Will cricket be better and fairer without umpire's call?

[Saj]

The Umpires Call & It's Flaws

We've just seen Brad Haddin being given out to a delivery that would have just grazed the stumps, purely because it was an umpire's call.

Yet in the same scenario if the umpire had given it not out and just under half the ball was hitting the stumps the batsman would have been given not out.

Unfair ? Fair ? Rule changes needed?

 

[Abid Z]

Well in the past anything that would be hitting leg would be deemed to be missing and hence the batsman would get benefit of the doubt. Used to be fair for the batsman but very unfair for bowlers especially leggies. Abdul qadir would have more wickets than warne if he was playing now with his googlies. I still think its fair as it tilts it back towards the bowler a little but I feel for haddin as it was so marginal. The rule is fine but there is a lot of talk of making hawk eye and tracking system better as some to the naked eye seem to be hitting but on hawkeye are shown to be missing.

 

[Zaz]

of course its unfair I said this three years back when pakistan were over here for the summer Two exact appeals can result in both not out and out depending on how the umpires calls it

Marginal decisions can go against one team and in favour of others with no uniformity That cant be fair

 

[Abid Z]

Yes but umpires now have adapted to the new rules and technology and are more likely to give these marginal decisions out more often and put the onus on the captain to review. In essence it's not unfair as it clearly shows the ball is hitting the stumps (however marginal). What's unfair is that it uses up a review. The same rules apply to both teams so nobody has an unfair advantage.

 

[Zaz]

Yes but umpires now have adapted to the new rules and technology and are more likely to give these marginal decisions out more often and put the onus on the captain to review. In essence it's not unfair as it clearly shows the ball is hitting the stumps (however marginal). What's unfair is that it uses up a review. The same rules apply to both teams so nobody has an unfair advantage.

The rules may be the same for both teams but not necessarily the decision making

How can two exact lbw appeals resulting in two differing decisions be right? We need to do away with umpires call and bring a simple out or not out depending on how much of the ball is hitting the stumps

This current method of decision making is arbitrary and that is wrong

 

[sam_ahm]

The bottom line is that had there been no DRS the decision would have stood as it is, but yes, The fact that it eats up one review of a team is unfair.

 

[Abid Z]

The rules may be the same for both teams but not necessarily the decision making

How can two exact lbw appeals resulting in two differing decisions be right? We need to do away with umpires call and bring a simple out or not out depending on how much of the ball is hitting the stumps

This current method of decision making is arbitrary and that is wrong

Yes I understand that but we have all witnessed umpires increasingly giving such marginal lbws out knowing that the review system will overturn any howler and it has. Fact of the matter is haddins ball was hitting the stumps and he was correctly given out and many such balls now lead to the umpire giving out. The eng-pak series in UAE was full of such decisions. I think the more pressing issue is can such a ball be shown to be "wrongly" clipping the stumps and this is where Simon Hughes analysis on tms in one of the lunch breaks was quite informative as more camera angles are needed to accurately track the ball.

As it stands the law is fine just needs a tweak.

 

[OZGOD]

Well I think the intent of the rule is to support the on field umpire's decision unless there is a real howler like the ball totally missing or hitting centre of middle stump. The assumption is that the ump got it right on those marginal calls unless there is significant evidence to the contrary. It's tough, but I guess it balances out over time as some umps will call some of those out and some won't.

Couple of ways to fix that is :

1) to make it explicit that if exactly 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps then it's out and otherwise it isn't, irrespective of umpire's call. That would make it consistent for everyone at least, as Hawkeye is not biased (though it might be wrong it will be wrong for both teams).

Or:

2) keep as is to support the onfield umpire's decision but not lose a review

 

[Changa.banda]

This whole 'benefit of the doubt to the umpires' is not something I can understand. As aforementioned, the exact same scenario can have two different consequences depending on how the umpire thinks. That, I feel, is promoting inconsistency. Whilst I understand that the DRS' primary aim is to correct the howlers, this is also a matter that should be looked into.

My suggestion (not that it would mean anything!) would be to give the benefit of the doubt to the technology. Right or wrong, technology would always be consistent,hence no team would feel aggrieved - not to this extent anyway.

What I find particularly irksome is the fact that people somehow try to make it sound like a ball grazing the bails is any less out than a ball hitting the middle stump bang on. They're both as out as the other. It doesn't matter if Hawk Eye has a margin of error. The inconsistency of the on field umpires is a more bitter pill to swallow.

