My beef with the whole DRS and use of technology

[MenInG]

Obviously based on Fakhar's example but there are other countless examples.

The idea of use of technology should be about taking the right decision and should not be based upon how well a batsman or fielder uses the DRS facility.

If Fakhar was not out then he should have been on the crease, it shouldnt have depended on him having the presence of mind to ask for a review - something in the confusion etc, a person can easily forget to do.

Each decision can be reviewed by 3rd umps as the batsmen is walking back so that ALWAYS the RIGHT decision is made.

Cricket would be a greater game for that and if fans have to wait another 2-3 minutes for every dismissal to be confirmed then so be it.

 

[Usman]

I think the issue with this approach is that the game would be slowed right down. We already have issues with teams having a slow over rate - if every decision is reviewed, who knows how long a game would take to conclude. You have to remember snicko for example takes a while to set up.

Also, what do you do about the clear out decisions? Edged and taken at slip for example? Do you have to review those too?

I think if you don't have the presence of mind to review, you have to take some of the blame.

 

[Something]

Aren't they already doing a check for no balls for each delivery? Why can't they check other things as well while the batsman walks back to the pavilion. I think it should be manageable. Not every wicket needs to DRS review some are caught out, some are bowled. It's LBW's and slight nicks that would need to be reviewed by the umpires.

 

[badsha001]

Does Fakhar have issues or what? In last two matches, he doesn't even know whether he hit it with the bat or not....

 

[alized]

I think it’s the beauty of cricket. For decisions to be wrong sometimes is just the part of the game. We have benefited too from these.

 

[dildilpak]

Obviously based on Fakhar's example but there are other countless examples.

The idea of use of technology should be about taking the right decision and should not be based upon how well a batsman or fielder uses the DRS facility.

If Fakhar was not out then he should have been on the crease, it shouldnt have depended on him having the presence of mind to ask for a review - something in the confusion etc, a person can easily forget to do.

Each decision can be reviewed by 3rd umps as the batsmen is walking back so that ALWAYS the RIGHT decision is made.

Cricket would be a greater game for that and if fans have to wait another 2-3 minutes for every dismissal to be confirmed then so be it.

So you are essentially saying that there should be no on-field umpiring. But don’t forget - current technology is not fool proof & even third umpires have given questionable decisions. If we refer every decision (including every appeal), all that will do is extend the game by few hours. Just because batsmen are foolish enough not to appeal, should the viewers be punished for that?

 

[MenInG]

I think it’s the beauty of cricket. For decisions to be wrong sometimes is just the part of the game. We have benefited too from these.

if we want lottery then remove all technology

 

[alized]

Aren't they already doing a check for no balls for each delivery? Why can't they check other things as well while the batsman walks back to the pavilion. I think it should be manageable. Not every wicket needs to DRS review some are caught out, some are bowled. It's LBW's and slight nicks that would need to be reviewed by the umpires.

Then what’s the point of UMPIRES LOL? If you’re going to check every dismissal and appeal!!

 

[BlackShadow]

The point is to keep the umpires and the tradition relevant. It is the same in Tennis and other sports. If you think you have been hard done by a decision, refer it to the technology.

It was even worse before, when the decision to go upstairs depended solely on the umpire, and there was no consistency.

 

[alized]

if we want lottery then remove all technology

Fakhar Zaman knew he was OUT but he walked off for Pakistan’s benefit. He knew the longer he stayed, the worse it was going to be for us.

 

[Something]

Then what’s the point of UMPIRES LOL? If you’re going to check every dismissal and appeal!!

Re-read my post. I said they DON'T need to re-check everything. They already check every wicket for whether or not it was a no-ball. They can double check close calls and LBW's as well.

 

[BlackShadow]

if we want lottery then remove all technology

BCCI was bashed in the past to point out such ambiguity in the DRS system.

The defense was that current DRS was better than no DRS, and the world agreed. So did BCCI eventually and the world has moved on.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Each decision can be reviewed by 3rd umps as the batsmen is walking back so that ALWAYS the RIGHT decision is made.

Cricket would be a greater game for that and if fans have to wait another 2-3 minutes for every dismissal to be confirmed then so be it.

There is already so much time wasted when it comes to over rates etc - checking every single dismissal using DRS would just be too much imo.

 

[alized]

Re-read my post. I said they DON'T need to re-check everything. They already check every wicket for whether or not it was a no-ball. They can double check close calls and LBW's as well.

Then that’s unfair to bowlers. If you are saying they should only check when there’s a LBW, close call, an “OUT decision” by the umpire.

What about there’s an close NOT OUT decision. Should they check on that? Remember, a lot of appeals are “close calls”

 

[Major]

The reason why technology cannot be used like that is because time is limited.

