DRS Here To Stay

[MCGGG]

I would also consider an honour system, every batsman is given one honour review, this review can only be used when your team is out of reviews and can only be used for edges, be it caught or with LBWs, each player is given one per year, and it would only (hopefully) be used for when the batsman knows he's not out.

 

When using an honour referral for LBWs, edges are all that are reviewed, doesn't matter if the ball is missing the stumps by a metre, if there's no edge you're out and you lose your honour referral for 12 months to the day.

[MCGGG]

6 minutes ago, Stumped said:

The non striker has the best view for the trajectory though.

Not if you know where your stumps are.

[kosingh]

5 minutes ago, Stumped said:

The non striker has the best view for the trajectory though.

Let the non striker call for the review then also.  I like the 5 seconds idea for reviews though. Currently there almost seems to be too much time given. 

 

But I am not sure how 5 seconds would impact fielding team reviews.

[MCGGG]

With the honour review system, umpires call would still mean you're out (like with Kohli), but he wouldn't lose his honour review.

[kosingh]

Technology wise, I suspect we'll be at a point soon where DRS images will be processed faster, and DRs LBW parameters (pitching in line, impact in line, hitting stumps) will be available instantly after every ball. Kind of like how bowling speed appears right away. This might change the way DRS is employed.

[MCGGG]

7 minutes ago, kosingh said:

Let the non striker call for the review then also.  I like the 5 seconds idea for reviews though. Currently there almost seems to be too much time given. 

 

But I am not sure how 5 seconds would impact fielding team reviews.

We need to remember, DRS was supposed to be used for the howlers, but that's not what's happening ATM, I like teams using it for marginal decisions because it adds drama, but I reckon we need a back stop like an honour system as well.

[sandeep]

11 hours ago, Doctored Wicket said:

Who exactly is crying about it?

Please provide some evidence to support your statement.

 

There's a lot of anti-DRS sentiment expressed in australian newspaper coverage of the tests so - Smh, australian, theage, foxsports - you name it.  

[sandeep]

21 minutes ago, MCGGG said:

We need to remember, DRS was supposed to be used for the howlers, but that's not what's happening ATM, I like teams using it for marginal decisions because it adds drama, but I reckon we need a back stop like an honour system as well.

Yeah, like don't try to subvert the system by signalling the dressing room.  That would be a good start for an honour system.

[mancalledsting]

Good system- get rid of umpires calls and keep it objective as possible. If I was an umpire and wanted to influence a match outcome, I could just keep giving marginal decisions in the direction that suits- this can influence match outcome. 

[Doctored Wicket]

7 hours ago, sandeep said:

There's a lot of anti-DRS sentiment expressed in australian newspaper coverage of the tests so - Smh, australian, theage, foxsports - you name it.  

Some links would be nice.

Besides, the press in Australia is a travesty. The garbage they write is bordering on narcissism.

The Age & SMH come from the same stable and we all know who the behind the scenes editor is for The Australian and Fox.

Australian punters in general have no concerns with DRS. In fact, it's the best thing to happen to cricket in decades.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Doctored Wicket

[Trichromatic]

Restricting reviews for batting side doesn't make much sense. LBW consist of 30% of dismissals in test cricket. If take close catches in account then there are approx 5-6 close decisions (LBW and catches) in a matches. All batsman should be allowed to take a review. What ICC can do is htat after 2 reviews each review should be based on umpire's discretion. Batsman can ask for it, but it would be upto umpire whether they can go upstairs or not.

 

It won't waste time much as if batsman is out then his review is exhausted anyway. But if batsman is not out then it could serve the purpose. Bowling side can't have unlimited reviews as it would certainly be used more than 10 times a day then. 

[Cricketics]

17 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Restricting reviews for batting side doesn't make much sense. LBW consist of 30% of dismissals in test cricket. If take close catches in account then there are approx 5-6 close decisions (LBW and catches) in a matches. All batsman should be allowed to take a review. What ICC can do is htat after 2 reviews each review should be based on umpire's discretion. Batsman can ask for it, but it would be upto umpire whether they can go upstairs or not.

 

It won't waste time much as if batsman is out then his review is exhausted anyway. But if batsman is not out then it could serve the purpose. Bowling side can't have unlimited reviews as it would certainly be used more than 10 times a day then. 

If every player is allowed to take a review that will mess things up and delay the game. 

 

More than review the important thing which needs to be included is "Third Umpire Intrusion"

 

We have a guy here who is sitting in the room all day watching game and getting paid,  then what is his use if he can't intervene?

 

The moment there is a bad call, the third umpire has to call the on field umpires and let them no to reverse their decision and call the batsmen back.

 

This has to be added.

[sandeep]

6 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

If every player is allowed to take a review that will mess things up and delay the game. 

