Let's talk about the DRS

[bulbul]

With UDRS umpire is obliged to refer to 3rd umpire...he dont have any choice. Why i need UDRS mainly because all the mistaskes made by umpires highlighted only because of TV replay...so if you refer TV reply and rectify the error enough for me..no need of going on crying about wrong discussions or debate endlessly about technicalities of UDRS

[Manny_Pacquiao]

DRS is not helping to get correct decisions once in a while (ie' date= under circumstances its accuracy is not good enough to help take a definite decision). Which is still better than not having it.

but all three major drs decisions talked about recently, tim paine, ian bell and chigumbura were all wrong decisions.

[achilles]

Ssshhh. You are not allowed to expose ICC hypocrisy. You will upset the white baays of the world.

[urbestfriend]

UDRS was supposed to eliminate howlers , but nowadays almost every LBW decision is referred, sometimes even plumb, making this system a mockery. I dont see anything wrong with the system itself but they should reduce the no of reviews to 1 so that teams use review only if they are sure of a wrong decision.

[kabira]

We should give UDRS some time to evolve. We are still in testing phase. Like we saw in some matches, some plumb decision given not out by umpires like Hair, Ashoker, Saheba were overturned which is what this system is useful for. The most obvious howlers can be minimized. We should give it some time to evolve. Remember when third umpire was used from 1992, it was not perfect. That time we did not have ability to really judge the close ones. Give it some time. Hope its not scrapped.

[achilles]

Richardson needs to go read the rules :hitler:

[vvvslaxman]

UDRS was supposed to eliminate howlers ' date=' but nowadays almost every LBW decision is referred, sometimes even plumb, making this system a mockery. I dont see anything wrong with the system itself but they should reduce the no of reviews to 1 so that teams use review only if they are sure of a wrong decision.[/quote'] Afridi wants to raise it to 4 :hysterical:

[Lord]

in England game,it was hitting below middle stump n it was not out,in Ire game,it was hitting above middle n was out,now Kallis survives despite ball hitting middle of off stump? is it totally up to umpires whims n fancies?has gotta be some consistency

[yoda]

Based on the modified rule (after Eng game), some part of the ball must hit the middle stump. I think it is a stupid rule. If left to just Hawkeye, we will do much better than adding all these random adjustments.

[EnterTheVoid]

if its > 2.5 m, the accuracy of the hawk eye prediction becomes neglibible.

[vaibhav_delhi]

if its > 2.5 m' date=' the accuracy of the hawk eye prediction becomes [b']negligible.

Is it that bad?? They could perhaps alter it to "if the ball is shown to be hitting any part of middle stump, it has to be given out." .

[yoda]

Is it that bad?? They could perhaps alter it to "if the ball is shown to be hitting any part of middle stump' date=' it has to be given out." .[/quote'] LOL, that is the new rule.

[EnterTheVoid]

its is > 2.5 m, than hawkeye cannot be accurately relied on. in that case, i think the decision comes back to the on fleld call.

[vaibhav_delhi]

LOL' date=' that is the new rule.[/quote'] ohh is it??

[Zap_Brannigan]

Why cant they just project the ball a further 2.5 m once it hits the batsman and then the 3rd umpire can speculate whether the ball will go on to hit the stumps from there.

[Lord]

its is > 2.5 m' date=' than hawkeye cannot be accurately relied on. in that case, i think the decision comes back to the on fleld call.[/quote'] then why was it changed in Ireland game?

[Gotham Cronie]

then why was it changed in Ireland game?

ICC tweaks 2.5 metre DRS rule for 'consistency' http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/current/story/504570.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/504722.html

[Prakat]

"[Asoka] de Silva has had a poor World Cup so far, with several of his decisions being overturned by the Decision Review System: of the seven times his decisions have been challenged, only three times has his original call stood. One of those three instances was the lbw decision against Ireland's Gary Wilson in the match against West Indies. Wilson challenged the call, and replays clearly showed the ball had struck his pad outside the line of off when he was attempting a shot, but de Silva refused to change his decision, a move that was strongly criticised by Ireland captain William Porterfield. Had that decision been changed, as it should have been, de Silva's score in reviewed decisions would have been two correct calls out of seven." From: Asoka de Silva dropped from crucial matches So obviously, reversing a decision hurts the umpire's success percentage because he got it wrong. And this is simple when the DRS evidence is overwhelming and the decision is reversed by the Third Umpire. One black mark against the on-field umpire. But what happens when the DRS verdict is too close to call and it is left to the on-field umpire to consider the feedback from the Third Umpire and decide whether to stick with his original decision or reverse it? It will also be on the umpire's mind that accepting his mistake and reversing his decision means that it'll be counted as a negative mark against him when he is appraised. We know we expect umpires to be unbiased, unprejudiced and ultimately fair to the game and the players. But when his own reputation and career as an Intl. umpire is at stake will he be able to make that sacrifice? Should the ICC expect the umpires to perform to the best of their abilities when their own personal career path is on the back (or front) of their mind whenever they are asked to make a decision? In the justice system a judge is not allowed to handle a case if it involves him/her personally in any way. Not necessarily because they can't be trusted to be unbiased, but because it isn't fair to put someone in that position where they have to choose between self-interest and the greater good. It's a similar situation here. And the only viable solution, if we are to go ahead with the DRS, is to not have the on-field umpire be involved in a decision once it has been referred to the Third Umpire. If it is too close to call then let the benefit of doubt go to the batsman as it has been for decades. With things being as they are, it's clear that when it comes to close decisions we should probably not be surprised if the umpires are from now on very reluctant to change their original decisions.

[fineleg]

Wasted reviews India got their UDRS reviews muddled not once but twice. Egged on by Munaf, Dhoni asked for a review when Brad Haddin was hit on the left thigh. Even the naked eye could tell that the ball, even if it had pitched on middle, was travelling over the stumps. Replays confirmed that and the Indians returned to business abashed. The second review was used unsuccessfully for the Ashwin-White appeal. Once strident opponents of the DRS, the Indians were in a rush to use it today, and eventually Ricky Ponting escaped a certain lbw shout when on 91.

[The Outsider]

Why don't you collate all your whiny posts in one thread?