DRS no longer mandatory

[StinkyBoHoon]

see that would be good, I'd be in favour of that, remove the decision making from the team, I suppose as regards to holding back the game for not outs, how often have they found something suspicious before the bowler's even at his mark? quite often I guess. would just take someone to go "hang on, we're going to have another look."

i think it would work a lot better if umpires were able (and prepared) to say "I'm not sure about that one, can you have another look."

get rid of the "giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt" rule and use doubt as reason to review. don't get me wrong, I'm definitely in favour of technology being used, i just think the point of it should to be get correct decisions and what we've got now is replacing the margin of error within which umpries make mistakes with another margin of error as to when players make mistakes as to when to review.

evn if a batsman is given wrongly out and the umpire doesn't check because he's positive, what's wrong with the batsman being allowed to say "honest, check that, I wasn't" and then just fining the hell out of him if he's lying? retrospective punishment is something I support in all sports. it's ridiculous you get fined for swearing at an opponent retrospectively but not for blatantly cheating the rules, for example claiming grassed catches.

 

[Owzat]

I've been saying since they brought the reviews system in that it should be the umpires using it, not the teams. It is like a tactic at the moment, sometimes you could see Strauss was thinking not so much "we know that's out LBW" but rather thinking it was close and a wicket now would be perfect.

I'm in favour of it for refs in football, have another look at a CRUCIAL decision that could change the game like a penalty, possible handball that players are screaming for, offside, red cards etc.

At the moment the players aren't that much better placed to know if it is out or not, the batsman might know he got a nick on an LBW given, or it pitched outside leg, or the bowler might know the batsman edged it to slip etc, and truthfully I think that was why they brought it in in the first place, but when you start going into LBWs and trying to use dorkeye for judging line and bounce then I can see why the Indians are untrusting of it, but the bottom line is it gets more decisions right than was the case before.

Either have it or don't, make it an aid to the umpires rather than tactical. I wonder if BCCI would object if it was PURELY replays and at the umpire's instigation, be it onfield or 3rd umpire.

 

[Gurjot95]

Poll Added.

 

[Owzat]

Nice poll, I'm not voting as I don't feel my view is reflected in the options.

DRS should be changed to replays available to the umpires when they would like another look at a wicket related decision

- if the ball pitched outside off or leg stump (LBWs) and height
- run out
- stumping
- "clean catch"
- edges on claimed catches or nicks on LBWs
- no balls on any potential dismissal

That probably covers the main causes to have another look. I wouldn't use the snicker-o-meter, probably not dorkeye and for a clean sweep by default not hot spot.

Ask the BCCI if they'd be happy with replays and what I propose and maybe they will remove objections. If not then I'd question their motives. Technology is mostly gimmickery, it may be able to add more factors to the decision like prediction of the ball's path etc, but replays alone should be able to detect anything that can aid a decision.

Or put another way, replays to aid the decision are fine in my book, having gimmicks make the decision for the umpire isn't. Before gimmicks the naked eye was the decision maker, I say leave it to the naked eye even if the naked eye needs to see it more than once.

 

[puddleduck]

I think something that gets ignored from the DRS system with things like Hawkeye is that unlike Football, I think it adds to the game. This is of course just a personal opinion as opposed to the many factual posts I've attempted to make on the subject.

Personally, when I'm at the cricket there is a good little period of suspense while the wait for the decision occurs. It adds to the theatre of the occassion. Also, when watching on Tv, I enjoy seeing the replays from different angles, with different technologies as each part of the appeal is dissected.

That said, on the other side of the coin, there is something very anti-climatic when a wicket is taken, the batsmen starts to walk, then he stops because they go to check that they did indeed have their foot behind the line, and yes it was smashing into middle half way up.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

sometimes it adds to the game, other times it just makes me cringe though.

i remember that test in south africa were england were something/9, south africa had been battering them for ages to get the last wicket, amazingly england survived and last ball of the game smith reviews a ball that was 3 feet away from collingwoods bat. it was just sad.

that happens all the time. I bet, given a long enough time to get a sample, india would review tendulkar outs more than they would other batsmen. possibly sehwag early on in an innings looking to get a start. there will always be this motive to it.

the other thing I really wouldn't look forward to is the slagging matches which would go along the lines of "if we hadn't wasted our reviews we would have reviewed blah blah and won." or "if we'd reviewed that he wouldn't have made 100 and you would have been behind/lost." I think I'd almost take "the umpire was crap" over that because in those instances one team is benefitting from being good at judging when to review a decision, which is not what cricket is about.

and you all know the aussies would get better at it than anyone else.

 

[Atharv]

Ball tracking is a waste of time and seems to be a useless technology . How is it possible to predict or track the trajectory of a ball without any feedback from the actual site of incident, in this case , the 22 yards pitch . To get feedback, you need to have sensors embedded in and around the pitch the will return the attributes like hardness , moisture content and wear and tear of the pitch, windspeed , humidity, the speed and angle at which the ball hit the pitch and some other relevant properties. Then these will have to be processed and only then a trajectory can be predicted and even that trajectory may not be accurate. Using high speed video camera's is just like playing digital "Join the dots and create a picture" thing that we used to do as 4-5 years old. What a ridiculous thing to do . Cricket still does not have a technology that can measure the speed with which the ball hit the bat .And they want to predict the ball trajectory using high speed video cameras . What fun

Umpires are the best judge.

Just MHO.

 

[barmyarmy]

Ok but evidence strongly suggests that whilst not being perfect ball tracking is still more accurate than umpires...

 

[Atharv]

Ok but evidence strongly suggests that whilst not being perfect ball tracking is still more accurate than umpires...

How the heck can one get evidence for that ? Who is measuring the accuracy of the ball tracking technology? What authority/technology came up with this statement of ball tracking being more accurate than umpires (I am not saying you made this statement. I just want to know what is the source of this evidence ). It is a useless technology and cricket is better off without it .
IMHO Accuracy of a technology is in the accuracy of its process/procedure/algorithm(what ever you want to call it) and ball tracking is based on very flawed procedure. There is no way it can give accurate results.

 

[Themer]

There is no way it can give accurate results.

And yet it does.

 

[Atharv]

And yet it does.

Says who ? How does anyone decide that the trajectory spit out by current ball tracking technology is accurate . No human or no technology can guarantee that . As I have said the accuracy of the technology is in the accuracy of the process/algorithm it follows . And right now the the procedure they are using in ball tracking is ridiculous. It is a big joke . Forget about ball tracking , let them first come up with the technology that measures the speed of the ball after it comes off the pitch. After that there is a possibilty that they might come up with a decent ball tracking technology .



Rarely do I back BCCI. But on this I am with BCCI . BCCI should dig in its heels and throw out this absurd technology forever by refusing to accept it.

 

[Themer]

let them first come up with the technology that measures the speed of the ball after it comes off the pitch.

Hawkeye does that already.

 

[Atharv]

Hawkeye does that already.

You have answered your question .

How does Hawkeye do that . Does Hawk eye pull the real time data out of thin air to measure the speed ? . Without real time data there can be no measurement of speed or prediction of trajectory . And to get real time data you need sensors at the site, the pitch in this case . Hawkeye , ball tracking - different names but same ridiculous stuff.

 

[Themer]

You really do have no idea how Hawkeye works do you?

 

[Manly]

So if they set up a video camera perpendicular to the pitch, and a video camera behind the bowler's arm, recorded 1000 deliveries, thus creating a 3D video picture of each delivery, then, using HawkEye sensors' results, and superimpose each delivery video and HawkEye pictures onto one another, showing 100% accuracy, you still wouldn't be happy with it?