Should the DRS be mandatory?

[D/L]

All well and good for amateur sport, but livelihoods are at stake in professional sport and a bad decision can have an adverse effect on a player’s career.

Away from sport, a bad decision in the workplace which may threaten someone’s career prospects can be challenged and reviewed. Now that can be the case in cricket too and it is no bad thing. So yes, the DRS should be mandatory and all proven technology should be available to it.

[Making_Splinters]

Completely agree, D/L. Cricket has to move beyond these quaint notions of umpire fallibility being acceptable.

[KipperJohn]

Completely agree, D/L. Cricket has to move beyond these quaint notions of umpire fallibility being acceptable.

Then get and train some better and preferably younger umpires who can actually see. The guys officiating are much older than the players - they may know the rules and such like better but with age comes all the body failings - that's why players retire!

D/L seems to have forgotten his usual holistic approach when looking at a player's performance so as to tilt his argument in favour of DRS. Any decent coach will know if a player has been a 'victim' a bad decision - saying it can ruin a career is way OTT.

You'd think from what D/L has to say that the DRS was the equivalent of some form of employment appeals procedure or tribunal, not a method to decide whether or not the umpire should raise his finger.

[sussexpob]

Any decent coach will know if a player has been a 'victim' a bad decision - saying it can ruin a career is way OTT.

Is it over the top? Take young Khawaja in this series, he came in at Lords facing as bad a position that Australia have been in an Ashes series (following on at 30-3, with a middle/lower order that had crumbled in 3 successive innings), on a turning pitch against arguably the best spinner in the world, and he stood with Clarke and made one of the few proper partnerships Australia had in the series.

He then gets a horror decision from Dharmasena first up at OT, by far and away the worst of any in the series, and his confidence became visibly shot, registered 3 fails, and arguably has seen his test career ended, at least for now, if not for a long time.

Bad decisions happen indeed, but Tendulkar getting a bad decision in 2003 maybe forgotten inside a career.... guys struggling to make their mark and lacking confidence after poor form are effected much more, and the hawks in the press who have their favourites to love and hate wouldnt blink an eye in getting the knife in on a player just because he got a poor decision.

In fact, one criticism leveled at Rogers at the start of the series was he didnt review the high full toss dismissal.... not that he wasnt out, it was his fault for not challenging, and that went against him as a player.

[D/L]

Completely agree, D/L. Cricket has to move beyond these quaint notions of umpire fallibility being acceptable.

Then get and train some better and preferably younger umpires who can actually see. The guys officiating are much older than the players - they may know the rules and such like better but with age comes all the body failings - that's why players retire!

D/L seems to have forgotten his usual holistic approach when looking at a player's performance so as to tilt his argument in favour of DRS. Any decent coach will know if a player has been a 'victim' a bad decision - saying it can ruin a career is way OTT.

You'd think from what D/L has to say that the DRS was the equivalent of some form of employment appeals procedure or tribunal, not a method to decide whether or not the umpire should raise his finger.

Younger umpires may have better powers of sight and hearing but they also lack experience. They are not the answer to the problem of human fallibility, nor, of course, could they ever be.

Ascribing holism to any views previously expressed is rather strange (perhaps a more accurate term could have been found) and “ruin” is a gross exaggeration (OTT in itself) of what was said about bad decisions impacting upon careers. However, sp provides just one example (above) of how a career can be adversely affected by poor decision making.

DRS is cricket’s equivalent of being able to question a decision made in the workplace one that, just as in cricket may be found to be unjust, so why should it not be available? Is it simply because it’s not traditional, in which case, let’s go back to underarm bowling and no middle stump.

[sussexpob]

Ascribing holism to any views previously expressed is rather strange (perhaps a more accurate term could have been found) and “ruin” is a gross exaggeration (OTT in itself) of what was said about bad decisions impacting upon careers. However, sp provides just one example (above) of how a career can be adversely affected by poor decision making.

Another can be seen today in the Pak v SA game. Pakistan used two reviews, one which was inconclusive on an edge to Smith because hot spot was covered by the pad, another which was a marginal lbw decision that went with the umpire..... A few overs later, fresh to the crease, De Villiers gets a ball hit him halfway up middle and leg, as plumb as you like, and Pakistan had no challenges to get it overruled.....

At 140-5 and an off form and recently dropped Duminy in next, and Faf Du Plessis yet to register a 50 vs this attack in 8 attempts home and away, Pakistan would of had a chance of at least restricting South Africa to something that gave them a slim chance, or some fraction of confidence to take away from the game.

340 unbroken runs later, South Africa could arguably register one of the biggest losses in Pakistan's history if they decide to bat on.

And such a crushing loss has so many connetations moving forward in the tour.... especially for a team like Pakistan, who seems so centred around confidence

[Albondiga]

Completely agree, D/L. Cricket has to move beyond these quaint notions of umpire fallibility being acceptable.

Then get and train some better and preferably younger umpires who can actually see. The guys officiating are much older than the players - they may know the rules and such like better but with age comes all the body failings - that's why players retire!

D/L seems to have forgotten his usual holistic approach when looking at a player's performance so as to tilt his argument in favour of DRS. Any decent coach will know if a player has been a 'victim' a bad decision - saying it can ruin a career is way OTT.

You'd think from what D/L has to say that the DRS was the equivalent of some form of employment appeals procedure or tribunal, not a method to decide whether or not the umpire should raise his finger.

