bowl_out Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Kettleborough is decent... Dharmasena :facepalm: Longer he thinks' date=' more chances that he'll give it Out[/quote'] Told you :--D
amiret Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Sep 2013. Ravi Shastri feels India's consistent stand against the controversial Decision Review System (DRS) has been vindicated by the spate of wrong decisions during the recent Ashes series in England "India's stand on DRS is vindicated. Three years ago when I opposed DRS, it was said I had a contract with the BCCI. I stand by even now what I said then," said Shastri. Shastri said he was not opposed to technology, but wanted it to be used sparingly, as it is not perfect. "DRS is also against the spirit of the game which teaches the player not to question an umpiring decision. I know what our players think about technology, what works and what doesn't," added Shastri..
Gollum Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Players calling for DRS an ugly sight:Gavaskar Now that Ian Chappell too has come out and suggested that the decision reviews should be taken out of players' hands and left to the umpires, hopefully there will be some debate on a system which has been so much in the news. I have been saying for a while now that for times immemorial, players have had to accept the umpires' decisions and whether they like it or not, take it on the chin and move on. The ICC code of conduct also disapproves of players showing any by signs or gestures that they do not agree with the umpire's decision, and there have been innumerable instances of players being hauled before the match referees and either being warned, reprimanded, fined and even suspended for showing dissent at the umpire's call. Yes, there is a fine line between dissent and disappointment, but players have had to face the music for that. Now with the DRS, players are being encouraged to blatantly disagree with the umpire's decision, and then it is being sent up to the TV umpire for reviewing after which either the decision is upheld or changed. The ICC has restricted the reviews that each team can ask for to two per innings, so if in the first over a team gets two incorrect reviews, then for the rest of that innings it can be the recipient of some major umpiring errors, yet can't do anything about it. Apart from the ugly sight of a player asking for the umpiring decision to be reviewed, what happens if a player forgets that his side has lost both the reviews that it had and asks for one? He will, in all likelihood, be pulled up for showing dissent and face the punishment doled out by the match referee, for there is no excuse for showing dissent even if the player has been dumb enough to forget that the team's reviews have been exhausted. What has been seen also is that there have been several occasions when the batsman has been clean bowled or caught and the umpire has asked the batsmen to wait while the TV umpire checks if it is a no-ball or a fair delivery. This review is asked by the on-field umpire and many a batsman has survived and gone on to change the course of the game. Now if umpires want to be doubly sure that the delivery was a fair one, why is it wrong to leave it to them and their colleague in front of the TV monitor to ensure that the decision being made is the correct one? There are those who will say that the umpires will ask the TV umpire for every call and that will upset the rhythm of the game, but if the intention is to make sure a fair decision is made then that should be the last argument. You simply cannot have a situation where just one or two decisions are reviewed while the others aren't, for that could change the complexion of the game as was seen in the first Test in England. If time is of the essence, then the ICC should be looking at doing away with the drinks interval, except on extremely hot days. As it is, drinks are taken out to the players in the middle on the slightest pretext, whether it is while a change of bat or gloves or caps instead of helmets, and for the fielding side there are huge cooler boxes at the boundary which not just the bowlers can partake of but the other fielders too. If the drinks interval is not taken, there will be close to 15 minutes saved each day of a Test match. Not only will the quota of 90 overs be bowled in the six hours of play allowed, but any extra time taken for reviewing decisions can be made up for too. The argument for allowing just one review also does not make sense, for after it has been exhausted, the wrong call can still change the course of the match. So all decisions where the on-field umpires and TV umpire feel doubt ful should be reviewed, and if that takes time, then so be it as long as the correct call is made in the end. That is far more important than anything else. Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/players-calling-for-drs-an-ugly-sight/1/292347.html :giggle:
sscomp32 Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 LOL Adharmasena. Get ready for more blunders. :beach:
Feed Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Rather than complain about the so-called ineffectiveness of the system, the BCCI should use its financial muscle to improve it More...
Gollum Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 This is getting ridiculous now. Rahane has borne the brunt of majority pathetic decisions.
SRT100 Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 After the dust has settled, did the decision to not have DRS cost us not retaining the Border-Gavaskar Trophy?
jf1gp_1 Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Explain Bhuvan given out by 3rd umpire and then elaborate why you feel DRS is foolproof
kosingh Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Explain Bhuvan given out by 3rd umpire and then elaborate why you feel DRS is foolproof 100% > 99% > 98% > 97% and so on. Unless you are the BCCI.
Precambrian Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 100% > 99% > 98% > 97% and so on. Unless you are the BCCI. Not if u see the cost of implementing it. It's not just about mere percentages but cost benefit.
BeautifulGame Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Not if u see the cost of implementing it. It's not just about mere percentages but cost benefit. Yeah every other country even Padosis care for performance of their team but BCCI typically cares only about finance
jf1gp_1 Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 So did India lose recently 2-0 to DRS? 100% > 99% > 98% > 97% and so on. Unless you are the BCCI. Alright so tv umpire ruled him out . Would you say you agree 100%? 99%? ....... DRS means nothing till there is a d I c k sitting behind that button
HippoSucks Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 There is no way we would have won the series irrespective of DRS.
moniker Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Alright so tv umpire ruled him out . Would you say you agree 100%? 99%? ....... DRS means nothing till there is a d I c k sitting behind that button The point is the third umpire is less prone to make mistakes than the on-field umpires as he has ready access to the technology. Obviously decisions referred to the third umpire would be more accurate than those taken by the on-field umpires more often than not. This doesn't mean that the third umpire won't commit any mistake at all. The basic assumption is he'd take more accurate decisions as he has access to better resources. Seems reasonable IMO.
jf1gp_1 Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 The point is the third umpire is less prone to make mistakes than the on-field umpires as he has ready access to the technology. Obviously decisions referred to the third umpire would be more accurate than those taken by the on-field umpires more often than not. This doesn't mean that the third umpire won't commit any mistake at all. The basic assumption is he'd take more accurate decisions as he has access to better resources. Seems reasonable IMO. your whole argument is if pajara in 2nd test or say dhawans in some test were referred to 3rd umpire both would have been ruled not out. IMO bhuvan was not out yet was given out; the point i am making is how are people so confident that any of the other decisions which we thought didn't require using any brains to reverse by 3rd umpire would actually have been reversed. The one instance 3rd umpire came into play he messed it up.
fineleg Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 SRT100, Cmon man! Yes, umpiring and DRS issues are there. (and yes wehave threads discussing that). But Aus clearly outplayed India in this series. There were "sessions" where India fought nicely, but overall Aus dominated the series, and they made the play, they made the calls. India was playing catch-up to them.
adi B Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I believe aus deserved to win the series and I also believe that India would have at least drawn at Adelaide had rahane not got a howler. I think 1-0 scoreline would have justified
HippoSucks Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 DRS is not perfect, but it is still much more accurate than the technology the on-field umpires have access to (namely their eyes). Of course, there is no way we would have won the series either way, and even if we had won one match, we didn't deserve to. A side that wins due to declarations from the opponent is not worthy of winning.
Ultimate_Game Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 No, they lost coz they can't take 20 wkts in a Test. No way did India deserve to beat Australia and the only reason India had a sniff at a win was due to Australia's declaration.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now