Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

rich1uk wrote:

Dr Robert wrote:I'd like to go back to 'the umpire's decision'. I was all for DRS but this series has thrown up a few controversies. Yes, the umpire will make mistakes but I can never remember the bad calls being the talking point over the actual game itself.

you wont stop that tho as the only way to do so would be to ban the TV companies from using any form of replay or any of the "toys" that are included in DRS

altho the BCCI do try to do that I suppose for their home games

TV replays have been around for years though. Of course they'll be talk but at the moment nothing like it is now. Well, it never use to be.

the quality of the replays with slow motion and ultra slow motion , the number of cameras and all the things like snicko do make a difference tho

its a lot easier now to "prove" a mistake was made

rich1uk wrote:the quality of the replays with slow motion and ultra slow motion , the number of cameras and all the things like snicko do make a difference tho

its a lot easier now to "prove" a mistake was made

True. But the only talk will be "the umpire made a mistake" After that, what can you say? In Football, the ref gets told he's made a mistake, admits it then that's that. In Cricket, it's, there's a time delay with snicko, hot spot isn't accurate, and so on. I'm definitely for, going back to the old method. The umpires may disagree of course.

not really sure why there would be a difference except we would have more bad calls for people to get upset about

the % improvement on incorrect calls would double without DRS according to ICC figures

what dfm said in the match thread I think was spot on , people need to accept that DRS will never be perfect , it cant be as there will always be a person making a judgement call based on what he sees even if he does have a lot of extra toys to help him

rather than focus on the system we need to worry more about the depth and quality of the available umpires imo

rich1uk wrote:not really sure why there would be a difference except we would have more bad calls for people to get upset about

the % improvement on incorrect calls would double without DRS according to ICC figures

what dfm said in the match thread I think was spot on , people need to accept that DRS will never be perfect , it cant be as there will always be a person making a judgement call based on what he sees even if he does have a lot of extra toys to help him

rather than focus on the system we need to worry more about the depth and quality of the available umpires imo

I really can't see people droning an about it, well I won't anyway. The fact that we're talking about DRS is wrong in the first place.

you don't think people would still make a fuss about dodgy calls with or without DRS with the inundation of message boards , bloggers, twitter etc etc ?

rich1uk wrote:you don't think people would still make a fuss about dodgy calls with or without DRS with the inundation of message boards , bloggers, twitter etc etc ?

Not as much. Do we in Football? I've seen the linesman get plenty of tight calls wrong thanks to TV replays, but hey, he's human. Nobody's going to get all irate over a close LBW decision. Let the umpire's do their job, which WAS quite a simple one, and accept they will make mistakes.

think you are underestimating the power of social media and how people's attitudes have changed since TV coverage has improved

if DRS was withdrawn completely now the first time someone got a shocker there would be droves of complaints about why were we not using DRS any more

What astonishes me is that both Sky and TMS commentators have access to the communication between the third umpire and the on field umpire.

rich1uk wrote:think you are underestimating the power of social media and how people's attitudes have changed since TV coverage has improved

if DRS was withdrawn completely now the first time someone got a shocker there would be droves of complaints about why were we not using DRS any more

There may be a little uproar, but it's just the way I would prefer things. Of course, they won't give up on DRS, although they should.

DRS is fine. It's the 3rd umpire that seems to struggle with it.

The ICC needs to give a lot more training to umpires so that they know what they can or can't give.

There used to be pages and pages written about umpires' decisions on 606 before DRS. And people would remember decisions they didn't like for years. That isn't any different. If we didn't use DRS, the commentators/etc would spend the time they now use talking about DRS errors, saying we need to use DRS. They'd be saying, we've got the technology, let's use it.

What is slightly different is that people don't complain about umpires being biased so much.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:There used to be pages and pages written about umpires' decisions on 606 before DRS. And people would remember decisions they didn't like for years. That isn't any different. If we didn't use DRS, the commentators/etc would spend the time they now use talking about DRS errors, saying we need to use DRS. They'd be saying, we've got the technology, let's use it.

What is slightly different is that people don't complain about umpires being biased so much.

Can't remember that, Arthur. Must have been people with nowt else to worry about.