The DRS System

[FrediKanoute]

The point of any video referee system should be (IMO) to ensure that the correct decision is made. A video referee is pointless if it cannot overrule an on field wrong decision.

The current system in cricket is flawed in that an on field umpire cannot be overruled if they make a mistake unless a captain has available reviews. I appreciate that the point of limiting reviews is to stop the number of frivolous referrals, but the effect is that teams are forced to gamble and in some cases, too many in my book, the incorrect decision gets to stand. I think the system is also flawed because is encourages the players to challenge an umpiring decision.

IMO, rugby union has the best video referee. It strikes a balance between letting the game flow and between making sure the correct result is achieved. It does this by empowering the referees, not diminishing them. It allows the referee to explain what he saw and ask a specific question. There is no limit, it accepts that on any given day there may be 50 contentious issues or one. It empoers the refereee to see assistance to make the right decision, not guess.

Cricket could learn a lot without detracting from the game. First and foremost the DRS system could work on the basis of soft decisions, so that the notion of an umpires call is not lost. If the DRS is inconclusive, then the call goes with the umpire and what they believe the result to be. The umpire would be encouraged to review decisions to confirm accuracy, but ultimately they would have the right to refer, not the batsman, not the fielding captain. Instructions to umpires would be to refer LBW decisions, where there is doubt - e.g., the Cummings LBW shout - could be, "I think it's not out because it pitched outside leg, can you confirm". The check should take all of 2 mins.

Umpires should also have the power to act on frivolous appealing. Some of the Aussie appeals were downright ludicrous today and did nothing but show how desperate they were.

[ledge]

Re: The DRS System

Seems to be a problem in all sports look at Aussie rules,soccer, it should make the game more black and white but somehow the powers that be make it almost impossible to work right.
Let the third umpire review every decision that’s not blatantly obvious, bowled, caught in the field are no need for review. Common sense reviewing isn’t hard .

[FrediKanoute]

Re: The DRS System

I think part of the problem is that the review system's have become "entertainment". The clapping at the tennis as haweye dtermines if something is in or out; the noise at the cricket as the review is awaited.....suspense is built and this makes for good entertainment. I think the priorities are wrong - the sport should be entertaining enough. It doesn't need the added excitement of a DRS. What has happened with DRS is that cricket umpires have gotten worse, because they figure a wrong decision can just be overturned.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: The DRS System

That is a very sensible and logical approach.

It also means it is unlikely to be implemented.

[lemmon]

Re: The DRS System

Agree with your thoughts Fredi - I think there are two key issues with DRS and have been since its introduction:

1/ The 'eliminating the howler' motive - when DRS was launched, the idea was that it was there to eliminate the obvious decision that had been missed, eg. the Stuart Broad edge that went to second slip. The rationale was the human error is part of the game and that could never be completely eradicated.

To me, that's a flawed concept because the technology is good enough now to virtually eradicate all errors if used correctly by officials and you also can't be 'half out'. What's it matter if you get a faint edge to keeper versus a thick edge to second slip? If called correctly, both have the same result on the game.

That also brings in conversation about how LBW is officiated - it doesn't matter if the ball nudges the wickets, or if more than half the ball is hitting, either way the ball is going to dislodge the bails (usually) and therefore, both are out.

2/ Putting it in the hands of the players - Once it was handed over the players with a limit on how many times it was going to be used it was ALWAYS going to become part of game strategy. We're not just asking players to be good at cricket now, there's also a skill in how well you can be a backseat umpire.

Absolutely both teams start on a level playing field, but do we want games decided based on how well captains can judge DRS ball tracking from their position on the field? Because it's now helping to decide results. At the moment the system is half pregnant.


I argued strongly at the time that it was brought in that we had two choices:
1. Every dismissal was reviewed by a third umpire, even at the cost of the speed of the game. This renders the on-field umpire nothing more than a coat stand, but at least it guarantees the accuracy of decisions.
2. We scrap the system and accept that wrong calls are part of the game.

Personally, I think Ledge is right and it's time that we review everything. Technology has become so entrenched that the cricketing public no longer accepts that 'it'll all come out in the wash at the end of the day'.