Odi matches without any interuptions last for 8 hours and if a major percentage of deliveries are reviewed it would take more time for a game to end.

You have to understand that there is no such thing as real time highlights.

When a ball is bowled its replay doesnt come immediately it comes when the 4th or 5th ball is bowled. Now play being halted for everytime creates problems.

A spinners over last between 1min if all dots and if we start reviewing then it will end in 5 minutes.

Problem is there are lots of other stake holders. Broadcasters have to show other stuff.

This is why reviews are limited.

Already lot of time is being spent on run out referrels and match reviews that if umpire starts chexking every 50 50 delivery then more time is wasted.

Captains and players are given reviews and they should use it properly.

Also having lost a review and leaving everything to the umpire also makes it fun. Because at times one enjoy getting a lucky lbw decision to his favor

 

[alized]

Also having lost a review and leaving everything to the umpire also makes it fun. Because at times one enjoy getting a lucky lbw decision to his favor

This is why cricket is fun

 

[Major]

if we want lottery then remove all technology

If we make the game too perfect than it becomes boring. By placing it to chance it makes thinga more interesting.

Its like how in baseball you could steal bases.

 

[Something]

Then that’s unfair to bowlers. If you are saying they should only check when there’s a LBW, close call, an “OUT decision” by the umpire.

What about there’s an close NOT OUT decision. Should they check on that? Remember, a lot of appeals are “close calls”

You have a point but also historically, the law has always been benefit of the doubt goes to the batsmen.

 

[alized]

You have a point but also historically, the law has always been benefit of the doubt goes to the batsmen.

Alright let’s just enjoy the match

 

[LegendAli]

When a ball is bowled its replay doesnt come immediately it comes when the 4th or 5th ball is bowled. Now play being halted for everytime creates problems.

are you serious? how long have you been watching Cricket? replays are now being done the very next ball.

 

[Indiafan]

are you serious? how long have you been watching Cricket? replays are now being done the very next ball.

I think he means snickometer and ball tracking etc which takes a bit more time

 

[Shandarchowka]

I feel putting it on the players makes the game more interesting not withstanding fakhars dismissal. It just adds to the drama

 

[Badsha]

if we want lottery then remove all technology

It's not lottery bu there is an element of chance in cricket and you need to deal with it rather than opting for a pedantic sport only focused on what is right.

Batsmen would want to review EVERYTHING then.

 

[Wonderwoman]

Obviously based on Fakhar's example but there are other countless examples.

The idea of use of technology should be about taking the right decision and should not be based upon how well a batsman or fielder uses the DRS facility.

If Fakhar was not out then he should have been on the crease, it shouldnt have depended on him having the presence of mind to ask for a review - something in the confusion etc, a person can easily forget to do.

Each decision can be reviewed by 3rd umps as the batsmen is walking back so that ALWAYS the RIGHT decision is made.

Cricket would be a greater game for that and if fans have to wait another 2-3 minutes for every dismissal to be confirmed then so be it.

That implies every appeal needs to be reviewed too!! It will simply add too much time to the game and make it boring. I can understand your hurt sentiments. but its a very irrational post plain and simple.

 

[mak36]

Another one today. Rayudu given a life vs Afghanistan.

Umpiring has been poor this Asia Cup.

 

[Syed1]

Can't help but notice how an awful lot of these "iffy" decisions seem to be going in India's favour in this Asia Cup.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Obviously based on Fakhar's example but there are other countless examples.

The idea of use of technology should be about taking the right decision and should not be based upon how well a batsman or fielder uses the DRS facility.

If Fakhar was not out then he should have been on the crease, it shouldnt have depended on him having the presence of mind to ask for a review - something in the confusion etc, a person can easily forget to do.

Each decision can be reviewed by 3rd umps as the batsmen is walking back so that ALWAYS the RIGHT decision is made.

Cricket would be a greater game for that and if fans have to wait another 2-3 minutes for every dismissal to be confirmed then so be it.

So, you're fine with an ODI game extended by 40-60 minutes? That's too much.

Match awareness is important aspect of the game. Cricket rewards aware players regularly.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Can't help but notice how an awful lot of these "iffy" decisions seem to be going in India's favour in this Asia Cup.

Opposition not taking available reviews is India’s fault?

 

[fitCricFan]

It goes both ways, you win some and you loose some. We already have enough technology penetration in the game. If you are going to use it for every single aspect of the game then you might as well get rid of the umpires altogether or better play it on the big screen only, sitting in the comfort of your home

In Fakhar's defense, the bloke probably didn't feel the ball because he fell playing that shot. Moreover the appeal was for an LBW and he knew he was plumb and didn't want to waste a review. Batsmen have been outed in more strange ways so this is no biggie, just another exception to the norm

All those saying what if he had reviewed and had continued to play. I'd say that is hypothetical. What if he was out the very next ball or in the same over. If's are easy enough to spot and comment on, looking back

 

[cricketindiafan]

Ball kisses the gloves, snick shows a slight contact, 3rd umpire ignores it, gives it out LBW!