One of my pet peeves is also how it's the implementation of the DRS that is a problem and not the system itself. To a certain extent yes, that is correct. However, the third umpires presumably follow a prescribed set of rules.

 

[Cricketrenew]

I think tweaks are needed to DRS rules.

1. If umpires gives it out double check the decision, if any little doubt exists on all decisions.

2. For bowling team, I don't understand why half the leg stump is the starting point for lbw decisions, if that's the case then all decisions where the ball is clipping should automatically be out, no umpires call rubbish.

3. Hot spot needs to be improved where tape and hot days don't affect the result but in the mean time use as best possible, don't discard.

4. Two reviews for bowling teams every 20 hours allowed and umpire has unlimited use when he feels needs or let a third tv umpire decide all decisions but have best umpires as third umpires....................and hold them to account.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

They should just make it that Hawk-eye is right every time.

So if the ball is hitting the stumps, no matter how slightly, the player should be out regardless of what the umpire's call was.

Get rid of this stupid umpire's call rule, at least for LBWs.

 

[Bilal7]

Fair. Gives importance to the on-field umpire's decision. DRS is only there to stop the howlers, not the marginal decisions.

 

[Nuekboi]

Fair. Gives importance to the on-field umpire's decision. DRS is only there to stop the howlers, not the marginal decisions.

No, benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman, and you can't give an LBW which MIGHT just have clipped the stumps

 

[Kianig89]

Umpires now try to play safe Hill knew Australia had a review so he gave it out thinking in mind that if the batter disagrees he will review it that was a harsh call on Haddin infact Wattoo even got it because of his past records of plating the leg

 

[vicky_iisc]

I think we should not try to remove this inconsistency on marginal decisions. It's fine if one umpire gives it out and the other doesn't. It's ok.. there are bigger inconsistencies to resolve in the game, and seriously, this one isn't hurting the game's reputation.

 

[SL_Fan]

When it comes to DRS it's not the technology that is the issue. The real problems are the nonsensical rules and guidelines governing the system. The whole thing is designed to give the on-field umpire the benefit of the doubt rather than allow the third ump to make the correct decision. I had no idea how limited the third ump's role was before this series. It's pretty much designed to fail if you ask me. When it comes to ICC clearly common sense is not so common.

 

[hadi123]

I think you shouldn't lose a review for umpires call, but in every innings there should only be 1 available, as majority are umpires calls and they won't lose the review

 

[marlonbrowndo]

The "umpire's call" part of the review system. What are your opinions on it?

I think when it comes to umpires call for LBW people can be a bit hypocritical including me. For example if a pakistani batsman is gives LBW and its a close umpires call after reviewed i tend to throw my remote. On the other hand if he is saved by umpires call it feels great. I think ICC needs to do something which could improve this part of the game because sometimes the ball barely touches the stumps and the batsman is out or not out depending on the on field decision. In my opinion i agree with what Dean Jones said that when it is umpires call the team should not lose a review.

 

[Logical]

Firstly, stop throwing your remote control just because of a stupid cricket match. I hate when people let their emotions get the better of them and get all violent.

Anyways on topic, as you all should know the reason why "umpire's call is there" is because hawkeye is not 100% accurate, it needs that room for margin of error. So until it isn't 100% that umpires call clause will have to stay.

I like the idea of a team not losing a review since it is a umpires call but there is a potential problem with that too. Captains then will be reluctant to review almost every decision that hits the pads knowing there is a good they won't lose the review hence, making the match that much longer with a lot more pauses.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Firstly, stop throwing your remote control just because of a stupid cricket match. I hate when people let their emotions get the better of them and get all violent.

Anyways on topic, as you all should know the reason why "umpire's call is there" is because hawkeye is not 100% accurate, it needs that room for margin of error. So until it isn't 100% that umpires call clause will have to stay.

I like the idea of a team not losing a review since it is a umpires call but there is a potential problem with that too. Captains then will be reluctant to review almost every decision that hits the pads knowing there is a good they won't lose the review hence, making the match that much longer with a lot more pauses.

I dont actually throw the remote! it was a joke haha i just get angry. You raise a good point about why teams should lose a review. But maybe they can do something like the captain gets one or 2 extra reviews for umpires call and not unlimited.

 

[FreakCricket]

ball should be hitting more than 50% otherwise no matter what shouldn't be given out !

 

[Raw deal]

Umpire's call is a must. Why have umpires if you are not going to give them any decision to make? Just deal with technology then. At the end of the day, technology is there to help you in making decisions and avoid bowlers, not to dictate terms.

