Should the DRS be mandatory?

[D/L]

one of the things that i find confusing about indias stance on drs is that they would probably get the most benefit from it...

Over time, it would tend to even itself up, of course. One thing that India would no longer benefit from if DRS were adopted is dodgy umpiring in home series.

[Making_Splinters]

one of the things that i find confusing about indias stance on drs is that they would probably get the most benefit from it...

Over time, it would tend to even itself up, of course. One thing that India would no longer benefit from if DRS were adopted is dodgy umpiring in home series.

DRS seems to have helped spinners the most, getting rid of the big stride saftey against LBWs.

[D/L]

one of the things that i find confusing about indias stance on drs is that they would probably get the most benefit from it...

Over time, it would tend to even itself up, of course. One thing that India would no longer benefit from if DRS were adopted is dodgy umpiring in home series.

DRS seems to have helped spinners the most, getting rid of the big stride saftey against LBWs.

I think it is "Hawkeye" that has done most to increase the proportion of successful LBW appeals, particularly those where the ball strikes the pads a long way from the stumps. A few years after its introduction by broadcasters, DRS simply allowed players to challenge the umpire's verdict, though umpires had clearly already been influenced by what they had seen of "Hawkeye".

Spinners of yesteryear must find this annoying.

[D/L]

I see in the current Champion's Trophy that "Snicko" results have been produced very soon after the incident, sometimes before the next delivery. If they've found a way of speeding up the processing of the information, perhaps it will soon be added to the tools at the third umpire's disposal.

[D/L]

I see in the current Champion's Trophy that "Snicko" results have been produced very soon after the incident, sometimes before the next delivery. If they've found a way of speeding up the processing of the information, perhaps it will soon be added to the tools at the third umpire's disposal.

If it had been, we may have had less controversy over Trott's dismissal yesterday. Fast and reliable synchronisation of sound and vision would leave no reason for it to be excluded. The ICC will probably um and ah about it for ages, though, especially if they think the BCCI may not be happy about it.

[rich1uk]

posted this in the 1st test match thread but thought it might be better in here


been a lot of talk around after yesterday about the number of reviews captains should have and whether DRS is undermined by decisions like yesterday not getting reviewed purely because the team has none left , when its those type of decisions DRS is intended to deal with

I've been critical all along about how captains use DRS tactically rather than looking for howlers and have little sympathy for a captain having none left when a howler does happen when they have "wasted" them trying to get a second chance on a marginal decision. so was thinking about how you could possibly stop teams abusing DRS for tactical reasons and try to ensure that howlers got dealt with. firstly I don't agree with just taking it out of the players hands altogether and allowing the 3rd umpire to intervene. what would stop the umpires almost refusing to make any decisions in real time in case they get one wrong and refer everything to the 3rd umpire. if you look at runouts how often do you see an onfield umpire make a decision themselves even when it is pretty blatant that the batsman was either safe or out , and they refer almost everything to the 3rd umpire just in case.

so whats left. how about this for a radical idea. leave referrals in the players hands, don't have a limit on how many they can have but set a penalty of some description if the review isn't overturned. that way they would only be reviewing when they thought there was a clear mistake. the penalties could be a fixed amount of runs which increases every time they unsuccessfully review, for example maybe a 10 run penalty the first time , 20 the second time etc etc.

[DeltaAlpha]

I think the problem with your suggestion, rich, is that the severity of the penalty depends on the match situation. If you were 400 for 2 against Bangladesh, a penalty of even 50 wouldn't be too much of a worry but, if you were 119 for 9, as Australia were, even 10 runs may be too severe to risk.

I think the present method is OK, but would prefer 3 referrals as was previously the case; you can take a chance with two but still keep one up your sleeve.

What it boils down to is that captains need to learn how to handle the referrals, we don't need to feed them everything on a plate.

[rich1uk]

yeah getting the penalty right would be the issue , was just throwing it out there for discussion really

I was just trying to think of a way to put captains off using DRS tactically but don't like the idea of just passing control over reviews to the umpires as I think it would affect the decision making of the onfield umpire too much

if they had a 3rd review wouldn't that maybe make them more likely to use them tactically rather than making sure they had one left for the potential howler ?

[DeltaAlpha]

I don't know why I think three referrals would be preferable, rich, it just 'feels' right to me. But I do agree that there has to be some limit, or some penalty, and the referrals should be made by the players rather than the umpires; I used to think that they should be made by the umpires but, as you said, that would result in everything being referred.

[ddb]

Could do it like in Tennis and add a referral after a certain point, maybe you get an extra one with the new ball or something.

[alfie]

Think I would go the other way and cut referrals down to one per innings each. Or even one per match.

That ought to ensure they are not used tactically ...

To protect the umpires against ridicule I would give them the option of questioning "upstairs". But perhaps more discreetly...via their voice links.

You will never make everyone happy.

[D/L]

I like the idea of just one unsuccessful referral per innings and then no more. That should help concentrate the minds of players when it comes to contesting decisions that are marginal rather than the howlers that the system was introduced to minimise.

[DeltaAlpha]

But was the system introduced to reduce the number of "howlers" or to reduce the number of incorrect decisions, whatever the margin may be? I believe it was the latter, and there are likely to be more marginally incorrect decisions than howlers. Hence my argument that the number of referrals should be increased.

[rich1uk]

on this suggestion of limiting it to one referral meaning that captains would be more likely to save it for the real howlers , not really sure that would happen as they don't currently save the second of the two they have after getting one wrong , and still use it tactically anyway

[D/L]

One thing I would add to having a single referral is that if “umpire’s call” is the verdict, the entitlement should be reinstated.

That would help maintain the level of correct decisions being made.

The more referrals that are permitted, the more referrals there will be (obviously) but many of them will be tactical and/or opportunistic.