The DRS system : Is it flawed?

[fast1975]

here is my viewpoint. There is no point of valuing field umpire decision so much once a decision is referred to the 3rd umpire. it is complete nonsense. I know that ICC is trying to keep some respect for field umpires otherwise once a batsman or a bowler wants a review, the field umpire decision shd be out of the picture.

the reason someone is going to the 3rd umpire is because he disagrees with the field umpire and therefore the 3rd umpire needs to make the decision on technological merit regardless of what the field umpire's original decision was.

had we followed this process, both babar and azhar may be declared not out as the ball was just clipping the stumps but they were deemed out as field umpire had declared them out

The counter argument would be that the field umpire is the closest to the action and has seen the ball first hand and therefore, his input is important and we need a conclusive evidence to turn around his decision. This is a strong argument but we either need to trust the field umpires fully (forget technology in the case) or put our trust on technology 100%. this hybrid approach is not very fruitful and i hope ICC listens to my request

this is the right way to approach any bias (if any) instead of bringing white vs brown viewpoint...as I see it

 

[kingusama92]

It has to be done.

A ball "clipping the stumps" might or might not knock off the bails. There are many examples where the ball has grazed the stumps and done nothing.

This is why the umpire's call is reserved for those plays.

The review system is designed to help with howlers. If you try to manipulate the system and get a close call in your favor, it's important to realize this is a consequence of your decision.

 

[Gilly]

The DRS has intergrated the well known cricket protocol of the batsman gets the benefit of doubt.

This comes under the umpires call scenario. A batsman can get a reprieve if less than 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps but under no circumstances can the bowler get a wicket where the ball has missed the stumps by less than half a ball. So in reality the batsman has a built in bias in the system.

 

[Indiafan]

here is my viewpoint. There is no point of valuing field umpire decision so much once a decision is referred to the 3rd umpire. it is complete nonsense.

There is a point if there is a built in error rate in DRS which the makers have acknowledged. If there was no error rate then umpire's original decision need not be valued.

 

[R0H1T]

The implementation is seriously flawed IMO, the umpire's call shouldn't mean the reviewing team loses a review. In the recent tour by England, India probably had at least half a dozen reviews wasted because the impact was umpire's call whilst the ball tracker showed the ball "hitting" the stumps, virtually every time.

What this obviously does is that it makes the fielding team appeal louder & harder, the other unexpected impact is free reviews? The decision against Ben Stokes in Mumbai, when he was out reverse sweeping, was put on hold when Ben put in a word in Oxenford's ear, something to the effect of "are you sure that's out" & saved his side a crucial review! Likewise in case of Rashid against Karun Nair when the (incessant) appeal was referred to the third umpire, England was out of reviews then.

The point being whilst the DRS was supposed to overturn howlers, it seldom prevents that from happening because of excessive appealing, umpire's call & what not. The rules around DRS are such that the level & quality of your appeal determines your output, so it should be taken out of the players' hands, alternatively giving more reviews & fixing the "umpire's call" facade is also a major step in the right direction.

 

[Madplayer]

Ladies and gentlemen i present to you DRS

 

[jnaveen1980]

My major issue is "soft signal". Very reason you go to third umpire is because you are not sure if the fielder took the catch or not. HOw can he give OUT or NOT OUT ?

 

[FearlessRoar]

DRS disaster: A closer look as England use up all three reviews in 13 balls

England endured a DRS howler amid a batting collapse in the fifth Test against India, using up all three reviews in the space of 13 balls in Dharamsala.

Here, the PA news agency pulls out what went down in the picture perfect setting of the HPCA Stadium in the foothills of the Himalayas.

Jonny Bairstow – caught Dhruv Jurel, bowled Kuldeep Yadav

In his 100th Test, Bairstow was purposeful and perhaps slightly erratic as he thumped two sixes and was dropped on 21. He was out for 29 off 18 balls after misreading Kuldeep Yadav’s googly, overbalancing slightly, and getting a faint edge through to wicketkeeper Jurel, who celebrated animatedly. Bairstow might not have detected the edge as he sent the decision upstairs but there was no fooling UltraEdge.

Joe Root – lbw Ravindra Jadeja

Root had moved inauspiciously to 26 but had to trudge back to the pavilion five balls after Bairstow’s departure. Beaten on the inside edge and rapped on the front pad by slow left-armer Ravindra Jadeja, Root seemed bemused when the umpire’s finger went up. Electing to bring technology into play might have been more in hope than expectation and because Root is England’s premier batter. But there was no bat involved and HawkEye predicted Jadeja’s delivery would have gone on to clatter leg stump.

Ben Stokes – lbw Kuldeep Yadav

The England captain’s returns with the bat have been dwindling and he has seemed a bit hesitant against left-arm spinners Jadeja and Kuldeep recently. Going back to one he maybe should have gone forward to, Stokes was trapped in front of the stumps and foxed by another Kuldeep wrong’un. Stokes may have been persuaded into a review because of his status but given how far back in his crease he was, it seemed misguided and the delivery would have crashed into middle stump. Stokes departed for a six-ball duck.

DRS disaster: A closer look as England use up all three reviews in 13 balls

England lost three wickets in 13 balls and burned all three reviews.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Cricket Warrior]

its better to trust humans rather this DRS system seems like that any hosting country can manipulate it for their own benefit.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Former Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh isn't convinced with the DRS being employed in the game as he feels the technology isn't accurate enough to judge the bounce of the ball. He said this while speaking on a podcast:

"Technology is a good thing when brought into the game. If you want to advance the game, you can also see people's inclination that, yes, the ball is hitting the stump or not. It's good to introduce new technology into the game; it propels the game forward. However, I'm not fully convinced with this DRS system. I’m not entirely inclined towards it because it doesn't accurately judge the bounce of the ball."

"Another aspect that bothers me is when we start playing cricket in the neighborhood, we are shown that this is the wicket, and if the ball hits the wicket, it's out. Whether it hits lightly or firmly, it's out. If the ball hits the stump, brushes it, or hits it entirely, it's out."

"And if the umpire gives a not out for a missed ball, then how is it not out? Then why are you using DRS when DRS is showing that the ball is hitting the stump; it should be given out then. You are bringing technology and not even listening to it."

 

[FearlessRoar]

Sunrisers Hyderabad beat Rajasthan Royals by one run in the last-ball thriller with Bhuvneshwar Kumar trapping Rovman Powell in front of the stumps. But what if the decision was overturned on DRS and Powell was not-out? Even then SRH would've won. Former South Africa cricketer Dale Steyn has proposed a solution to avoid controversy by citing the rules in baseball. Do you agree with him?

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Sunrisers Hyderabad beat Rajasthan Royals by one run in the last-ball thriller with Bhuvneshwar Kumar trapping Rovman Powell in front of the stumps. But what if the decision was overturned on DRS and Powell was not-out? Even then SRH would've won. Former South Africa cricketer Dale Steyn has proposed a solution to avoid controversy by citing the rules in baseball. Do you agree with him?

yeah that should be a first thing to do, just get the runs because after that decision u wont be allowed to do so.

 

[hassan918]

It may not be 100% correct but it certainly helps in making most of the decisions right.