The DRS Thread - Jan 29 = BCCI Could Implement BCCI-ised DRS for IPL

[PokerAce]

World in Sport | Fixing DRS

This is an interesting article on DRS and some of the issues it has had over the years and how to fix these issues. The point is try and be objective while reading it, regardless of what side of the fence you are on in the DRS debate.

I think both sides will find the article somewhat enlightening. Be warned though, it really goes into detail and is thus a bit long.

Thx

 

[grkrama]

Very good read

All the technology is for the benefit of everyone in the world except the person who is supposed to make the decision !! Within minutes millions of people at home will have the benefit of replays but not the umpire in the middle.

it is not Umpires vs DRS, which the present format of DRS wants it to be, but it then becomes Umpires empowered with DRS.

Lastly the area that needs fixing is that DRS cannot aim to just restrict itself to two reviews per innings. This law needs change and its almost like saying that if there is a third howler in the innings, it doesn’t matter.

 

[War]

That's a brilliant article. Admittedly for a long time i like many did characterize the DRS issue as an example of the BCCI using this influence to corrupt the game. My view has changed in the last year & its clear the BCCI was right to object from the start & the game & its statistics are being corrupted by a very faulty system instead.

This is a such a excellent summary of how to fix DRS, the ICC needs to see this & implement everything ASAP.

 

[used2bcool]

I don't agree with Step 2 or 3, and part of Step 5 makes no sense to me.

Step 2: If we do away with the predictive element of Hawkeye, then essentially there is little reason to use Hawkeye. If we're asking umpires to make a judgment call about whether the ball will go on to hit the stumps or not, then there is no need for the advanced technology and the money being pumped into it. A Hawkeye system that leaves the final result to speculation will never be accepted by the general cricket-watching populace, because it rests the final decision back in the hands of the umpire, which was the initial problem this system was introduced to solve.

Step 3: This goes hand-in-hand with Step 2 -- since we're keeping the predictive path in Hawkeye, and since this is a computer-based system, there must be a margin of error. The perfect system doesn't exist and it never will. The Umpire's Call is the tolerance level or the margin of error.

Step 5: I agree that the limit on reviews is a little stupid, but you know the intention behind it is noble - to stop captains from taking a chance every time some debatable decision is made and slowing down the game. For what it's worth, every major sport that uses some sort of decision-making technology puts a hard limit on the the number of reviews/challenges for the same reason. Let that be.
The second part of step 5 says don't dock a review for a favorable result - reviews are only docked if you get them wrong. I'd say extend that to not docking reviews even for an Umpire's Call verdict, because that verdict essentially means it was too close to call for the technology, meaning it was a worthy review. I believe frivolous reviews have to be penalized in some way (i.e. docking reviews) so that captains stop wasting time calling for reviews, but Umpire's Call reviews are not frivolous - they're genuinely close.

But by all means, get rid of Hot Spot, it's not worth the trouble.

 

[cricket_icon]

Ridiculous article for the most part. I can't believe there are still so many arguments against DRS, even with all the nonsense this series

 

[PokerAce]

I don't agree with Step 2 or 3, and part of Step 5 makes no sense to me.

Step 2: If we do away with the predictive element of Hawkeye, then essentially there is little reason to use Hawkeye. If we're asking umpires to make a judgment call about whether the ball will go on to hit the stumps or not, then there is no need for the advanced technology and the money being pumped into it. A Hawkeye system that leaves the final result to speculation will never be accepted by the general cricket-watching populace, because it rests the final decision back in the hands of the umpire, which was the initial problem this system was introduced to solve.

Well actually two points, I would like to make here. First you say if we remove the prediction part of Hawk Eye, then what purpose does the rest of Hawk Eye have? The answer is that it still tells the umpire, where did the ball pitch, whether it hit the batsman in line with the stumps, and how high was the impact with the batsman. Also a clear trail of the path of the ball. These are all the infos an Umpire needs to decide on LBW and it puts it on a platter for the Umpire to see. If the Umpire can still not make up his mind, then he is just inept.

Also does it matter whether the populance accept it or not? DRS is not meant to be an entertainment tool, but a mechanism to get as many decisions as right as possible. Just keeping the actual ball tracking path still helps achieve this.

 

[PokerAce]

Ridiculous article for the most part. I can't believe there are still so many arguments against DRS, even with all the nonsense this series

Actually to be honest, after the fiasco that the Ashes series was, it would be stranger if DRS was not called into question, especially after Strauss (not some lay pundit) said that the players don't trust Hot Spot, one of the key components of DRS. How can DRS not be questioned. Also in all fairness the article is looking at ways to improve DRS, always a welcome step to look at ways of improving things.

 

[War]

The Pujara howler today is a good example of how point 3 in this article's suggestion of DRS changes, could have prevented that easily.

 

[IceAgeComing]

I'm just watching the Sky highlights of the game and I wouldn't call the Pujara wicket a "howler"; its one that was not out but you could understand why the umpire made the decision that he did. DRS would have overturned it; but I'd only call something a howler if it was clearly not out but given for some reason; or vice versa...

 

[PokerAce]

I'm just watching the Sky highlights of the game and I wouldn't call the Pujara wicket a "howler"; its one that was not out but you could understand why the umpire made the decision that he did. DRS would have overturned it; but I'd only call something a howler if it was clearly not out but given for some reason; or vice versa...

