DRS system

I used to be quite pro DRS but I don't know if it is possible to get it right, there are too many variables and the umps are not sure of the rules.

I personally think do away with DRS for LBWs and only use it for edges (hot spot) and I agree with you, it can only be referred by the umpire when they aren't sure.

3rd umpires making LBW decisions in front of the TV doesn't feel right to me.

Eventually the umpires will be replaced by robots and then there will be controversy when the umpire failed to raise its finger due to a malfunction

Lets look at it this way. Australia used their appeals in the hope of being right. England used theirs when they were sure or nearly sure. This meant that when they really needed their appeals they had some left.

They should just scrap it altogether, technology was brought in to eradicate errors but clearly it's still happening therefore what's the point? India vindicated with their devision not to use technology I guess.

The technology is in its infancy and not perfect yet so there are still mistakes but less than before. I believe over the next few years the technology will improve as it usually does and less and less mistakes will be made. It works fine in tennis but that is a lot more clear cut.

Mcik I think you're wrong

DRS was bought in to eradicate howlers not adjudicate every single marginal decision at each captain's whim. By its very nature cricket will always have marginal decisions that people will discuss and what umpires are for-that's why if the umpire thinks it is in/out their decision should stand on the marginal decisions. DRS gives the players something they have bought into-like Hawkeye in tennis where the players readily accept a ball being in/out by 1-2mm.

The problems have occurred this time because the 3rd umpire had an absolute mare not because DRS was necessarily flawed.
This was exacerbated by Clarke's inept use of the system (something he has readily admitted).

Of course the 3rd umpire could have prevented all the controversy by giving Agar out stumped in the first place.
Aussies would have been 100 behind on 1st innings and wouldnt have had a sniff of getting 500ish.

India not vindicated at all imo




India not vindicated at all

Would expect DRS to get better as technology moves on (and hopefully the elite umpires get more used to using it, or they start training specialist third umpires), but I think it has improved the game in two important ways.

There are fewer howlers, how many times has a review saved a batsmen who has got an inside edge on an lbw? Might not get all of them, but gets enough to be better then not having it imho.

Secondly, it has revitalised spin bowling which has to be good for the game. Doubt either Swann or Ajmal would be anywhere near as effective if they had played pre hawkeye.

We were stitched up by the technology twice.. Trott and Agar.  Aussies not at all, they stitched themselves up by wasting reviews on lbw shouts that were missing the leg stump by inches and the captain reviewing his own caught behind when he edged it ffs.

rob dylan

the 3rd umpire cocked both those decisions nothing to do with drs

Ok, we were stitched up, one way or another.  The aussies were stitched up by their own ineptitude.

England are the only team that should be complaining imo.

i think you're right especially when you consider Bell's decision in the WC Final

India weren't vindicated when Broad took his hattrick against them and they couldn't review Harby's lbw. Nobody had any sympathy for them then because they had dug their own grave by their throwing the DRS toys out of the pram.

that bell decision was even worse than the agar decision here. his heel was miles behind the line when the bails came off

I think the DRS system is working pretty well.

Human errors are being made by the third umpire and the third umpire decision system could be a lot better.

The Umpire's call needs to be reviewed.  I do understand it re benefit of the doubt but perhaps a 50% of the ball would keep people quiet.

The on field Umpires have not been as bad as everyone is making out.  Aleem Dars miss of Broad should have been corrected by DRS but guess what...the Australian captain isn't s good as the Umpire at calling decisions.

One of the most important aspects of DRS as far as I am concerned is the abuse and vitriol the umpires took from players like Warne.  The scowls, contempt and blatant intimidation have been brought to an end by DRS. The Umpire just looks the bowler is the eye and says effectively " call it smart arse "  and guess what the know it all bowler backs down ( except Broad and he loses the appeal! ).

Quite a few players who edged have received a reprieve from DRS and I think it is just fine and needs minor tweaking as stated already.

I don't understand the calls for the reviews to be in the hands of the umpires, either they will review everything, as happens with run outs, or there will still be 'howlers' when they get it wrong. Imagine if Aleem Dar had decided he was confident enough of his broad decision not to go upstairs. It would remove the entire point of the system.

Agree conch.  I think the theory is sound.  Just that we got two(trott and agar) bad third umpire decisions.  That isnt supposed to happen.

The Broad nonsense is irrelevant.  There is a clear system in place to get that overturned but the aussies squandered their reviews.  That was totally the fault of the aussies, not the system.

Rob Dylan. Dont you think its best to get the correct decisions no matter whose fault it was? Im English but taking an unbiased view.  Yes Micheal Clarke didnt use the system well and he admitted it but the cricketers are there to play cricket. Do we want the best cricketers in the world playing cricket or good cricketers that also have good umpiring skills.  Lets the umpires umpire and the cricketers play cricket.

Using the DRS well is still about cricketing judgement. It's also about giving the players the opportunity to challenge the umpires decision if they feel it's a poor one. What would be the point of giving it to the umpires? Unless you're going to review every decision you'll still get the howlers and controversy with the players again frustrated that there's nothing they can do.