 

More than review the important thing which needs to be included is "Third Umpire Intrusion"

 

We have a guy here who is sitting in the room all day watching game and getting paid,  then what is his use if he can't intervene?

 

The moment there is a bad call, the third umpire has to call the on field umpires and let them no to reverse their decision and call the batsmen back.

 

This has to be added.

But you can't have a review delay that's required for 3rd umpire intrusion every single time there's an appeal.   You can and should do it to confirm all dismissals though.  No need to have batting teams ask for reviews.   And not that much time wasted since the review can be completed in the time it takes a batsman to walk out of the field - if he's reprieved, he can sprint back.  Aren't all runouts and stumpings reviewed today anyway, even if they are not close?  Nobody said that only 'x' number of runouts and stumpings will be referred to the replay when that change was first made.  A wicket is a game changing play, and every effort should be made to ensure that the decision was correct.  

 

Let the fielding team have a couple of reviews to challenge questionable not-out calls - those have to be limited because infinite reviews would really slow the game down.

 

 

 

 

[maniac]

Can't they have that beep which they have when someone serves a fault in Tennis or when it is LET ,for no balls....more than the DRS etc I get annoyed when the batsman is asked to stay after a clean out just so that the umpires can check for a no-ball

Edited March 10, 2017 by maniac

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

Can't they have that beep which they have when someone serves a fault in Tennis or when it is LET for no balls....more than the DRS etc I get annoyed when the batsman is asked to stay after a clean out just so that the umpires can check for a no-ball

Yeah, long overdue.  This way the umps don't have to look down and then shift up to look at the batsman every ball - total waste of time and umpire's efforts.  

[maniac]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Yeah, long overdue.  This way the umps don't have to look down and then shift up to look at the batsman every ball - total waste of time and umpire's efforts.  

With a heavy and painful heart...I shall give you a upvote 

[Cricketics]

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

But you can't have a review delay that's required for 3rd umpire intrusion every single time there's an appeal.   You can and should do it to confirm all dismissals though.  No need to have batting teams ask for reviews.   And not that much time wasted since the review can be completed in the time it takes a batsman to walk out of the field - if he's reprieved, he can sprint back.  Aren't all runouts and stumpings reviewed today anyway, even if they are not close?  Nobody said that only 'x' number of runouts and stumpings will be referred to the replay when that change was first made.  A wicket is a game changing play, and every effort should be made to ensure that the decision was correct. 

 

Not asking for every decision.

 

Only mentioning that if there is a clear howler and if a team has lost its reviews, then umpire still should intervene and let umpires know to reverse their decision.

 

I know that at this time the team would have lost their reviews but what is more important is the right decision given.

 

A right decision priority has to be made over letting a team suffer with a bad decision because of lack of reviews left.

[sandeep]

4 minutes ago, Stumped said:

There was a trial during the England v Pakistan ODI series where the 3rd umpire watched the live feed of the front foot line and buzzed the on field umpires watches if it was a no ball. Seemed to be pretty effective so I'm not sure why it hasn't been continued since.

Hawkeye wants a lot of money and ICC doesn't want to pay up - that's the hold up AFAIK.    Btw, did you see Jarrod Kimber's tweets on the brain fade cover up?  He sure isn't "stumped" (or willfully blind) by the bleedingly obvious.  

Edited March 10, 2017 by sandeep

[Cricketics]

20 minutes ago, maniac said:

Can't they have that beep which they have when someone serves a fault in Tennis or when it is LET ,for no balls....more than the DRS etc I get annoyed when the batsman is asked to stay after a clean out just so that the umpires can check for a no-ball

Problem is that you can not trust a beep technology in a game like cricket as snicko works very similarly and if a close in bad pad comes, you will have hard time oickimg up that out.

 

This is what happened in Kohli's dismissal. Umpire will still need something like Hotspot to quickly figure out even easiest of outs.

 

Beep can be implemented but won't be of much effect for on field umpires. It can be part of the rest of the DRS process.

[sandeep]

13 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Can't see how that can be an overly costly system, just a feed of a camera that's already present at every game and a simple wireless watch which is evidently already available as it was used in the trial. Not sure the umpires would be too happy with it though, quite a bit of extra effort for the third umpire.

 

Kimber called it a 'truce cover up'. For all we know (and I doubt we ever will) that truce could be over both boards turning a blind eye to the oppositions (potential violations of the ICC regulations. Think we did it to death yesterday though and it's clear be both have our individual theories on it so it's not worth going round it circles!

There's the actual cost of a system, and what Hawkeye wants to charge the ICC for it.  2 different things.  

 

Btw, Kimber also asked the same question I have been asking - How did Virat know about Smith's brainfade and was able to warn the umpires before it happened?  Pretty obvious what he means by that.  Or are you going to be reading selectively to go with your willful blindness.