[Bornadog]

Re: The DRS System

[Bornadog]

Re: The DRS System

Stokes said: 'I thought as soon as it hit me, it was sliding down leg because there was no spin'



Very difficult to adjudicate an LBW with the technology.

[Twodogs]

Re: The DRS System

It's a simple fix. If a team refers and they get it wrong then they get a penalty them 5 or 10 runs.

[FrediKanoute]

Re: The DRS System

Its not the reviewed ones or the umpires call's that bother me too much, its the blatent incorrect call's that worry me.

By way of example, in the 2nd test, Bancroft is given out LBW in the 1st innings to a ball that was just out -

"22.5 been given lbw! But Bancroft has reviewed. The no-ball is just okay. Was it high or outside the line? There's no bat. Nipped back nicely off the seam as well. Umpire's call on hitting the bails. Archer has his first! Big celebrations for him 60/2"

Conversely, Head is given not out to one that is plumb -

"30.1 booming in to smash the pads... but Dar shakes his head! England review and this looks bad for Travis Head! Only the inside edge could save him, because this was right back in the traps as the ball homed in on middle... Yep, that's plumber than the Mario brothers! Broad hits the nail on the Head, thankful for the DRS after a wide-eyed, increasingly disbelieving appeal 71/4"

Bancroft was right to review and probably given how marginal it was should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Conversely, England should never have had to review the decision in the first place.

Going back to Sunday's non-call, what should have happened is that the umpire should have been able to say "I believe its not out, but can we just confirm this". If it was marginal, Stokes gets the benefit of the doubt. On current evidence, despite what Stokes claims, it was out and Australia are right to be aggrieved. The argument that we shouldn't have burnt the review the previous over doesn't hold, because an error has still been made.

The DRS should be the safeguard regardless.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: The DRS System

I heard Mo Salah interviewed this week and he was asked about video technology in the game. His response was interesting. He said that it was in his interests to support it because he will score more, but that he was actually against it because he liked the element of the game that involves human error, by players and referees. He also liked the passion of living in the moment and not taking time out constantly to review decisions. Consequently, he wants to go back to football without the technology even if it means the odd bad/incorrect decision.

[ledge]

Re: The DRS System

I heard Mo Salah interviewed this week and he was asked about video technology in the game. His response was interesting. He said that it was in his interests to support it because he will score more, but that he was actually against it because he liked the element of the game that involves human error, by players and referees. He also liked the passion of living in the moment and not taking time out constantly to review decisions. Consequently, he wants to go back to football without the technology even if it means the odd bad/incorrect decision.

Sadly some sports are very questionable when left to human control , eg betting scandals and referee or umpire being paid off, technology will eliminate that.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: The DRS System

Sadly some sports are very questionable when left to human control , eg betting scandals and referee or umpire being paid off, technology will eliminate that.

The counter argument is that the spontaneous joy element will be replaced with endless reviews. In which case, umpires should be discontinued with.

Something needs to change with the DRS. There aren't a lot of good answers to how though.

[ledge]

Re: The DRS System

The counter argument is that the spontaneous joy element will be replaced with endless reviews. In which case, umpires should be discontinued with.

Something needs to change with the DRS. There aren't a lot of good answers to how though.

I think it’s pretty basic, review the ones that are questionable, common sense.
You don’t review bowled or caught in the outfield, only review lbw and caught behind, stumping and run outs that aren’t obvious.
But it’s not put into the players hands at all. Pressure has proven they make silly errors.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: The DRS System

I think it’s pretty basic, review the ones that are questionable, common sense.
You don’t review bowled or caught in the outfield, only review lbw and caught behind, stumping and run outs that aren’t obvious.
But it’s not put into the players hands at all. Pressure has proven they make silly errors.

And review catches that may be bump balls, or outfield catches that maybe bounce before or where a foot may touch the rope. Plus run outs, stumpings, bat pads, leg side catches where it could be leg or bat, all LBWs, if it's major swing or spin to first slip 'catches' - these too. That's the vast majority of decisions and non-decisions. Every appeal, except bowled, needs to be checked.

What will happen to excitement of sport, and practical things like over rates if there's a dozen reviews a day?

I'm not sure it's that simple. But talking about it is a start.