Video Assistant Referee system in cricket

[someone21]

Why can't we have something like VAR in cricket? Unlimited reviews, where the 3rd umpire tells the on-field umpires if anything should be reviewed. It doesn't make sense that even with technology, due to 1-2 max reviews, mistakes are made and like obvious not-out are given outs.

Football is a momentum game, and are fine with VAR. So cricket should more manageable in more reviews.

 

[UP]

I agree. Every decision and no-ball should be checked behind the scenes. And if anything pops up, the on-field umpire should be notified.

 

[Khan12]

As long as the people sitting there are not blind like the ones they got for the football world cup.

 

[Slim]

I think DRS is perfect as it is. VAR is just plainly horrible in terms of its execution. Very inconsistent and plain annoying.

 

[someone21]

I think DRS is perfect as it is. VAR is just plainly horrible in terms of its execution. Very inconsistent and plain annoying.

VAR has helped make a 99.5% correct decision. Whereas DRS is plain lottery as you just get 1-2 chances.Technology shouldn't be a lottery, it should be used thoroughly, and delete the errors.

 

[badsha001]

DRS are for horrendous decisions not to take chances... Some of the batsman (especially seniors players like Hafeez) think DRS is only for them

 

[someone21]

DRS are for horrendous decisions not to take chances... Some of the batsman (especially seniors players like Hafeez) think DRS is only for them

And isn't that why VAR Is needed? Horrendous mistakes, errors made by on-field umpires should be called by 3rd umpire, not by the players.

 

[iniqbal223]

First they get the DRS in all formats for every game. There is a big road block from India, and Australia about its use, not sure why.

Except for cases, I always preferred DRS. DRS is to reduce false positives, not to give 100% perfect results.

 

[Mirpur express]

Don’t need VAR it in cricket DRS is good just need to have unlimited reviews & a quick process with minimum delays

 

[Sirris]

For the game of cricket DRS is better than VAR.

Not each and every decision by the onfield umpire needs to be rechecked. The players are allowed to appeal for a reason. Having good judgment skills as a player are part of the game.

Otherwise why appeal for a potential lbw or a caught behind? Why not just let the umpire do all the decision making while you concentrate on bowling.

No-balls are already being rechecked in certain cases.

 

[Pakistanian]

VAR and DRS are the same thing. Tomatoes, taamatoes, there's no difference.

The difference is in the laws that dictate how you use the system.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

No balls should be checked after every delivery by the third umpire.DRS should be standardized across all formats i.e hotspot,snicko,ball tracking should be the same for every international game.

Teams should have 2 reviews and umpires should have an unlimited number of reviews for every decision of which they are not certain.

 

[Markhor]

The game would be slowed down too much if reviews were unlimited. Players would be referring every decision going against them.

DRS is a good system, especially now that teams don't lose a review with Umpire's Call.

 

[Hasan123]

DRS is a good system. 1 thing that needs to be done is making sure all no balls are called instead of missing them and only checking it when a wicket is taken.

 

[someone21]

The game would be slowed down too much if reviews were unlimited. Players would be referring every decision going against them.

DRS is a good system, especially now that teams don't lose a review with Umpire's Call.

Slowed down? Since when was cricket a fast game? It's a game of patience, and we also a 5 dayers version. Whereas football is a complete momentum game, so if they can have VAR, cricket needs it as well.

And just like footballers don't appeal for everything, cricketers won't do as well.

 

[hadi123]

I think for no-balls, wides etc then the umpire should have the right to communicate the umpire as many no-balls are missed, especially in tests. Umpires ask when there's a wicket to check the front-foot but there are many no balls on deliveries where there are not wickets etc so no one notices and bowlers get away without it. For lbws/caught behind DRS is fine.

 

[Fahdi]

As of now my biggest issue with DRS is the quantity. Should make it 3 in tests, 2 in ODIs and 1 in T20s.

 

[shokz1408]

I think the current review system is fine, teams should have 3 reviews each, and if used appropriately that should ensure no wrong decision is taken. With VAR, I feel it will ruin the spirit of the game, I foresee players arguing with the umpires.

 

[KingKhanWC]

They are both review systems, not much difference as they both use cameras and technology to make the right decision.

The main difference is VAR can only be referred by the referee while DRS can be called by the team. VAR should be changed so each team has 2/3 reviews to use. It's a bit silly to leave it up to ther ref , the person who made the error to over rule himself.

 

[shokz1408]

They are both review systems, not much difference as they both use cameras and technology to make the right decision.

The main difference is VAR can only be referred by the referee while DRS can be called by the team. VAR should be changed so each team has 2/3 reviews to use. It's a bit silly to leave it up to ther ref , the person who made the error to over rule himself.

That would take a lot of time out the game. We've hardly had any VAR use during the knockout stages could you imagine each team having 3 each, that's potentially 6 referrals, it would take the pace out the game. The improvement that needs to be made is when a penalty should or should not be given, as that is a blurred line at the moment.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Other way around, champ. DRS came before VAR.