 

[angrypathan]

Love it when it works in our favour, hate it when it doesn't But understandable why it's there. As for losing reviews, with Tests it's not as bad since there's 2 to begin with and they get reset every 80 overs, but with ODIs it can be pretty annoying when such a very marginal call wastes a review, so I guess perhaps if the first review is an umpire's call, then it doesn't get wasted? And any subsequent umpire's calls use up the review

 

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

I like it . Keeps the game interesting . Keeps the umpires job have some effect .

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

Just let it be out if it's hitting and not out if it's missing. End of.

 

[f.b.m]

Goes to show just how much expectations have changed over the years that people are losing their rags on 50-50 decisions.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

Goes to show just how much expectations have changed over the years that people are losing their rags on 50-50 decisions.

There was no hawkeye in times past.

 

[Pace90]

Benefit of doubt should go to batsman, " umpire's call" decision should go in favor of batsman.

 

[Smbhayi]

Firstly, stop throwing your remote control just because of a stupid cricket match. I hate when people let their emotions get the better of them and get all violent.

Anyways on topic, as you all should know the reason why "umpire's call is there" is because hawkeye is not 100% accurate, it needs that room for margin of error. So until it isn't 100% that umpires call clause will have to stay.

I like the idea of a team not losing a review since it is a umpires call but there is a potential problem with that too. Captains then will be reluctant to review almost every decision that hits the pads knowing there is a good they won't lose the review hence, making the match that much longer with a lot more pauses.

don't need to 100% accurate.. if you use technology then use it completely.. or you can add something like if ball hits more than half percentage it's out otherwise not out..

 

[Adnan Siddiqui]

Otherwise Umpires will be too undermine. Have to keep some relevance and importance.

 

[amit]

If a review is decided on umpires call, it should not be counted as a used review. Only those who have a clear "missing" / "inside edge" and are unsuccesful should count as wasted

 

[Logical]

don't need to 100% accurate.. if you use technology then use it completely.. or you can add something like if ball hits more than half percentage it's out otherwise not out..

It's not either black or white, there are unfortunately grey areas in DRS but i am all for it. If you look at the stats after the implementation of DRS i'm sure more right decisions are being made.

 

[Stallion__]

There is two things which needed to be fixed imo.

-) When some part of ball is touching the stumps then according to DRS, its umpires call, but on certain occasions, it shouldn't have been. Because

.) When more than half of ball is clipping the stumps, it will definitely dislodge the bails. Almost equivalent to the case when total amount of ball is hitting the stumps. See the screen-shots below

The first one was given not out while second one was out, all because of umpire's call.

Practically, both don't needed umpire's call since huge amount of ball is hitting the stumps, while second one is merely clipping, highly unlikely to dislodge the bails.

The point is, that ICC should narrow the window of umpire's call. When enough amount of ball is hitting the stumps, it should be out instead of umpire's call like in the first case, while if very minute part of ball is touching the stumps, it should be not out instead of umpire's call. In both cases, the decision can be made independently without relying on umpire's call.

Umpire's call should only be used when there is enough doubt, not in cases the clear cases like above two.


-) Another thing, in case if decision stays with umpire because of umpire's call, the team which has used DRS shouldn't lose its review. They have made a fair decision of taking a review, and still being penalized twice for that. Once, by the decision not being given in their favor, secondly, by depriving them of a review.

These things should be regulated better by ICC.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

I think the review system will be a lot better if the teams don't lose review because of an umpire's call. Although the main reason for the review systems is to remove howlers not the close calls. Most of these calls can go either way.

 

[Zaz]

Umpires call needs to be done away imo

Theres no still no consistentcy with the decision making using this method

for eg for two similar lbws appeals one can be out the other not out depending on how the umpire calls it

how is that even fair or consistent?

It people are worried about the accuracy margin or drs surely a plus 50% out would be a better way or making a decision

 

[Random Aussie]

Useless like the whole DRS system. Get rid of it.

 

[endymion248]

Drs is for overturning blunders, not marginal decisions. If an umpire gave not out a ball that is clipping the stumps, it's not a mistake and his decision should be maintained. It's players fault that they think of DRS as "let's take a chance".

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Umpire's call is funny. Once the decision goes out of on-field umpire's hand it shouldn't come back to him. It's just like a court case going from a lower court to a higher court. I have seen people accusing on-field umpires of a personal bias against a team in a marginal decision. Also some umpires don't want to accept their mistake and even after knowing their decision was wrong they still stand by it.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Useless like the whole DRS system. Get rid of it.