The only issues with the system are human error (which really shouldn't be difficult to improve/prevent as it's mainly down to misunderstanding from the umpires), and poor use by the players, which is their own fault.

here is an interesting one.

why does half the ball have to be in line for it to be in line?

surely that has changed the rules.

as far as the rules are concerned if any of the ball hits the pad in line, it is "in line"

this is also the same for a ball pitching outside leg stump.

Only the bottom of a cricket ball can pitch inside or outside of the line.
Therefore the middle of a ball is the bottom so that's why d13phe.

im not sure that is true.

also any part of the ball can hi your pad in/outside the line.

Obviously any part of the ball can hit your pad but only the front of the ball (ie middle) can hit the line of either off stump or leg stump.
It's not where on the ball it hits your pad, it's where the middle of the ball is aligned with the stumps.

I thought it's to allow for a slight inaccuracy in the hawk eye syestem. i.e it's not perfect.

To put DRS in the hands of the umpires would kill the game. They would review every appeal therefore there would be more appeals.

I think DRS adds a new dimension top the game. It's a thinking man's sport and DRS has to be used skillfully by players who grasp what may or may not be an LBW or a catch.

It makes them think harder about what's just happened and whether their appeal was hopeful or has merit.

Erasmus and Clarke didn't use DRS well. That's no fault of DRS...

No way on earth should DRS be in the hands of the umpires.  Haddin not thinking things through there at all.  The system, at present, is very good imo.

are those the rules though fragments

when i read through them it didnt mention middles of balls etc..

they have changed the rules to go with DRS

The Aussies must be wishing DRS was never invented. Another terrible day for them. First Watson wasted one and then Rogers didnt use it when he should have because Watson had already wasted one then Hughes wasted the second one and they had yet again used both reviews with only 3 wickets down and without using one to save a wicket

big fan of drs. the worst thing about test cricket was matches being decided by obvious howlers. if captains choose to waste their right to protect themselves against that by querying marginal lbws or worse still when theyve actually edged one they are victims of their own stupidity and have no right to grumble.

if you left it to umps they would just refer every single decision.

OP has it pretty spot on I think.
Reality is, there is no review called for on a lot of occassions by the players, yet the umpires go to the technology when they are unsure of something.
How many times is there a wicket and they wait to check the no ball?  Who reviewed it?  The players certainly didn't.
What about situations like when Bell is caught?  Umpires checked with the 3rd umpire, who got it completely wrong, and because the umpires didn't have an opinion either way, simply went with him and gave it not out.
That wasn't a review by the players either.

The players shouldn't have to worry about rubbish like this.  It makes a mockery of the game. 
People get fined for questioning the umpire, but they bring in a rule that makes you question the umpire?
The 3rd umpire needs to be a quality umpire in regards to the technology.  Not simply an umpire.  And they also need to be final decision, and the only person able to question any decisions made on field.

The 3rd umpire, should also be represented by a panel of 3, with 2/3 required for a decision.  They should notify the players/umpires on a decision that they wish to confirm it as there may be doubt.  Then they should keep the umpires informed of how it is progressing.

The umpires on field are basically creating havoc at the moment, and the players more desperate in their appeals are getting the results.  This game shouldn't be about convincing the umpire, it should be about right decisions.  And if 3rd umpires are to be involved, they should involve themselves to create the best decision, not to sit by while something ridiculous is happening on the field.


Simple question.  What happens, when the on field umpire balls up and calls "over" when only 5 deliveries have been bowled?
They are informed from upstairs, and they go about bowling the next ball.
Upstairs also checks no balls, and catches hitting the ground.
Upstairs also informs them of no balls when positions are not in accordance with the rules, ie too many behind square leg.

When the umpire screws these things up or doesn't know, upstairs steps in.  No reviews needed, it just happens to set right what already should have been.

So why is it, that when somebody bowls a howler going down leg, that upstairs simply sits by and lets the guy be given out?

They really need to sort it out....

Jul 17, 2013 -- 8:09PM, Injera wrote:

I thought it's to allow for a slight inaccuracy in the hawk eye syestem. i.e it's not perfect.To put DRS in the hands of the umpires would kill the game. They would review every appeal therefore there would be more appeals.I think DRS adds a new dimension top the game. It's a thinking man's sport and DRS has to be used skillfully by players who grasp what may or may not be an LBW or a catch. It makes them think harder about what's just happened and whether their appeal was hopeful or has merit.Erasmus and Clarke didn't use DRS well. That's no fault of DRS...

Not really.  If it was in place that it needed an appeal to get upstairs checking, then more appeals means slower over rate, which means fielding teams fined...

I think DRS is pretty much spot on. Sure, there's a few controversies here and there but people have just forgotten how bad some decisions could be in years past.

Look at this nonsense from 1998 as McGrath gets Inzaman stone dead in consecutive deliveries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHzax-alxb4

agreed.

Jul 23, 2013 -- 10:52AM, betlarge wrote:

I think DRS is pretty much spot on. Sure, there's a few controversies here and there but people have just forgotten how bad some decisions could be in years past.Look at this nonsense from 1998 as McGrath gets Inzaman stone dead in consecutive deliveries:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHzax-alxb4

Yes.  But the problem is, with such crappy umpiring, you are more likely to ask for a review.  If you have no reviews left, and that happens, you still don't get the wicket.

Whereas, if the 3rd umpire is involved, he picks up there is doubt, goes through, and you get your wicket without worrying about reviewing it.