DRS is really screwed up in LBW's most of all

[indiaregulator]

Here's what I don't understand. Why does the fact that pitching wherever make a huge impact on DRS in LBW's. Take the hughes appeal as an example. Had that pitched a cm to the left it would have been given not out. Yet it was CLEARLY going to go on and hit the stumps. Why is stuff like , "pitched outside the line" got to do with anything? I think the only scenario should be, "if his leg wasn't there, what would have happened" Quite a few of warne's turners were not given LBW because it pitched like 2 cm away from the wide line and turned ridiculously to smash the batsman on the pad. This is because it 'pitched outside the line'. Why?

[StriKe]

we are having lot's of topic about drs..can we merge it ?

[The Outsider]

Why?

Because you have no understanding of cricket, DRS, or quite frankly anything going by your post.

[Clarke]

Because you have no understanding of cricket' date=' DRS, or quite frankly anything going by your post.[/quote'] +10

[VRV Singh]

That's not DRS, that's the lbw rule...

[Ultimate_Game]

OP needs to understand the rules of the game, and LBW in particular, before commenting on DRS :facepalm: Maybe something about batsman can't be LBW if the ball pitches outside leg, or the ball should hit the batsman in line with stumps when batsman is playing a shot would be a nice starting point for the OP.

[Crookbond]

Indiaregulator with his English jaundiced glasses once again.

[G_B_]

well i do have basic questions about DRS technology. Especially Hotspot. so many times Hotspot shows nothing while sniko shows something substantial. Clearly either one is wrong. dont have much issue with hawkeye

[Ultimate_Game]

Indiaregulator with his English jaundiced glasses once again.

It would help if he actually knew the rules of the game... he's trying to critique inconsistency in LBW decisions using DRS and doesn't even know the LBW rules :hysterical:

[kubrickian]

If you allow lbws for balls pitching outside leg, then all bowlers will bowl around the wicket and target batsmen's legs making it very easy to get them out and its also tough to score from that line. Its basically not a fair contest and the rule is there for discouraging negative line of bowling.

[Crookbond]

well i do have basic questions about DRS technology. Especially Hotspot. so many times Hotspot shows nothing while sniko shows something substantial. Clearly either one is wrong. dont have much issue with hawkeye

Well there is a problem on 2 counts 1 - Snicko is unreliable and has empirically proved to be without a doubt. Hotspot has a higher degree of confidence than Snicko 2 - IF you go into the details of Hawk Eye working (particularly the predictive technology), considering your comments on Snicko/Hotspot you will be unhappy with Hawk Eye too.

[indiaregulator]

I'm fully aware of it. I'm questioning why, if you read the post. I used Warne as an example because DRS wasn't around at the time. Surely with the invention of DRS that could be removed as it's pretty accurate to work out if it could hit the stumps or not.

[kubrickian]

^^Read my reply above.

[moniker]

I'm fully aware of it. I'm questioning why, if you read the post. I used Warne as an example because DRS wasn't around at the time. Surely with the invention of DRS that could be removed as it's pretty accurate to work out if it could hit the stumps or not.

Even if we put that aspect of the LBW rule aside for the moment, why do you think that it is more difficult for the umpire to predict the trajectory of the ball if it had pitched outside leg than in line with the stumps or outside off?