Out of all the evil things this is the only thing BCCI have done well. They are not supporting a half cooked drs system.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

I am against the umpire's call. However, i want something called 'umpire intervention' when DRS makes some seriously idiotic decisions. Which is rare but has happened twice with Pakistan.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

Out of all the evil things this is the only thing BCCI have done well. They are not supporting a half cooked drs system.

Thank DRS for your WC 2011.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Thank DRS for your WC 2011.

That ajmal decision was shocking.

 

[Random Aussie]

Out of all the evil things this is the only thing BCCI have done well. They are not supporting a half cooked drs system.

Its a joke. I can't stand it.

 

[Logical]

Out of all the evil things this is the only thing BCCI have done well. They are not supporting a half cooked drs system.

Can you not think straight? At least DRS has gotten rid of howlers.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eqNJLQddOp4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Can you not think straight? At least DRS has gotten rid of howlers.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eqNJLQddOp4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

lol what does that prove? Umpire's call is BS. If you like it that's ok.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I just don't see the point of it. I'm not really interested in the umpire's call, neither do I believe they are all equally impartial so I would far rather the decision just stays with the DRS.

 

[Yossarian]

Anyways on topic, as you all should know the reason why "umpire's call is there" is because hawkeye is not 100% accurate, it needs that room for margin of error. So until it isn't 100% that umpires call clause will have to stay..

This is the biggest piece of rubbish spouted by the anti-DRS brigade.

Sure there is a margin of error. But take a theoretical case of two identical deliveries (in terms of speed, height and angle of delivery etc.), pitching on exactly the same spot, the DRS, despite the 'margin of error', will make exactly the same calculation (since the formula is the same, and as mentioned, the parameters of speed and direction of the ball, pitching etc. are also the same) such that they will both be hitting the wickets on exactly the same spot.

And yet, depending upon whether its the fielding captain or the batsman who's asking for the review, the batsman will be given 'out' or 'not out'.

There should no 'umpires call' - its either hitting or missing. Regardless of whether the batsman or fielding captain asked for the DRS review.

 

[Amoeba]

As numerous people have said it is called Decision Review System - ie someone has to make a decision (the umpires) which can then be reviewed. The purpose is to reduce the howlers. What the current Ashes series shows is that the vast majority of decisions have been correct. I think only 1 has been overturned although a few more could have been overturned if they had been reviewed.

The only way to get rid of Umpire's Call is to remove the umpires altogether. Maybe that is where we will eventually head.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

As numerous people have said it is called Decision Review System - ie someone has to make a decision (the umpires) which can then be reviewed. The purpose is to reduce the howlers. What the current Ashes series shows is that the vast majority of decisions have been correct. I think only 1 has been overturned although a few more could have been overturned if they had been reviewed.

The only way to get rid of Umpire's Call is to remove the umpires altogether. Maybe that is where we will eventually head.

I disagree, we can still have umpires, just not have this silly Umpire's Call qualification which allows in incorrect decision to stand just because the umpire nearly got it right. if it's hitting, it's hitting, if it isn't it isn't. Umpires can manipulate this by giving the benefit of the doubt to the team that they prefer in the hope that the decision will support them, if it doesn't then nothing lost.

As I said earlier, I don't have any interest in supporting umpires as quite a few of them are in my opinion prone to bias.

 

[godzilla]

theres nothing wrong with the system. DRS is designed to eliminate howlers. anything that is close is not a howler, so theres no reason for DRS to overturn the umpires decision in those cases. i dont see the controversy at all.

 

[Eureka]

This is the biggest piece of rubbish spouted by the anti-DRS brigade.

Sure there is a margin of error. But take a theoretical case of two identical deliveries (in terms of speed, height and angle of delivery etc.), pitching on exactly the same spot, the DRS, despite the 'margin of error', will make exactly the same calculation (since the formula is the same, and as mentioned, the parameters of speed and direction of the ball, pitching etc. are also the same) such that they will both be hitting the wickets on exactly the same spot.

And yet, depending upon whether its the fielding captain or the batsman who's asking for the review, the batsman will be given 'out' or 'not out'.

There should no 'umpires call' - its either hitting or missing. Regardless of whether the batsman or fielding captain asked for the DRS review.

