UDRS

[Owzat]

The review or referral system seems far too much "lucky dip" for me, perhaps because of the decision to give control of referrals to the two sides rather than the umpires.

So what is the aim of UDRS? To eliminate umpiring errors because that clearly isn't happening. Sure the errors are being eliminated when referred, but with sides limited to two referrals without themselves being erroneous, then surely it doesn't achieve the aim.

Either they need to review anything that is truly close, or perhaps only take away a referral for frivilous appeals - and increase the referrals to three. Certainly if a decision isn't reversed because the system leaves the decision with the onfield umpire then you have to say it was close enough to not punish the side referring the decision. Sides will become more sparing in their use and errors continue to be made, umpires aren't limited to two errors per innings This is increasingly becoming a 'tactic', 'saving referrals' and letting errors go unchecked.

The bottom line is errors are still made, but I guess UDRS switches the focus on blame from the umpires to the two sides as they can be blamed for improper use of their referrals if they run out. Good for the umpires and authorities, not good for the game

 

[Num]

Teams are given two incorrect referrals though. They don't lose a referral if the decision is overturned. Another can of worms is also opened when it comes to making a decision on what exactly a frivolous appeal is. I think the UDRS is fine as it is.

 

[Iridium]

Teams are given two incorrect referrals though. They don't lose a referral if the decision is overturned. Another can of worms is also opened when it comes to making a decision on what exactly a frivolous appeal is. I think the UDRS is fine as it is.

That's a good point. Different umpires will have a different definition of what is a frivolous appeal and what isn't. It'll just create controversy after controversy.

The UDRS is a good idea, but the way it has been implemented is flawed. But the one this I notice is that the cost of having the UDRS in a series is lumped onto the broadcasters and the national boards. I think if the ICC wants the UDRS to be implemented in every series, they should foot most if not all the bill for it. It is the ICC's idea after all.

 

[sohum]

Yeah I think in theory the UDRS is fine. It's similar to the system used in American Football, where each team gets a finite number of challenges for the game and burn them every time they're incorrect. You shouldn't be reviewing every decision as that is overkill and not putting too much confidence in the umpire.

I'd be interested to see how it affects the umpires--for example umpires may be inclined to not give an out decision since the bowling captain can employ the UDRS. Of course, in theory it should even out because the batting team can also use UDRS, but the umpire may be more "conservative" towards the batsmen as in all other facets of the game.

 

[Insomniac]

UDRS: Should umpire's call mean a referral is not lost

Just something to consider - since umpire's call could be not out or out depending on the umpire's decision, if it comes down to that, should we stick with the original umpiring decision (as we currently do), but a referral is not lost?

Thoughts?