire's decision makes sense.

So then what exactly is the purpose of DRS if it cannot make those close calls? You don't need DRS and its many features to correct howlers. Most howlers can be caught with normal broadcast technology. Touch-n-go decisions turn matches on their head as much as howlers do. If this system cannot make accurate marginal calls, then I don't see its use. It should be renamed as Howler Reversal System.

 

I'm not opposed to the concept of a DRS. It's just that I don't like/understand its current format, especially Umpire's call. 

Share this post


Link to post

In case of LBWs, to make all decisions consistent, umpire's calls for hitting the stumps should be given in favor of the batsman. Umpire's call for the other two elements - pitching and hitting in line should be given in favor of the bowler. I think that will make ot fair for both sides and will make the decisions more consistent. 

Share this post


Link to post
So then what exactly is the purpose of DRS if it cannot make those close calls? You don't need DRS and its many features to correct howlers. Most howlers can be caught with normal broadcast technology. Touch-n-go decisions turn matches on their head as much as howlers do. If this system cannot make accurate marginal calls, then I don't see its use. It should be renamed as Howler Reversal System.

 

I'm not opposed to the concept of a DRS. It's just that I don't like/understand its current format, especially Umpire's call. 

The ICC have made it clear multiple times that the purpose of DRS is to eliminate howlers. Current technology is not yet advanced enough to take marginal calls.

I hope that in the future we would be able to automate looking at each and every ball and communicate the decision to the on field umpire who performs a secondary role of only conveying the decision to the players. We shouldn't even need the third umpire, the technology should be able to operate independently. Till then, we have to make do with the technology we have at our disposal.

^yeh but why is it not given out? not going on to hit the stumps or because ball has hit bat first? this is why Kohli was questioning the umpire on the second DRS review. 

It doesn't really matter. If the technology has determined that it can't decide and reverts back to umpire's call, it means it was a marginal call and not a howler. You are not supposed to review magical calls, so you are docked a review.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×