Thats where you are wrong, if the ball is clipping and you review then its your fault for reviewing a decision which wasn't a howler. DRS is made for howlers like ball pitching way outside leg not for ball pitching marginally outside leg. Although decision will be overturned in both cases in case the batter is given out. I remember clearly in one test match against Sri Lanka when there was no DRS 4 decisions went against Pakistan when batting and all of them were howlers and could have been overturned with resorting to just video replays. If a decision is 50 50 the decision should remain on Umpires Call as you cant be sure one way or the other. The umpires call is fair as sometimes the ball clips the stumps and bails fail to dislodge if umpire has given not out and ball clips the stumps one can assume that umpire thinks it would not have dislodged the stumps.

 

[Amoeba]

I disagree, we can still have umpires, just not have this silly Umpire's Call qualification which allows in incorrect decision to stand just because the umpire nearly got it right. if it's hitting, it's hitting, if it isn't it isn't. Umpires can manipulate this by giving the benefit of the doubt to the team that they prefer in the hope that the decision will support them, if it doesn't then nothing lost.

As I said earlier, I don't have any interest in supporting umpires as quite a few of them are in my opinion prone to bias.

Fair enough to a degree. However it will ultimately mean that umpires will not have to make a decison except in the most obvious cases just like has happened now with line decisions. Umpires always call for the TV review except when the batsman is out by yards.

In time this will result in umpires no longer really being required, which of course is not the ICC's intention.

 

[Yossarian]

This is the biggest piece of rubbish spouted by the anti-DRS brigade.

Sure there is a margin of error. But take a theoretical case of two identical deliveries (in terms of speed, height and angle of delivery etc.), pitching on exactly the same spot, the DRS, despite the 'margin of error', will make exactly the same calculation (since the formula is the same, and as mentioned, the parameters of speed and direction of the ball, pitching etc. are also the same) such that they will both be hitting the wickets on exactly the same spot.

And yet, depending upon whether its the fielding captain or the batsman who's asking for the review, the batsman will be given 'out' or 'not out'.

There should no 'umpires call' - its either hitting or missing. Regardless of whether the batsman or fielding captain asked for the DRS review.

Thats where you are wrong, if the ball is clipping and you review then its your fault for reviewing a decision which wasn't a howler. DRS is made for howlers like ball pitching way outside leg not for ball pitching marginally outside leg. Although decision will be overturned in both cases in case the batter is given out. I remember clearly in one test match against Sri Lanka when there was no DRS 4 decisions went against Pakistan when batting and all of them were howlers and could have been overturned with resorting to just video replays. If a decision is 50 50 the decision should remain on Umpires Call as you cant be sure one way or the other. The umpires call is fair as sometimes the ball clips the stumps and bails fail to dislodge if umpire has given not out and ball clips the stumps one can assume that umpire thinks it would not have dislodged the stumps.

"That's where you are wrong" ?

You reply doesn't contain anything to refute the logic of my argument. All you've done is spout the same old rubbish about DRS only being made for howlers.

Or perhaps, as seems to be the case, you don't understand logic and the technology behind DRS.

The umpires call is fair as sometimes the ball clips the stumps and bails fail to dislodge if umpire has given not out and ball clips the stumps one can assume that umpire thinks it would not have dislodged the stumps.

So your argument is based around the fact that the umpire thinks the ball is clipping, but will not dislodge the bails?

And based on your logic, if the ball is clipping the stumps (even if by 0.5% width of the ball) it will dislodge the bails if the appeal is by the batsman, whereas even if the ball is clipping the bails by 49.5 % width of the ball the bails will not get dislodged when the appeal is by the fielding captain ? )

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

Keep it but make it so a team doesnt loose a referral

 

[hadi123]

Keep it but make it so a team doesnt loose a referral

Agree completely!

 

[Convict]

The only confusion is that it's so inconsistently applied.

Not talking about Hawkeye here.

Sometimes we get the "there isn't sufficient evidence to over turn the decision" which is the way it is meant to be.

On other teams they spend 5 minutes playing the same videos and think there possibly might be a nick and overturn the decision based on that.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Umpire's call on DRS - I think it's pure luck basically

Umpire's call was designed with the intention that in case of inconclusive evidence about whether the ball would hit the stumps or not, the umpire's verdict will be upheld.

On theory, this looks great.

In reality, its a messed up one.

A decision that looks easy not out can be given out and then ball could clip the stumps and make it umpire's call.

The same decision could be given not out and then the ball clipping stumps would be used to give it not out.

Here's the kicker: Ball tracking is NOT perfectly reliable. So there will be cases when CLEAR mistakes by umpires will not be overturned due to umpire's call technicality.