It is a fair point, not the dismissal itself, but what is DRS meant to correct in general. The Howlers or the faintest of faint edge that no human could possibly pick up on. It was said DRS will erase the howlers.

Which is why I have always maintained that if DRS is meant to erase 'howlers' then it is kind of futile. What I am saying is, that it is for the really close calls that DRS comes into use. I mean if you are using Hot Spot and it shows a faint edge, which was not given, then its still a pointless use of it. Because the micro faint edge, is not meant for an umpire to pick up at all. So If the use of DRS helps correct that then while yes, great, but those are not the ones the system was brought in to correct. If the micro faint one goes against a team, they will still understand.

DRS it is said was brought in to correct the 'howlers' and my definition of a howler is something clear to the naked eye on replay. If for instance there is a giant inside edge of the at on an LBW, but still given out, that is a howler. r a ball clearly sliding down leg (no hawk eye, but clearly to the naked eye) given out LBW that is a howler. Or what happened to Prior in the first test, is a howler. I mean too much of a gap between bat and pad, but still given out caught. Thus, to remove the howlers, one doesn't need all the tech that can pick up the faintest of edges. For the clear howlers, the 3rd Ump can just use his walkie and solve the problem. No DRS, but still no 'Howlers'.

If we keep harping on using DRS to detect the faintest of faint edges, then we are kinda missing the point about DRS.

 

[War]

I'm just watching the Sky highlights of the game and I wouldn't call the Pujara wicket a "howler"; its one that was not out but you could understand why the umpire made the decision that he did. DRS would have overturned it; but I'd only call something a howler if it was clearly not out but given for some reason; or vice versa...

That was a clear howler my friend. It wasn't hitting the stumps, not even the blue line predicted path had it clipping the stumps.

Yes DRS if it was available could have overturned that (presuming that reviews were not used up), but as the article suggested, why go through all that headache of using the DRS technology when you could just empower the third umpire more?

That Pujara scenario, the third umps could have easily told the umpire he made a mistake & Pujara should continue. Saves a lot of money, time and debating.

 

[grkrama]

Ian Chappell: Serious flaws in DRS indicate need for overhaul | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[War]

MCC wants change on 'umpire's call' lbws | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[War]

Interviews : Brearley: Need to make DRS fairer | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[PokerAce]

MCC wants change on 'umpire's call' lbws | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

I am all for not docking a review for 'Umpire's Call'. This is still feel is only part of the solution.

I feel we don't need Umpire's Call. If a ball is hitting the stumps by whatever small margin, its out. Now I know how this would be an issue with some fans who will say it will lead to just too many LBWs, however if the TV Umpire and On Field Umpire communicate during review (very easy to implement thx to walkies), LBW reviews can be made 100% accurate.

At the very least Umpire's Call without 2 way communication between the third umpire and the onfield Umpire who made the decision makes no sense. The reason is that an LBW decision hinges (more often than not) on two aspects - 1) Whether the impact was in line of the stumps, and 2) Whether the ball was hitting the stumps. Yes there is the ball pitching outside leg stump part, and inside edges, but those rarely cause ambiguity.

Now in most cases Umpire's Call becomes an issue in N.o. LBW decisions. If the Umpire Rules it out, and the ball is show to be an Umpire's Call on hitting the stumps, the out decision remains, and there isn't really any issue there.

However if the Umpire rules an LBW N.o., and then the ball is shown to be an "Umpire's Call" on hitting the stumps, or impact in line, then that is where the room for improvement lies.

Now unless the Umpire and the Third Umpire communicate during review on which of the 2 aspects the Umpire ruled the LBW appeal N.o., the review makes no sense. Its infact descending into the territory of gibberishness.

Suppose on a LBW appeal, the Umpire thinks the ball would only partially hit the leg stump, but he is happy with that. If that alone was the point, the Umpire would rule it out. However he is unsure about where the impact was, and think the impact was outside the line of the off stump, and thus rules it n.o.

Now here the basis of the decision is - the impact being outside the line of the stumps. The Umpire, lets remember is happy with the ball only partially hitting the stumps.

Now the fielding side reviews, and its found that the Impact was in line with the stumps, and the ball (as the umpire rightly believed) would hit the leg stump partially, and thus an Umpire's Call is returned on the ball hitting the stumps. Thus the original n.o. decision stands.

Now this is just nonsense. Because the Umpire was wrong about the basis on which he ruled it n.o. He believed the impact was outside the line of the stumps, but even though review shows that he was wrong, the original decision will stand, because DRS will assume the decision was based on whether the ball will hit the stumps or not. If the onfield Umpire knew, that the impact was in line of the stumps, he would have ruled it out.

This is why all LBW reviews in absence of communication between the On Field Umpire and third umpire are nonsensical.

Now lets run the review with the Umpire's communicating.

Third Umpire - Why did you rule it not out?
On Field Umpire - I thought the ball would partially hit the stumps, but I felt the impact was outside the line of the stumps.
T U - Okay the replays show that you were right about the ball only partially hitting the stumps, but you were wrong about the impact. It shows the impact was bang on in line.
OFU - Oh ! Will I had doubts about the line, but if you say the impact was in line, then you can go ahead and rule it out, as I was always happy with the ball only partially hitting stumps.

Now this is a much better review, as without communication a wrong N.o. decision can stand even though the Umpire was clearly wrong about the impact being in line with the stumps or not, and with communication we can get nearly 100% accurate reviews.