20.3
W
Rashid Khan to Rahul, OUT, the late finger of death from the umpire! But Rahul reviews after a consultation with DK. It was a full and fast delivery on off stump, and Rahul went for the reverse sweep. The ball landed on middle stump, and hit his back leg. Impact's definitely on middle, so now we await ball-tracking and UltraEdge. There here was a slight noise as the ball passed the glove, but the umpire ignores it. Three reds say ball-tracking, and Rahul must go back!

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What % of the ball hits the stumps doesn’t matter, if DRS shows us that the ball is hitting the stumps, it should be given out, regardless of the on-field call. That's the motive of using technology in Cricket. As we know technology isn’t 100% right but neither are humans.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ENGvWI?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ENGvWI</a> <a href="https://t.co/8At80AtRs5">pic.twitter.com/8At80AtRs5</a></p>— Sachin Tendulkar (@sachin_rt) <a href="https://twitter.com/sachin_rt/status/1281938127704035331?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Kroll]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What % of the ball hits the stumps doesn’t matter, if DRS shows us that the ball is hitting the stumps, it should be given out, regardless of the on-field call. That's the motive of using technology in Cricket. As we know technology isn’t 100% right but neither are humans.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ENGvWI?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ENGvWI</a> <a href="https://t.co/8At80AtRs5">pic.twitter.com/8At80AtRs5</a></p>— Sachin Tendulkar (@sachin_rt) <a href="https://twitter.com/sachin_rt/status/1281938127704035331?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

His post is a bit contradictory as he says the % of ball to hit the stumps doesn't matter if DRS shows it but then goes on to say the technology isn't 100% right.

Surely then umpires call is the best method in this uncertainty.

 

[Firebat]

Reduce unsuccessful review to just one for each team: Hazlewood

Australian pacer Josh Hazlewood says reducing the number of unsuccessful review to just one for each team as part of the Decision Review System (DRS) would have a better impact on Test cricket. In June this year, the game’s governing body (ICC) had increased the number of unsuccessful reviews to three per side per innings from two. DRS was introduced in 2008 to eliminate the ‘howlers’. Hazlewood feels one review would mean that teams would use it only when they are absolutely certain that a wrong decision has been made by the umpire.

“I’d review them all day if I could but to have a better impact on the game, I think one might work better. If you just had one each per innings then people would use it totally differently,” Hazlewood was quoted as saying by cricket.com.au.

“I think umpires can fall into a trap of umpiring a little bit differently depending on who’s got reviews left and how many they’ve got.

“They’ve got to umpire based on nothing there as well, but if you just had one each you’d save it, you wouldn’t use it early unless you were positive and that’s what it’s there for, that howler.” The 29-year-old Hazlewood was part of the Australian team during last year’s Ashes, which was marred with DRS drama during the Edgbaston Test and Lord’s Test.

At Edgbaston, 10 decisions were overturned on review, while at Lord’s, Australia had exhausted their reviews and couldn’t avail the video referral for an lbw appeal against Ben Stokes, who went on to score 115 not out as England drew the match.

Hazlewood said after the Lord’s Test, the Australians formulated a plan to review a decision in the field.

“After that game we sat down and said, ‘Let’s put a process in place’. At least we had something to fall back on if we don’t know. That was the bowler and the wicketkeeper and someone from side on comes in and we have a quick discussion why wasn’t given out,” he said.

“That’s why the square fielder comes in to say, ‘The height looked good from my angle’. The keeper (Paine) has a say, and he’s obviously the captain as well, so that helps, and we make a quick call then and at least we have a process now we go through.

“If we get them wrong, we get them wrong, but hopefully it goes in our favour. It’s not there for the 50-50 calls but when you’re in the heat of the battle, you just want to get that wicket and you think it’s out at the time.” Hazlewood has taken 195 wickets in 51 Tests and 78 scalps in 48 ODIs for Australia.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...m-hazlewood/story-iKIFNc9rRVeyktpY23dMYN.html

 

[therealAB]

The issue with the system for me is the umpires call. Two identical balls should not be able to have different outcomes upon review, especially given that the umpires are significantly poorer than the machine by orders of magnitude

 

[sweep_shot]

The issue with the system for me is the umpires call. Two identical balls should not be able to have different outcomes upon review, especially given that the umpires are significantly poorer than the machine by orders of magnitude

Get rid of umpire's call when ball is hitting the stump.

