Feed Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Rajeev Shukla has said there has been a proposal to adopt the DRS minus the referrals for lbw decisions in IPL 2016View the full article adi B 1
Trichromatic Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Good move. Not sure how effective will it be though. Do we know how many reviews (%) are for lbw?They need to keep reviews forsituations when batsmen edges it and is given lbw as what happened to bhajji against Broad at Trent Bridge in 2011.
Trichromatic Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Very thin edges are not so common. I doubt it will have much impact. Edited January 29, 2016 by Vibhash
Adi_91 Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 It will make IPL even better as well. Look forward to this. And the hotspot as well.
bowl_out Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 How about including LBW without the predictive element. Add it for where the ball pitched, where the impact was and whether there was an inside edge.. These are clean, easy to correct errors with simple, slow-mo replays... They should use this format of LBW reviews along with Hotspot and Snicko for all Home tours
express bowling Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 i think about 70 % or more times the DRS is used for controversial LBW decisions only. How effective would it be without LBW referrals ?
Shivaji bhonsle Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 I remember India using DRS in the 2011 tour to England where we had DRS without the lbw decision. It ended up being a disaster for us. Still remember broad's hat trick against us which included a massive error in getting Bhajji out LBW when there was a massive inside edge and bhajji couldn't use the Drs because of the stupid rule of not using DRS for lbws.
Crookbond Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 How about including LBW without the predictive element. Add it for where the ball pitched, where the impact was and whether there was an inside edge.. These are clean, easy to correct errors with simple, slow-mo replays... They should use this format of LBW reviews along with Hotspot and Snicko for all Home toursThey have an issue with "Umpire's Call". There should be no reason to lose a review because the technology is not good enough.
bowl_out Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 They have an issue with "Umpire's Call". There should be no reason to lose a review because the technology is not good enough.That is a different issue altogether.. I was only talking about removing LBW from DRS vs having it with simple slo-mo replays to check for where the ball pitches and whether there was an inside edge
Crookbond Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 That is a different issue altogether.. I was only talking about removing LBW from DRS vs having it with simple slo-mo replays to check for where the ball pitches and whether there was an inside edgeI don't think you got my point. You wanted to include LBW w/o predictive element. But, that won't settle one of their major issue which is losing a review due to umpire's call. Mind you - umpire's call is also used for the ball pitching in line.
moniker Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 They have an issue with "Umpire's Call". There should be no reason to lose a review because the technology is not good enough.The technology is good enough to spot howlers. They shouldn't have to go through the umpire's call if they review only the clear howlers in the first place, which is what DRS is meant for.The reason they lose the review is not because the technology isn't good enough. It's because they haven't used the DRS for what it was intended, and have wasted crucial game time in their greed for a decision in their favour.
Adi_91 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 The technology is good enough to spot howlers. They shouldn't have to go through the umpire's call if they review only the clear howlers in the first place, which is what DRS is meant for. The reason they lose the review is not because the technology isn't good enough. It's because they haven't used the DRS for what it was intended, and have wasted crucial game time in their greed for a decision in their favour.I don't agree, the "Umpire's Call" is tricky one. Had the umpire given out, it stays. But then, even clipping the stumps is never a guarantee because it is mathematical simulation that Hawkeye does. I don't think the BCCI like that aspect of DRS especially.
moniker Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 ^ Why is "had the umpire given out, it stays" a problem? It is the most logical thing to do given the fact that they haven't reviewed a howler and the on field umpire is the best person to take the decision since DRS shouldn't have been used for non-howlers.
Adi_91 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 ^Why is "had the umpire given out, it stays" a problem? It is the most logical thing to do given the fact that they haven't reviewed a howler and the on field umpire is the best person to take the decision since DRS shouldn't have been used for non-howlers. Because the technology is not foolproof and Umpire's Call can go either way and is a tad unfair.That is one of the concerns of the BCCI.
moniker Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 Because the technology is not foolproof and Umpire's Call can go either way and is a tad unfair.That is one of the concerns of the BCCI.Technology is foolproof to spot howlers. If it goes to umpire's call then team that reviewed was dumb and greedy because they didn't review a howler.
Adi_91 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 Technology is foolproof to spot howlers. If it goes to umpire's call then team that reviewed was dumb and greedy because they didn't review a howler.Disagree again. I have seen very close decisions being not given and then the "Umpire's Call" comes up. They are close to howlers, but instead of making the right decision, the technology leaves it to the umpires.Also, as I said before, there are aspersions on ball tracking.
moniker Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 ^ Can you provide an example where a howler went to umpire's call? Close decisions aren't howlers, obvious ones are.
Adi_91 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 ^ Can you provide an example where a howler went to umpire's call? Close decisions aren't howlers, obvious ones are.I cannot give a specific example. But, I have seen where howlers get away because of just clipping the stumps. But then ball tracking isn't reliable, making the whole system kinda unreliable. So, it is not foolproof.
Trichromatic Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 I cannot give a specific example. But, I have seen where howlers get away because of just clipping the stumps. But then ball tracking isn't reliable, making the whole system kinda unreliable. So, it is not foolproof.You mean situations where umpires declared it not out and drs changed it to out?
Trichromatic Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) Because the technology is not foolproof and Umpire's Call can go either way and is a tad unfair.That is one of the concerns of the BCCI.How is umpire's call unfair? It doesn't change the decision. If you are not using drs for umpire's call then also decision remains same. Team shouldn't lose a review though. Edited February 1, 2016 by Vibhash
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