Should the DRS be mandatory?

[DeltaAlpha]

Say what you like about Dickie Bird, but I always especially enjoyed watching when he was umpiring. Much more than I enjoy watching Hawkeye, Snicko and Hotspot.

[Gingerfinch]

One thing about Bird. If someone was stood up behind the bowlers arm, he would be right over there telling the annoying so and so to sit down. Also, the players respected him, even if they thought he'd given a wrong decision.

How do you know the players respected him, all the kind words since have been willingly given because he's retired.

That's the impression I got.

[D/L]

DRS was supposed to remove the human error element, sadly due to push towards absolute accuracy it has done the exact opposite.

Whatever the driver, any process requiring human intervention will always be flawed. M_S.

What DRS has undoubtedly done is increase the proportion of correct decisions, which is a good thing and, despite what Vaughan may, say "Hot Spot" is an integral part of its success.

[sussexpob]

DRS was supposed to remove the human error element, sadly due to push towards absolute accuracy it has done the exact opposite.

Whatever the driver, any process requiring human intervention will always be flawed. M_S.

What DRS has undoubtedly done is increase the proportion of correct decisions, which is a good thing and, despite what Vaughan may, say "Hot Spot" is an integral part of its success.

It has, I think we cant really argue that it hasnt helped... I mean the two most ridiculous decisions at OT were both given out by the onfield umpire, I think that is the most important thing to remember in hindsight.

Yet there is something about being faulted by the second guy who has time that is much more galling... I can take spur of the moment mistakes, but with all the time in the world I cant accept such a margin for error, and hence I am against it.

DRS was suppose to sort out the heated debate... it doesnt do that. I also hate the "is it out, can I celebrate" element of it.... if my team take a wicket I want to know its a wicket, not the rather deadpan is he out, we will find out after the break nonsense... it makes the whole exciting parts of test cricket an anti climax at the moment.

[DeltaAlpha]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the percentage of 'correct' decisions hasn't increased; the question I have is whether it's worth it.

We have the third umpire examining all kinds of things for the slightest bit of evidence and, in my opinion, that's interrupting play to an extent that's not justified.

Maybe there should be a time limit on how long the third umpire can take in making his decision, and I would have thought something like 15 to 30 seconds wouldn't be unreasonable: if he can't see anything in that time, then it's not a clear-cut matter or a 'howler', and the referred decision stands.

[Gingerfinch]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the percentage of 'correct' decisions hasn't increased; the question I have is whether it's worth it.

We have the third umpire examining all kinds of things for the slightest bit of evidence and, in my opinion, that's interrupting play to an extent that's not justified.

Maybe there should be a time limit on how long the third umpire can take in making his decision, and I would have thought something like 15 to 30 seconds wouldn't be unreasonable: if he can't see anything in that time, then it's not a clear-cut matter or a 'howler', and the referred decision stands.

That's how I feel about it. I also agree with sussex regarding this if my team take a wicket I want to know its a wicket, not the rather deadpan is he out, we will find out after the break nonsense... it makes the whole exciting parts of test cricket an anti climax at the moment.

[DeltaAlpha]

Yeah, and remember when the FA were considering goal-line technology, they required a decision to be made in just one second. I wonder if they'd been watching test cricket...

[D/L]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the percentage of 'correct' decisions hasn't increased; the question I have is whether it's worth it.

We have the third umpire examining all kinds of things for the slightest bit of evidence and, in my opinion, that's interrupting play to an extent that's not justified.

Maybe there should be a time limit on how long the third umpire can take in making his decision, and I would have thought something like 15 to 30 seconds wouldn't be unreasonable: if he can't see anything in that time, then it's not a clear-cut matter or a 'howler', and the referred decision stands.

For me, it's well worth it.

I do agree though about the inordinate amount of time it sometimes take for a 3rd umpire arrive at what usually seems an obvious decision. More annoying though, is when they take any length of time to announce what seems to be so palpably incorrect. Fortunately, these occasions are quite rare.

[DeltaAlpha]

Well, at least we agree on something, D/L!

[alfie]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the percentage of 'correct' decisions hasn't increased; the question I have is whether it's worth it.

We have the third umpire examining all kinds of things for the slightest bit of evidence and, in my opinion, that's interrupting play to an extent that's not justified.

Maybe there should be a time limit on how long the third umpire can take in making his decision, and I would have thought something like 15 to 30 seconds wouldn't be unreasonable: if he can't see anything in that time, then it's not a clear-cut matter or a 'howler', and the referred decision stands.