Saha was clearly looked not out against Rashid. Front foot forward. Googly. Middle stump impact.

Given out. Umpire's call. So decision upheld.

Virat Kohli looked not out by a MILE. Ball angled in. Front leg. Long way to go to hit stumps.

Given not out. Umpire's call. So decision upheld. Virat was saved by a whisker.

However if the on-decision was out, he would have gone for a dismissal that looked clear not out LIVE. 10 years back, NO UMPIRE would give that out.

So basically teams are relying on a bit of luck element when it comes to this aspect of DRS. Plus they get to lose a review in case of umpire's call.

Clearly, this is one area that needs to be rectified.

Also I think teams need more reviews. Broad was not out last innings.

 

[Varun]

Let's not complain.

It's either this or no DRS altogether. And do you want to compile the number of games we have lost because of the BCCI's stubbornness on not having any technology altogether?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Its not complaining.

Its a genuine concern.

Who said DRS shouldn't be implemented.

I am a DRS fan myself.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

There was a Pak SA game where 2 exact dismissals were out and not out in 2 different instances.

That's whats called LUCK.

 

[aloo paratha]

May not like it, but it's fine the way it is tbh, and what else can you do to fix this without someone complaining.

A problem they had before was that too much was being given to the umpire but now they fixed that.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

Luck is also involved without drs. Bowlers getting Lbw despite ball pitching outside legstump. Getting a caught behind when the ball hits the leg guard or not getting a wicket despite the edge. Drs just mitigates the impact of luck by a large amount. At the same time I agree with Tendulker that third umpires should be able to change howlers despite the teams not having reviews. But the biggest problem with that is time which is lost if every decision is reviewed by the third umpire the problem will probably solved in the next 10years though with machine learning and Ai where every decision is reviewed by Ai that has real time access to all the camera and audio in the ground.

 

[Sachin136]

Is there a better alternative though?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

No alternative for now.

But least they can do is not count an umpire's call as failed review.

 

[Slog]

[MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION]

The point of DRS was never to have 100% decisions correct

It was to rule out howlers

From that aspect it is fine

an lbw given where the ball just shaves the stumps is probably a harsh decision. But its not a howler. If its given out then its ok, and same if its not. However if it is totally missing the stumps and given out then that is a howler and DRS will cut that out

 

[Aman]

Complaining for the sake of complaining...

As Slog has posted above, the DRS was introduced to rid howlers, everything else is just extra.

 

[Indiafan]

Umpire's call was designed with the intention that in case of inconclusive evidence about whether the ball would hit the stumps or not, the umpire's verdict will be upheld.

On theory, this looks great.

In reality, its a messed up one.

A decision that looks easy not out can be given out and then ball could clip the stumps and make it umpire's call.

The same decision could be given not out and then the ball clipping stumps would be used to give it not out.

Here's the kicker: Ball tracking is NOT perfectly reliable. So there will be cases when CLEAR mistakes by umpires will not be overturned due to umpire's call technicality.

Saha was clearly looked not out against Rashid. Front foot forward. Googly. Middle stump impact.

Given out. Umpire's call. So decision upheld.

Virat Kohli looked not out by a MILE. Ball angled in. Front leg. Long way to go to hit stumps.

Given not out. Umpire's call. So decision upheld. Virat was saved by a whisker.

However if the on-decision was out, he would have gone for a dismissal that looked clear not out LIVE. 10 years back, NO UMPIRE would give that out.

So basically teams are relying on a bit of luck element when it comes to this aspect of DRS. Plus they get to lose a review in case of umpire's call.

Clearly, this is one area that needs to be rectified.

Also I think teams need more reviews. Broad was not out last innings.

Only if you do not understand statistics and un-certainity principle

You keep on repeating that a decision looks this and a decision looks that ignorning that the human eye is much more unreliable than the tech you are claiming to be not 100% correct. Human eye is a marvel and can do a lot of things. However, it cannot track at an accuracy of 3.5 cm at 22 yards

There is nothing lucky or not lucky here, if a decision falls within uncertainty of H/E then whatever the umpire called will remain which is exactly what would have happened if DRS was not there. People completely ignore the bolded part

You made this claim - A decision that looks easy not out can be given out and then ball could clip the stumps and make it umpire's call.

But that is exactly what happened when DRS was not there!!!!

So DRS is overturning howlers and when it comes to close decision it follows umpires like matches without DRS. How is that a bad thing? Surely its an improvement?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

[MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION]

The point of DRS was never to have 100% decisions correct

It was to rule out howlers

From that aspect it is fine

an lbw given where the ball just shaves the stumps is probably a harsh decision. But its not a howler. If its given out then its ok, and same if its not. However if it is totally missing the stumps and given out then that is a howler and DRS will cut that out

Yes...

