Tweet
I want to preface this that I am in general a supporter of technology to aid decision making.
The DRS is flawed, badly flawed. The principle of using Video in any sport is to minimise costly errors. Taking the review ability away from the adjudicators and putting it in the hands of players undermines the authority an umpire has over the game and over time will lead to poorer and poorer decisions. This is especially the case where you limit the number of review-able decisions. The biggest issue in the Broad non-dismissal wasn't that Broad didn't walk, but was that a clear error wasn't able to be overturned. Surely the point of using video technology is to enable errors like this to be reviewed and rectified.
When you add the appalling inconsistency in reviewing LBW's (see Rogers & Watson, given out and on review it is confirmed as umpires call vs Bell given not out and confirmed as umpires call) its clear that the system is not resulting in good consistent decisions, but line ball decisions falling the way of a whim. The Hughes dismissal yesterday was yet another example. Given not out, that decision should never have been reversed, because the ball pitched didn't pitch on leg stump, half of it was outside the line......surely that should have been umpires call?
Rugby Union have the best video review process I have seen. Most often used in the case of tries, the referee asks a specific question to the 3rd umpire and seeks clarification. It may be, "was the ball grounded?" or "was the ball grounded before the guys foot went over the line?". The 3rd umpire looks at the video and then gives his take allowing the referee to make a decision The key to the system is the questions asked as much as the video used.
Taking the Broad decision, the umpire could have queried, without the need for a request. He could have stated, I don't think its out, is there any reason to give this out. The video ref could then review and confirm that the ball was from bat, to glove and caught allowing the correct decision to be applied. Simple, no challenge to an umpires authority.
Applying this to the LBW, again clarification could be sought with questions asked around, in line/hitting stumps etc. So DRS is not making the decision, but aiding the decision. Watto's decision was line ball, some get given/some don't. Hughes' decision the same. One was give out and the other wasn't both DRS said both were out - where is the evening up. This is the problem. With human error at least you tend to get some decisions for you and others that don't.
I think the Indian rejection of DRS is right the system is flawed and really is a TV driven rather than cricket driven tool.
The DRS is flawed, badly flawed. The principle of using Video in any sport is to minimise costly errors. Taking the review ability away from the adjudicators and putting it in the hands of players undermines the authority an umpire has over the game and over time will lead to poorer and poorer decisions. This is especially the case where you limit the number of review-able decisions. The biggest issue in the Broad non-dismissal wasn't that Broad didn't walk, but was that a clear error wasn't able to be overturned. Surely the point of using video technology is to enable errors like this to be reviewed and rectified.
When you add the appalling inconsistency in reviewing LBW's (see Rogers & Watson, given out and on review it is confirmed as umpires call vs Bell given not out and confirmed as umpires call) its clear that the system is not resulting in good consistent decisions, but line ball decisions falling the way of a whim. The Hughes dismissal yesterday was yet another example. Given not out, that decision should never have been reversed, because the ball pitched didn't pitch on leg stump, half of it was outside the line......surely that should have been umpires call?
Rugby Union have the best video review process I have seen. Most often used in the case of tries, the referee asks a specific question to the 3rd umpire and seeks clarification. It may be, "was the ball grounded?" or "was the ball grounded before the guys foot went over the line?". The 3rd umpire looks at the video and then gives his take allowing the referee to make a decision The key to the system is the questions asked as much as the video used.
Taking the Broad decision, the umpire could have queried, without the need for a request. He could have stated, I don't think its out, is there any reason to give this out. The video ref could then review and confirm that the ball was from bat, to glove and caught allowing the correct decision to be applied. Simple, no challenge to an umpires authority.
Applying this to the LBW, again clarification could be sought with questions asked around, in line/hitting stumps etc. So DRS is not making the decision, but aiding the decision. Watto's decision was line ball, some get given/some don't. Hughes' decision the same. One was give out and the other wasn't both DRS said both were out - where is the evening up. This is the problem. With human error at least you tend to get some decisions for you and others that don't.
I think the Indian rejection of DRS is right the system is flawed and really is a TV driven rather than cricket driven tool.
Comment