 

[RickyG]

The issue with the system for me is the umpires call. Two identical balls should not be able to have different outcomes upon review, especially given that the umpires are significantly poorer than the machine by orders of magnitude

I agree with this and I've been saying it for years. Marginal calls going in the favor of one team is ridiculous. Right now the margin for error is absolutely massive. Make the margin as small as possible or remove it altogether.

So let's say if 5% or more of the ball is hitting then let it be out.

The other thing that irritates me about umpire's call is that it's only the batsmen that benefit. If the ball is missing the stump by a hair's breadth then it's always not out. But if 50% of the ball is hitting the stump then it can still be not out.

 

[Indiafan]

The issue with the system for me is the umpires call. Two identical balls should not be able to have different outcomes upon review, especially given that the umpires are significantly poorer than the machine by orders of magnitude

Except that's literally what the makers say, that because of the error rate (which can be both + and -), two balls which can be identical on the projection, can mean one is hitting the stumps and one is completely missing

 

[Indiafan]

Get rid of umpire's call when ball is hitting the stump.

according to DRS that means there is a good chance ball is missing completely. So you are going to give batsmen out for balls which will miss the stumps?

 

[sweep_shot]

according to DRS that means there is a good chance ball is missing completely. So you are going to give batsmen out for balls which will miss the stumps?

If ball hits stump, it is out. No need for umpire's call in that case.

 

[Bewal Express]

Get rid of umpire's call when ball is hitting the stump.

Which basically means getting rid of umpires.

 

[Bewal Express]

Reduce unsuccessful review to just one for each team: Hazlewood

Australian pacer Josh Hazlewood says reducing the number of unsuccessful review to just one for each team as part of the Decision Review System (DRS) would have a better impact on Test cricket. In June this year, the game’s governing body (ICC) had increased the number of unsuccessful reviews to three per side per innings from two. DRS was introduced in 2008 to eliminate the ‘howlers’. Hazlewood feels one review would mean that teams would use it only when they are absolutely certain that a wrong decision has been made by the umpire.

“I’d review them all day if I could but to have a better impact on the game, I think one might work better. If you just had one each per innings then people would use it totally differently,” Hazlewood was quoted as saying by cricket.com.au.

“I think umpires can fall into a trap of umpiring a little bit differently depending on who’s got reviews left and how many they’ve got.

“They’ve got to umpire based on nothing there as well, but if you just had one each you’d save it, you wouldn’t use it early unless you were positive and that’s what it’s there for, that howler.” The 29-year-old Hazlewood was part of the Australian team during last year’s Ashes, which was marred with DRS drama during the Edgbaston Test and Lord’s Test.

At Edgbaston, 10 decisions were overturned on review, while at Lord’s, Australia had exhausted their reviews and couldn’t avail the video referral for an lbw appeal against Ben Stokes, who went on to score 115 not out as England drew the match.

Hazlewood said after the Lord’s Test, the Australians formulated a plan to review a decision in the field.

“After that game we sat down and said, ‘Let’s put a process in place’. At least we had something to fall back on if we don’t know. That was the bowler and the wicketkeeper and someone from side on comes in and we have a quick discussion why wasn’t given out,” he said.

“That’s why the square fielder comes in to say, ‘The height looked good from my angle’. The keeper (Paine) has a say, and he’s obviously the captain as well, so that helps, and we make a quick call then and at least we have a process now we go through.

“If we get them wrong, we get them wrong, but hopefully it goes in our favour. It’s not there for the 50-50 calls but when you’re in the heat of the battle, you just want to get that wicket and you think it’s out at the time.” Hazlewood has taken 195 wickets in 51 Tests and 78 scalps in 48 ODIs for Australia.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...m-hazlewood/story-iKIFNc9rRVeyktpY23dMYN.html

No it wouldnt. It would create more controversy. The technology won't disappear if the players aren't allowed to use it. The balance is right at the moment

 

[HitWicket]

according to DRS that means there is a good chance ball is missing completely. So you are going to give batsmen out for balls which will miss the stumps?

No it doesn't, umpires call isn't a technical factor.

 

[sweep_shot]

Which basically means getting rid of umpires.

I am fine with getting rid of on-field umpires. One TV umpire is enough.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I will fight for the umpire's call till my last breath. It is what keeps the game human.

 

[therealAB]

Except that's literally what the makers say, that because of the error rate (which can be both + and -), two balls which can be identical on the projection, can mean one is hitting the stumps and one is completely missing

I agree there is an error, but this error is much less than umpire error. Just do straight with the machine

 

[aloo paratha]

Currently at least half the ball has to be hitting the stumps. I think, they should lower it to a quarter of the ball hitting the stumps to be out, and all balls that are shown to be clipping the stump (less than 25% of the ball) should be given not out due to the potential margin of error. This way the same ball won't be out for some, and not out for others.