Younger umpires may have better powers of sight and hearing but they also lack experience. They are not the answer to the problem of human fallibility, nor, of course, could they ever be.

Ascribing holism to any views previously expressed is rather strange (perhaps a more accurate term could have been found) and “ruin” is a gross exaggeration (OTT in itself) of what was said about bad decisions impacting upon careers. However, sp provides just one example (above) of how a career can be adversely affected by poor decision making.

DRS is cricket’s equivalent of being able to question a decision made in the workplace one that, just as in cricket may be found to be unjust, so why should it not be available? Is it simply because it’s not traditional, in which case, let’s go back to underarm bowling and no middle stump.

D/L --- we all have our preferences but DRS availability is not a simple question of tradition if some people do not like it. I don(t like it because it slows down a game which is already slow enough - 13 overs an hour being the norm now and it encourages players to question decisions especially when DRS is present and it is still a bad decision. Players used to accept umpire errors. Now they question technology.

[alfie]

I am somewhat ambivalent on drs. I don't like it myself , because it has destroyed whatever was left of the notion that one should accept the umpire's decision and get on with the game ; and because it encourages the idea that perfect decision making is possible ...with resultant disappointment and just as many arguments , to the point that controversies actually took away a lot of attention from the actual cricket during the recent Ashes Series.
On the other hand , TV now has the tools to show a lot of "human" decisions are actually wrong - so it is either embrace the technology to help the umpire , or have him sometimes made to look foolish...

If only we could keep expectations down to a reasonable level , and strike a balance between keeping the game going and avoiding unnecessary error , it might actually be useful. Unfortunately , as we expand the number of reviews , it seems to heading the other way...

[D/L]

Completely agree, D/L. Cricket has to move beyond these quaint notions of umpire fallibility being acceptable.

Then get and train some better and preferably younger umpires who can actually see. The guys officiating are much older than the players - they may know the rules and such like better but with age comes all the body failings - that's why players retire!

D/L seems to have forgotten his usual holistic approach when looking at a player's performance so as to tilt his argument in favour of DRS. Any decent coach will know if a player has been a 'victim' a bad decision - saying it can ruin a career is way OTT.

You'd think from what D/L has to say that the DRS was the equivalent of some form of employment appeals procedure or tribunal, not a method to decide whether or not the umpire should raise his finger.

Younger umpires may have better powers of sight and hearing but they also lack experience. They are not the answer to the problem of human fallibility, nor, of course, could they ever be.

Ascribing holism to any views previously expressed is rather strange (perhaps a more accurate term could have been found) and “ruin” is a gross exaggeration (OTT in itself) of what was said about bad decisions impacting upon careers. However, sp provides just one example (above) of how a career can be adversely affected by poor decision making.

DRS is cricket’s equivalent of being able to question a decision made in the workplace one that, just as in cricket may be found to be unjust, so why should it not be available? Is it simply because it’s not traditional, in which case, let’s go back to underarm bowling and no middle stump.

D/L --- we all have our preferences but DRS availability is not a simple question of tradition if some people do not like it. I don(t like it because it slows down a game which is already slow enough - 13 overs an hour being the norm now and it encourages players to question decisions especially when DRS is present and it is still a bad decision. Players used to accept umpire errors. Now they question technology.

I lament the passing of the days when 15 overs an hour used to be the norm too, Albondiga, but DRS is only partially responsible for the slow play we see today and, as it indisputably raises the proportion of correct decisions made, I reckon it’s a fair trade-off.

Not so fair is slow play caused by hourly drinks intervals, fielder substitutions, messages from the dressing room via the 12th man and deliberate time wasting.

Of course too, if Trott is at the crease for a long time, the over rate will drop by another couple an hour.

[Albondiga]

D/L I think DRS encourages players to question the on field umpires effectiveness by "going upstairs" to a higher authority. Within reason it doesn't matter if the on field umpire gets it wrong now because he gets the third umpire to make the decision. As far as "overs per hour" is concerned I was thinking along the lines of a minimum of 18 per hour. I can just about remember 120 overs being bowled in a six hour playing day but then, of course, there were balanced attacks of two fastish bowlers, a medium pacer and two spinners. Oh how the game has changed !!!!

[D/L]

The authorities and the broadcasters would never countenance an over rate of 18 an hour, Albondiga. Tests would be over more quickly reducing ticket sales, money taken at the ground, advertising revenue etc..

Umpires being human, their effectiveness, or rather their judgment, has always been questionable. Now, there is the means available to raise the questions.

[D/L]

It seems now that we will have "Hot Spot" after all for the Ashes down under and "real-time Snicko" too.

On this issue at least, the authorities and the broadcasters seem to have come to their senses.

[rich1uk]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v ... 98507.html

this could be interesting , especially when it comes to umpires call decisions, eg when an umpire gives an lbw not out because he thought there was an inside edge, drs shows no inside edge but the ball is only clipping the stumps so the batsmen remains not out on "umpires call" even tho the umpire hadn't actually made the decision on whether he thought the ball was hitting the stumps or not

[KipperJohn]

Happens in Rugby Union I think - indeed you seem to hear the referee nearly all the time.

Of course controversy will never be entirely eradicated - thank goodness.

[Dr Cricket]

ICC to conduct an independent review of DRS.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/cri ... 1matd.html