Let's say howlers are 100 points.

And let's say harsh decisions are 70 points.

Imagine 5-8 harsh decisions a game. It would make a mockery of it.

There are many umpire call decisions that could go either way and I am not talking about those ones. That is ok. Check out the Kohli appeal and you will see. Its no where near out LIVE yet it clips the stumps.

Luck element has reduced a lot with DRS but its still there.

A bad umpire would make life so hard with DRS.

 

[Indiafan]

Yes...

Let's say howlers are 100 points.

And let's say harsh decisions are 70 points.

Imagine 5-8 harsh decisions a game. It would make a mockery of it.

There are many umpire call decisions that could go either way and I am not talking about those ones. That is ok. Check out the Kohli appeal and you will see. Its no where near out LIVE yet it clips the stumps.

Luck element has reduced a lot with DRS but its still there.

A bad umpire would make life so hard with DRS.

So howlers are reduced but harsh decisions still remain. How is that now an improvement?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Only if you do not understand statistics and un-certainity principle

You keep on repeating that a decision looks this and a decision looks that ignorning that the human eye is much more unreliable than the tech you are claiming to be not 100% correct. Human eye is a marvel and can do a lot of things. However, it cannot track at an accuracy of 3.5 cm at 22 yards

There is nothing lucky or not lucky here, if a decision falls within uncertainty of H/E then whatever the umpire called will remain which is exactly what would have happened if DRS was not there. People completely ignore the bolded part

You made this claim - A decision that looks easy not out can be given out and then ball could clip the stumps and make it umpire's call.

But that is exactly what happened when DRS was not there!!!!

So DRS is overturning howlers and when it comes to close decision it follows umpires like matches without DRS. How is that a bad thing? Surely its an improvement?

Nobody argued its not an improvement.

Uncertainty decisions are of 2 types:

Good and bad.

The bad ones are those where something looks clear but due to clipping, it has to be upheld. From a theoretical point of view, you are right. Luck factor is there cos ball tracking isn't as accurate as we think it is.

---

Wasn't there a recent example of ABD getting bowled and ball tracking showing it going above the stumps? How did that happen? It was an odd case no doubt and maybe the technology used in that game wasn't the same as others but it did happen.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

So howlers are reduced but harsh decisions still remain. How is that now an improvement?

Who said DRS is not an improvement?

Just cos something is an improvement means we shouldn't give constructive criticism?

 

[Aman]

Who said DRS is not an improvement?

Sadly I have to repeat the same point so many times.

Just cos something is an improvement means we shouldn't give constructive criticism?

This was debated long back, you're just late on it because you haven't been using the technology.

Flaws were found in the early stages, over time they've realized irrespective of the flaws of the system, it is still better to have matches with DRS rather than leave it to the rub of the green.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

This was debated long back, you're just late on it because you haven't been using the technology.

Fans have realized with all it's flaws in the early stages, over time they've realized regardless of the flaws, it is still better to have matches with DRS rather than leave it on the rub of the green.

Been involved in DRS discussions from a long time back.

Fans have realized with all it's flaws in the early stages, over time they've realized regardless of the flaws, it is still better to have matches with DRS rather than leave it on the rub of the green.

Yes...but who is saying anything otherwise?

Just a normal discussion about the issues about DRS.

--

One thing they can change is counting reviews as failed for umpire's call. That hasn't been done yet.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Anyways, one more question (though a bit unrelated to this thread)?

Would Stokes been given out/not out last innings if third umpire had ruled that as bat hitting ball? He was caught by fielder.

 

[Aman]

Anyways, one more question (though a bit unrelated to this thread)?

Would Stokes been given out/not out last innings if third umpire had ruled that as bat hitting ball? He was caught by fielder.

Usually check both, recall the odd time they haven't.

 

[MMHS]

Umpire's call was designed with the intention that in case of inconclusive evidence about whether the ball would hit the stumps or not, the umpire's verdict will be upheld.

On theory, this looks great.

In reality, its a messed up one.

A decision that looks easy not out can be given out and then ball could clip the stumps and make it umpire's call.

The same decision could be given not out and then the ball clipping stumps would be used to give it not out.

Here's the kicker: Ball tracking is NOT perfectly reliable. So there will be cases when CLEAR mistakes by umpires will not be overturned due to umpire's call technicality.

