Should the DRS be mandatory?

[DeltaAlpha]

I wonder if the batting side should have more referrals than the bowling side. Just pondering...

[sussexpob]

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.

I think that is a good idea, DL.

[sussexpob]

Personally my problem with DRS is thus.... it doesnt do what it is supposed to do.

I mean it is suppose to rule out the "howler".... and in order to do that we have a complex array of 16 multi angled cameras with heat seeking capabilities, a microphone to detect various sounds, and some technology that is used in rocket guidance systems for targeting. Do you need a rocket guidance system if the object of the process is to rule out something that is plainly obvious given a quick second glance?

There are two ways it needs to develop.... the first is to maintain the argument of the howler, the second is to admit that this is about taking all but the least questionable decision and to improve it.

In the first I would say the third umpire gets one view of either the hotspot from the angle the edge in question comes from, or one view at hawkeye.... he then makes an instant decision and reviews are given to the bowling side for each batsman, and a batsman also gets given one unsuccessful review per innings. Any doubt remains with the on field call despite the level of doubt.

The second is to use all the technology available to make the right decision, and as DL suggested, umpires calls or very questionable or close decisions are not penalised a challenge.

[alfie]

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.

I would go along with that. As long as it is reduced to a single referall. Just think any more than that encourages tactical use , which we can do without.

[alfie]

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.

Not sure I agree there , DA. I think the original reason for bringing in reviews was that otherwise glaring errors were being highlighted in closeup on television to a mass audience , while they might once have remained less obvious at a distance...it made the umpires look a bit silly and caused too much controversy. But once introduced , the idea of "perfecting" the system crept in...trouble is it doesn't create perfection : even though more "correct" decisions are reached , the number of controversial exceptions seems to be as great as ever !
That is why I am for keeping a fair degree of tolerance , reducing the number of reviews , and just setting out to stop the real blunders...I do believe in the end that would make fans , players and umpires happier than anything else.

[DeltaAlpha]

I'm in a quandary about this, alfie!

I think the objective of DRS is crucial in determining what technologies are used and how many referrals there should be.

If the objective is simply to reduce "howlers", then there should be fewer referrals, and we need nothing more than slow motion replays; if the objective is to improve the overall percentage of "correct" decisions, then there should be more referrals and we also need Hotspot, Snicko, and Hawk-Eye. I say that because it's easy enough, for LBWs, to judge the line of the ball, the point of pitching and the point of impact, with reasonable accuracy, from a video replay: judging these things is not the problem, the speed of the action is the problem and, in any case, it will always help to have a second look. For edges, again it's easy enough, with a video replay, to see if there's a deflection. In either case, if nothing can be determined from the replay, then I wouldn't call a wrong decision a "howler".

It seems to me that cricket has had technology forced upon it by broadcasters, and the ICC has latched on to it without having a real stance on what its objective is. A classic case of putting the cart before the horse.

[KipperJohn]

I'm in a quandary about this, alfie!

I think the objective of DRS is crucial in determining what technologies are used and how many referrals there should be.

If the objective is simply to reduce "howlers", then there should be fewer referrals, and we need nothing more than slow motion replays; if the objective is to improve the overall percentage of "correct" decisions, then there should be more referrals and we also need Hotspot, Snicko, and Hawk-Eye. I say that because it's easy enough, for LBWs, to judge the line of the ball, the point of pitching and the point of impact, with reasonable accuracy, from a video replay: judging these things is not the problem, the speed of the action is the problem and, in any case, it will always help to have a second look. For edges, again it's easy enough, with a video replay, to see if there's a deflection. In either case, if nothing can be determined from the replay, then I wouldn't call a wrong decision a "howler".

It seems to me that cricket has had technology forced upon it by broadcasters, and the ICC has latched on to it without having a real stance on what its objective is. A classic case of putting the cart before the horse.

Top post DA.
Can't add anything to that.

[D/L]

Eliminating “howlers” does also increase the percentage of correct decisions, but I take your point, DA.

I think if we accept that no system with human involvement (not simply the man looking at the evidence, but the process put in place) can ever be perfect, we can be content that DRS takes us about as close to perfection as it is possible to get and a tweak or two to the process may (or possibly may not) take us a little bit closer.

On the subject of should DRS be mandatory, i.e. all cricketing nations should accept its use, I was trying to think of another world sports governing body that allowed one of its members to play all its matches under different conditions to every other member, but I soon gave up.

[Aidan11]

The buzz now seems to be around the reliability (or lack of it) of hotspot.

The inventor says it isn't accurate in hot conditions according to Peter Hayter on CWOTV. Not ideal for cricket then.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It's useful in that it gives you proof of an edge. But you need to be aware that the absence of it doesn't mean no edge. This has been known going back to the last Ashes series.

[hopeforthebest]

I used believe that snicko was foolproof but some of the graphics of it in this series have raised doubts that it's as good as I thought. Hotspot was supposedly improved this year but if anything it seems less sensitive than before.

[Aidan11]

Hopefully it will be better when snicko comes in. Still wont guarantee 100% but if they universally accept that 2 of snicko, hotspot or a noise on audio seem to indicate an edge then give it out. This would be a better system if everyone knew where they stood.

[alfie]

Hopefully it will be better when snicko comes in. Still wont guarantee 100% but if they universally accept that 2 of snicko, hotspot or a noise on audio seem to indicate an edge then give it out. This would be a better system if everyone knew where they stood.

Or they could just use their eyes...

No , seriously that idea (two markers needed ) has something to recommend it. But of course we should remember it isn't an issue for every decision , but only for cases where a batsman or fielding captain wants one overturned : and if we accept that hotspot can be trusted not to show a mark unless the ball and bat have made contact it should always be enough on its own to uphold - or produce - a catch decision or overturn an lbw.
But while everyone might accept a confirmation of an on field decision based on sound evidence alone , are we all happy at the idea of an umpire's "not out" call on a thin edge being overturned just because of a sound ? I would want to see a bit of deviation too , to be honest...


(Must be going soft ...I am a bowler after all )

[Albondiga]

All this technology is necessary because of television replays which should not be used to disagree with or confirm an on field umpiring decision. I think the players would accept the on field decision better than they do now if the television did not play the large number of replays. As it is everybody is an umpire and importantly we might also get a few more overs in the day. It is simply not working but it is creating a lot of employment.

[KipperJohn]

Good to hear from you as always Albondiga.

My stance remains unaltered - the only review to be by a third umpire who is allowed to see, in real time, the same as the onfield umpire. No slow motion, no hawkeye, hotspot etc.

Cricket is not played in slow-motion - why should it be judged that way?

Sport is many things but it is not about a judge, jury and justice - endeavour, skill, strength, weakness, human judgement (in all its frail forms).

Debates in pubs, clubs, in the home, on the bus - was it over the line, was it a penalty, did he hit it, was it lbw etc - one of the great things about sport which millions have enjoyed most of my lifetime.

DRS, and the TV companies are now, as per DeltaAlpha - reducing cricket to a physics lesson played to an audience by amateurs.

Why are we now worried about players not accepting the umpires decision? It's a fundamental of cricket culture that they should - and it should be written into a code of conduct as part of the laws of the game.

Of course, I am standing in the path of progress and will be run over by a juggernaut - but cricket will still lose it's soul - if it hasn't already.