That's how I feel about it. I also agree with sussex regarding this if my team take a wicket I want to know its a wicket, not the rather deadpan is he out, we will find out after the break nonsense... it makes the whole exciting parts of test cricket an anti climax at the moment.

All good points. Seems people all have different priorities : some are happy with extensive delays and a lot of faith in technology if it gets closer to perfect judgement - I tend to the above views , that we might have lost more in exciting moments and respect for umpires for the sake of a measurable but not crucial increase in "correct" decisions.
I can take or leave DRS. But I do think if we are to have as many acrimonious disputes as we have had this year with DRS , then it seems an expensive waste of time ...

[rich1uk]

i'll repeat the hypothetical question I asked earlier , I wonder how many of the corrected decisions could still have been achieved by the 3rd umpire just having a look at a slow motion replay

it does get a bit annoying when you see the 3rd umpire watching frame by frame half a dozen times to see if there was an inside edge on an lbw shout like we had yesterday with the prior lbw referral , the other thing about that was I don't think the aussies actually thought that was out , just they had 2 reviews left and chanced their arm , they looked surprised when it was given

I like the idea of limiting the time a 3rd umpire can spend on a review , as if its not immediately obvious that there was a mistake made then let it go

one question for the guys saying they would prefer to scrap DRS and just go back to the onfield umpires , would you include runouts and stumpings ? I know they are not part of DRS but they still get referred to the 3rd umpire rather than an immediate decision onfield which is the main reason you seem to want rid of DRS

[DeltaAlpha]

I'll repeat the hypothetical question I asked earlier , I wonder how many of the corrected decisions could still have been achieved by the 3rd umpire just having a look at a slow motion replay.

I wonder the same thing, rich, and I guess the answer would be most of them. But it does raise an interesting question - how is a 'correct' decision defined? If it means one that complies with the technology, then, by definition, using the technology will increase the proportion of them.

I think that there are two basic flaws in the current system:

First, it appears that the third umpire is not reviewing the on-field decision but making his own decision and comparing the two; what he should be doing is deciding whether the original decision was a reasonable decision for an on-field umpire to make.

Second, the technology is optimised for TV entertainment rather than decision making. Hawkeye should not be an animation, but a simple number that states the probability that the ball would have hit the stumps. It's then a matter of seeing whether that number is higher than an agreed value. With Snicko, there is no need to convert the audio into an animated waveform; what is needed is to edit the video so that just the frame before the ball hits the bat and the frame after the ball has passed the bat are retained. Then, play what's left of the video and listen - the ears are much more sensitive detectors than the eyes.

Just out of interest, I timed two referrals yesterday, and they both took about two and a half minutes. That's just ridiculous!

[rich1uk]

I do still worry a little about snicko and noises in general

lots of comments and theories about the noise generated by a very near miss still registering sound waves and I assume the sounds are being picked up from the stump mics so they could be picking up noises from elsewhere as well

we have all seen occasions where there is clearly a noise but the ball has also clearly missed the bat and no obvious source for the noise , again theories about things like a very slight movement in the join where the handle is spliced into the bat

that's why I keep coming back to the way umpires are trained and what guidance they are given on how to interpret what the technology is telling them and better criteria on what should be considered sufficient to overturn the on field decision. as DA just mentioned and something I have been labouring for a long time , we need better consistency around whether certain umpires when sitting in the TV spot are using the technology to make fresh decisions rather than reviewing the decision already made

[DeltaAlpha]

I wouldn't worry about Snicko and noise at all, rich.

The fact that the 'click' doesn't always appear when the ball's actually alongside the bat is because the video is in frames (stationary pictures) at intervals of one frame every 20ms, but the audio is continuous. So there just may not be a frame with the ball alongside the bat. That's why I suggested retaining only the frame before the ball reaches the bat and the one after it had passed, then listening for a sound in between. I might even try to make a video like that myself and post it!

[sussexpob]

it does get a bit annoying when you see the 3rd umpire watching frame by frame half a dozen times to see if there was an inside edge on an lbw shout like we had yesterday with the prior lbw referral , the other thing about that was I don't think the aussies actually thought that was out , just they had 2 reviews left and chanced their arm , they looked surprised when it was given

I have referred that to Paul Hawkins at Hawkeye for further explanation!! Hit in front of middle and leg stump, above the knee roll of the front foot, not even an umpires call..... I put that in the Andrew Symonds/Marcus North "I think hawkeye has been on the piss again" category, to coin a phrase from Ian Chappell.