indiefan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 I think we should start a thread to track third umpires who are incompetent while using DRS. Erasmus at the top of the list.
asterix Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 It happened because the team had used it's reviews for chindi decisions rather than using it for howlers - how is it the system's fault if teams are using it for a purpose it was not designed for? WHile I agree with that however, unless there's a new rule of teams 'buying off' additional reviews or countering one teams rewiev by puuting a bigger bet with their review... For example in the last decision, if Cook says "I want to review it', Haddin will say "I place $250,000" to not take Cooks review.. The Cook will have to bet higher... and this goes on, like IPL auctions...
zep1706 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 It happened because the team had used it's reviews for chindi decisions rather than using it for howlers - how is it the system's fault if teams are using it for a purpose it was not designed for? But that should not be the case, right? The sole purpose of DRS should be removing howlers. Let batting, bowling and fielding decide the outcome of a match the old fashioned way and not how you use DRS. DRS should not be a strategic weapon. Its role should be limited to removing howlers from the game.
The Outsider Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 WHile I agree with that however, unless there's a new rule of teams 'buying off' additional reviews or countering one teams rewiev by puuting a bigger bet with their review... For example in the last decision, if Cook says "I want to review it', Haddin will say "I place $250,000" to not take Cooks review.. The Cook will have to bet higher... and this goes on, like IPL auctions... But that should not be the case' date=' right? The sole purpose of DRS should be removing howlers. Let batting, bowling and fielding decide the outcome of a match the old fashioned way and not how you use DRS. DRS should not be a strategic weapon. Its role should be limited to removing howlers from the game.[/quote'] Like a lot of systems, DRS places an onus on the user to use it wisely. I would accept that the system has faults if a team gets a bad decision even after using their reviews exclusively on howlers. I can't understand how the system can be faulted if its not used for its intended purpose - its like blaming Indian Railways for not making trains that fly.
zep1706 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Like a lot of systems, DRS places an onus on the user to use it wisely. I would accept that the system has faults if a team gets a bad decision even after using their reviews exclusively on howlers. I can't understand how the system can be faulted if its not used for its intended purpose - its like blaming Indian Railways for not making trains that fly. The system's implementation is wrong. It needs an overhaul. I can list all of it-- 1) ICC controls it fully, not the home broadcaster, as it is easy to manipulate it. 2) Take it out of players' hand, no limit on the number of reviews. 3) Consistency about involving human judgement. Trust the system fully or don't at all. It will bring consistency. 4) IMO to remove howlers only TV replays are enough. As you have said marginal decisions can stay as it is.
asterix Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The system is faulty because hotspot doesn't works properly all the time. Remember 'vaselin on the bat' issue? Also the predictive element of BatEye being all over the place..
The Outsider Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The system's implementation is wrong. It needs an overhaul. I can list all of it-- 1) ICC controls it fully, not the home broadcaster, as it is easy to manipulate it. 2) Take it out of players' hand, no limit on the number of reviews. 3) Consistency about involving human judgement. Trust the system fully or don't at all. It will bring consistency. 4) IMO to remove howlers only TV replays are enough. As you have said marginal decisions can stay as it is. The system is faulty because hotspot doesn't works properly all the time. Remember 'vaselin on the bat' issue? Also the predictive element of BatEye being all over the place.. I have no issues about making the system better - there is always a room for improvement. My essential point is that having DRS is better than having no DRS even in it's imperfect form of today.
Crookbond Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 What people need to understand it nothing works perfect all the time - not Hotspot, now Hawkeye and not Snicko either. So, using one to invalidate the other is just a futile exercise.
asterix Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 I have no issues about making the system better - there is always a room for improvement. My essential point is that having DRS is better than having no DRS even in it's imperfect form of today. If you allow DRS then you'll find it difficult to improve it.. I would only agree if Australia now raises concerns (after the series) and ICC/MCC looks into making some improvements... If you allow the use of DRS (India) then it can't come out of it no matter how much it protests on decisions made...
The Outsider Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 If you allow DRS then you'll find it difficult to improve it.. I would only agree if Australia now raises concerns (after the series) and ICC/MCC looks into making some improvements... If you allow the use of DRS (India) then it can't come out of it no matter how much it protests on decisions made... I don't think that's true - even if the system is in place universally, there will always be scope for improvement in it.
King Tendulkar Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 If hawk eye is not accurate in its predictions, which it seems not to be. How can drs be a good system? Where hawk eye shows a ball clipping a stump, are we supposed to take it as gospel that this is actualy true?
moniker Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 ^ DRS will go with the umpire's original decision if the ball (according to hawk eye) is just clipping the stump, as it is not a howler. I may be wrong, but I think an originally OUT decision can only be overturned if the ball is predicted to hit a substantial part of the stump. That will be a howler.
velu Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 It was Sachin who decided to oppose drs.. Again Hawkeye is bs. We need Drs to avoid howlers.. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Prakat Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 That's correct. In order to reverse a decision the ball has to be hitting the stumps by more than fifty percent.
King Tendulkar Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 ^ DRS will go with the umpire's original decision if the ball (according to hawk eye) is just clipping the stump' date=' as it is not a howler. I may be wrong, but I think an originally OUT decision can only be overturned if the ball is predicted to hit a substantial part of the stump. That will be a howler.[/quote'] My point is not that. My point is how the hell can hawk eye know if the ball is clipping stumps or not. Does anyone believe it is that accurate to be able to make such preicitions correctly? I dont think its anywere near that accurate. And if its not we are putting our faith in some dodgy gadget. I repeat I refuse to believe it is that accurate in terms of predicting exactly were the ball is heading and exactly were it will hit. In fact at times I am pretty sure it is quite a lot out.
Crookbond Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 My point is not that. My point is how the hell can hawk eye know if the ball is clipping stumps or not. Does anyone believe it is that accurate to be able to make such preicitions correctly? I dont think its anywere near that accurate. And if its not we are putting our faith in some dodgy gadget. I repeat I refuse to believe it is that accurate in terms of predicting exactly were the ball is heading and exactly were it will hit. In fact at times I am pretty sure it is quite a lot out. The problem is that no one can tell if it is or NOT - since it is "predictive" and there's a lack of publicly available evaluation benchmark/metrics.
King Tendulkar Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The problem is that no one can tell if it is or NOT - since it is "predictive" and there's a lack of publicly available evaluation benchmark/metrics. Well if there is no evidence it is accurate. Why are we all putting our faith in it to be accurate and trusting its verdicts?
bulbul Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Well if there is no evidence it is accurate. Why are we all putting our faith in it to be accurate and trusting its verdicts? As long as it provide correct result for certain % [which is way better than umpires ] we should fine. End of day isn't this same Hawkeye responsible for people getting bitter about LBW when seeing replay? so why not use in real time so no one need to whine afterwards.
Crookbond Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Well if there is no evidence it is accurate. Why are we all putting our faith in it to be accurate and trusting its verdicts? IF it is used to eliminate clear "howlers"; the current system is very good. The margins of errors are eliminated.
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