india are right about DRS

[The Outsider]

Umpire's call is there because umpire's call is not a howler - the system is meant to get rid of howlers.

[CSK Fan]

Umpire's call is there because umpire's call is not a howler - the system is meant to get rid of howlers.

The LBW which was given after umpire decision was over-turned yesterday, wasn't a howler either. It looked like it pitched way outside leg

[The Outsider]

The LBW which was given after umpire decision was over-turned yesterday' date=' wasn't a howler either. It looked like it pitched way outside leg[/quote'] That's because the team had used up it's reviews on decisions which were not howlers.

[CSK Fan]

That's because the team had used up it's reviews on decisions which were not howlers.

Not that one. Hughes was given not-out by Dharmasena and England reviewed it. The decision was over-turned as H/E thought it pitched in line (just about 50%). To the naked eye, it looked like it was clearly pitching out-side leg and that's what Dharamsena thought too

[The Outsider]

Not that one. Hughes was given not-out by Dharmasena and England reviewed it. The decision was over-turned as H/E thought it pitched in line (just about 50%). To the naked eye' date=' it looked like it was clearly pitching out-side leg and that's what Dharamsena thought too[/quote'] Aaah I see which decision you were referring to. Arguments over Hawk Eye have been about it's predictive ability, but it's considered very accurate for the actual action - tennis uses that part of Hawk Eye as well.

[CSK Fan]

Aaah I see which decision you were referring to. Arguments over Hawk Eye have been about it's predictive ability' date=' but it's considered very accurate for the actual action - tennis uses that part of Hawk Eye as well.[/quote'] It was touch and go, shouldn't umpire's decision stand in such cases as it was not an obvious error

[CSK Fan]

One more, not so howler, overturned by the DRS. Surely DRS should not be allowed to be used so unconvincingly?

[The Outsider]

One more' date=' not so howler, overturned by the DRS. Surely DRS should not be allowed to be used so unconvincingly?[/quote'] Don't see how incompetency of umpires is being linked to DRS.

[indiefan]

These umpires are screwing up DRS. :cantstop:

[Manny_Pacquiao]

It's a great system if used for the purpose of eliminating howlers. It's not the systems' fault that it is being abused to check every chindi decision, in the process eliminating the reviews.

Not a realistic view. Chindits decisions are a result of Chindits appeals, which is something each team is guilty of. Teams like Sri Lanka with a guy like sanga behind the stumps, appeal for anything that goes thru the bat and hits in front. If teams don't appeal selectively, why would they ever review selectively? Especially in a close game when u are looking for every little decision u can get. Drs will never be used in this way, players will try to take advantage of it. Besides, hot spot and hawkers look flawed. Hawkers ball tracker uses a perfectly round ball, seam upright ball...how is that realistic.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Ok, iPad autocorrect changed some of the words there. Whatever, u know what I mean.

[The Outsider]

Not a realistic view. Chindits decisions are a result of Chindits appeals' date=' which is something each team is guilty of. Teams like Sri Lanka with a guy like sanga behind the stumps, appeal for anything that goes thru the bat and hits in front. If teams don't appeal selectively, why would they ever review selectively? Especially in a close game when u are looking for every little decision u can get. Drs will never be used in this way, players will try to take advantage of it. Besides, hot spot and hawkers look flawed. Hawkers ball tracker uses a perfectly round ball, seam upright ball...how is that realistic.[/quote'] How can you fault the system if it is not being used for its intended purpose? DRS is meant to remove howlers and not correct marginal decisions - all teams are guilty of using it to overturn marginal decisions and in the process they get burned on occasions. As for the quality of technology, it's certainly better than the umpires. The umpires are so incompetent that they make wrong decisions even with video evidence - how can the DRS system be blamed for their incompetency?

[zep1706]

DRS is meant to remove howlers and not correct marginal decisions - all teams are guilty of using it to overturn marginal decisions and in the process they get burned on occasions.

We are on the same page here. But if DRS remains in its current form then there will be no change in it. The system needs an overhaul. I am not against a review system as I want decisions like Broad's not out removed from the game. But the current system is not good enough.

[Crookbond]

Aaah I see which decision you were referring to. Arguments over Hawk Eye have been about it's predictive ability' date=' [b']but it's considered very accurate for the actual action - tennis uses that part of Hawk Eye as well.

Actually, there have been cases in tennis too where the pitch map of hawk eye has been an issue and known to be inaccurate in some cases. This was highlighted in the last Wimbledon final too.

[The Outsider]

Actually' date=' there have been cases in tennis too where the pitch map of hawk eye has been an issue and known to be inaccurate in some cases. This was highlighted in the last Wimbledon final too.[/quote'] No technology is perfect - the question to be addressed is that does the use of Hawk Eye results in a better percentage of correct decisions than without, and not that does Hawk Eye give a perfect decision every time.

[Por Favor]

Hawkers ball tracker uses a perfectly round ball' date= seam upright ball...how is that realistic.

+1 :hatsoff: With the seam being upright in every review makes the "umpire call" rule a bigger farce.... Complicating an already complicated game... :facepalm:

[Crookbond]

No technology is perfect - the question to be addressed is that does the use of Hawk Eye results in a better percentage of correct decisions than without' date= and not that does Hawk Eye give a perfect decision every time.

That was the point. You're right about using it ONLY for "howlers" but the current implementation is tangential to what it is motivated for. It is like writing the motivation "XYZ" and then addressing the problem of "ABC". In its current implementation, DRS leads to more "controversial" decisions than correct ones.

[The Outsider]

That was the point. You're right about using it ONLY for "howlers" but the current implementation is tangential to what it is motivated for. It is like writing the motivation "XYZ" and then addressing the problem of "ABC". In its current implementation, DRS leads to more "controversial" decisions than correct ones.

And I don't see how it's incorrect implementation can be linked to faults of the system - the solution lies with players implementing the system in a more thought out manner, not eradicating of a system which leads to better decisions.

[StriKe]

Alternative Cricket ‏@AltCricket 6s During the 2011 World Cup, Aleem Dar & Marais Erasmus had a combined 24 out of 25 DRS appeals against them *rejected*. #Ashes

[Crookbond]

And I don't see how it's incorrect implementation can be linked to faults of the system - the solution lies with players implementing the system in a more thought out manner' date= not eradicating of a system which leads to better decisions.

Of course it can not be. Rather than saying "Hey look here is a system that is 95% better than the umpires" it would be wise to say "Hey look here is a system that helps the umpires achieve close to 99% accuracy". All technologies have to work "with humans" and not "for humans". The problem I have in this case is that people talking about DRS etc. when it goes against them. They're fine when they are the benefactors of this flawed process.