madmusician
Club Cricketer
How can it be "dangerous" ?!?!? Bad decisions going unchecked is more "dangerous" than the third umpire picking up anything the onfield umpire(s) missed
I thought the players were out there to play cricket and the umpires make judgement calls on decisions like wickets.................. How can it be not "utterly fair" if the umpire changes a bad decision? It's not like he'll only do it for the home team. And it's one step closer to where it should have started, with the umpires making all the calls and reviewing where they aren't sure.
See that's a TACTICAL decision, the review system is not meant to be a tactic even though that is how it pans out.
Not really, they're supposed to be impartial and on your argument whether the umpire gives it out or not forces the hand of the side having to review so is that "scrupulously fair" ? Especially when it comes to this whole "umpires call" where the batsman given out stays given out, but if he was given not out and the bowling side appealed then he'd stay not out. How does that sit with your "scrupulously fair" and "dangerous" assertions?!?!?
And is it "scrupulously fair" that no balls are called and batsmen recalled without a review? Or that stumpings and run outs fall outside the review system? It is all over the shop, some decisions reviewed by the umpires, some by the players and it is a bit of a circus.
I can understand why the Indians aren't keen, and is it "scrupulously fair" that England seem considerably more experienced and 'well versed' in using the system than the aussies? I suspect they've played more Tests using it, again you could argue an unfair advantage for the home side.
As I've said before, you need to look at the objective of the system, to eradicate howlers or bad calls. If there are no reviews left for one side because of the tactical deployment of the system by giving it to the players, then you are not achieving your objective.
If I set out to achieve world peace and there's still fighting in Syria and other countries then I've failed in my objective, even if Russia and USA aren't threatening to nuke each other. Broad was not given out, shouldn't have had to been given out, and so a mistake stood unchecked. Sure the aussies wasted their reviews, but the flaw in the system is because it is made tactical.
If England had used up their reviews, maybe due to an error by the third umpire, and hadn't had one to get the last aussie wicket it would have been wrong. You can't blame the captains/batsmen for being human, it is down to the UMPIRES to make decisions and the correct ones, giving the ability to review it to the captains was just too risky. It's like giving your kids control of the household income and wondering why they spent it all on sweets and can't pay the gas or electric bills............................
Fine, you don't want it to be a tactical system - I was arguing on the basis that it was currently - so we agree on that! Although, truth be told, I think it is the best situation of them all for the following reason.
If it was in the hands of the umpire, there would be a temptation for every decision to be reviewed. See the Champions Trophy in 2002 for evidence when this system (admittedly pre-Hawk Eye and Hot Spot, but the protocol was the same) was in place. This takes up a hell of a lot of time in the game, and would lead to teams appealing for everything - it would ruin the game, IMHO. Thus, in my opinion, the system that we have at present for DRS is the best of a bad bunch. I know that it isn't perfect, but I genuinely believe that it is better than the alternatives.
OF COURSE it will become tactical - that's the nature of the beast. BUT it is up to teams to use it in its best interest - it would be an EXTREMELY unlucky set of circumstances for a team to lose all its reviews ready for a howler - or, indeed, extreme incompetence from a captain, as we saw in the last test match.
The reason that I referred to Dave Richardson's suggestion as 'dangerous' was that IMO we either have the system that we currently have: teams choose when to review or we return to the umpires making the decisions amongst themselves - whether that is the on-field umpire requesting assistance or the third umpire jumping in. Mixing the systems will not work - let me explain:
Will the third umpire jump in with every decision that he sees is wrong from his bank of monitors? If so, then there's no point in the teams having reviews, too. If he doesn't, and he elects to jump in AS WELL as the teams' reviews, then there is a real risk of undermining the review system - what constitutes a 'howler'? There may be an occasion where a team does not need to review as a result of the third umpire's intervention and then the opposing team doesn't get the assistance and loses their reviews. Please note that I am not suggesting this be corruption - I just think that the system at present (in terms of review protocol) is in black and white. It would not be with this 'half-way-house' system. If the ICC want to change it so that technology is only used at the discretion of the umpires then fair enough - I would disagree, but at least the system is clear. There is an alarming lack of clarity in a 'half-way-house' - the third umpire may intervene, but equally might not - system.
I hope that explains my thoughts better than my post earlier.