Saha was clearly looked not out against Rashid. Front foot forward. Googly. Middle stump impact.

Given out. Umpire's call. So decision upheld.

Virat Kohli looked not out by a MILE. Ball angled in. Front leg. Long way to go to hit stumps.

Given not out. Umpire's call. So decision upheld. Virat was saved by a whisker.

However if the on-decision was out, he would have gone for a dismissal that looked clear not out LIVE. 10 years back, NO UMPIRE would give that out.

So basically teams are relying on a bit of luck element when it comes to this aspect of DRS. Plus they get to lose a review in case of umpire's call.

Clearly, this is one area that needs to be rectified.

Also I think teams need more reviews. Broad was not out last innings.

Take DRS out from players.

It was introduced to eradicate impairing howlers, but being used as a chancy tool - be for bowling or batting side.

No players review - on field umpire will take decision. If he is confused, he might ask for support/confirmation from his colleague with video replay back at pavilion. But, once the verdict is given - it ends there.

Also, for every reviews, they go for full cycle - checking every point. If it's with umpires, he can ask for one/particular clarification -

- please confirm if there is an inside edge or not
- please confirm if it's pitched inside the line or not
- please confirm if it stuck on line or not .... etc

3rd umpire won't give the verdict - rather, he'll give specific clarification -

- no edge apparent
- no bad or gloves
- inside/out side or 35% inside leg .... etc.

Based on his input, onfield umpire will take his own decision & that's final. If required, an umpire can use unlimited times of such support; but I am sure, he won't be required more than 2/3 times per innings. Player must accept the final verdict.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Take DRS out from players.

It was introduced to eradicate impairing howlers, but being used as a chancy tool - be for bowling or batting side.

No players review - on field umpire will take decision. If he is confused, he might ask for support/confirmation from his colleague with video replay back at pavilion. But, once the verdict is given - it ends there.

Also, for every reviews, they go for full cycle - checking every point. If it's with umpires, he can ask for one/particular clarification -

- please confirm if there is an inside edge or not
- please confirm if it's pitched inside the line or not
- please confirm if it stuck on line or not .... etc

3rd umpire won't give the verdict - rather, he'll give specific clarification -

- no edge apparent
- no bad or gloves
- inside/out side or 35% inside leg .... etc.

Based on his input, onfield umpire will take his own decision & that's final. If required, an umpire can use unlimited times of such support; but I am sure, he won't be required more than 2/3 times per innings. Player must accept the final verdict.

What if umpire feels confident and commits a howler then? Umpire gave Ash out (over-ruled) when there was a clear cut inside edge. Why should players accept that decision?

But then if umpires are given a chance to refer, they will do for every dismissal or shout. Like run out.

 

[HitWicket]

Anyways, one more question (though a bit unrelated to this thread)?

Would Stokes been given out/not out last innings if third umpire had ruled that as bat hitting ball? He was caught by fielder.

Yep, if the third umpire felt there was conclusive evidence he hit it (which he'd need to decide it wasn't out lbw) then hed have given it caught.

 

[MMHS]

What if umpire feels confident and commits a howler then? Umpire gave Ash out (over-ruled) when there was a clear cut inside edge. Why should players accept that decision?

But then if umpires are given a chance to refer, they will do for every dismissal or shout. Like run out.

Maybe initially, there will be more reviews, eventually it'll settle. Also, we can make it both ways between umpires - it takes 2/3 minutes before the next ball is bowled after a dismissal. If such clear cases (only when a batsman is wrongly judged out - by law, a batsman is out when umpire judges him out), a batsman can be called back, like they do for uncalled no balls.

I think, run out is a bit different because with high tech replays, you have many surprises like bat bumping, bail dislodged by body parts before ball/gloves with ball - hence umpires don't take chances. For most cases (in terms of out), he'll ask clarification for specific questions. For that Ash LBW, I am sure in that case (DRS with umpires), Ash would have made gestures that he had bat on it; for which umpire can have a confirmation - even if not, he can be called back by 3rd umpire.

we have to find a solution to bring technology in the game & I think it's better that the technology is kept with decision makers.

 

[Buffet]

I agree here. Cricket is not about who can use this DRS better. That has very little to do anything with playing better cricket. Umpires should have full control and not players. Tactical reviews and all that makes it funny given that aim was to remove howlers. Just have third umpire step in if ground umpire fails to make use of tech otherwise ground umpires should consult the third umpires for help. That will be much better than current tactical review drama.