Should the DRS be mandatory?

[Gingerfinch]

I don't understand why we should use DRS because of TV replays showing bad decisions etc? As I've said before, there's no technology in Football (although there will be for the charity shield) and if a linesman gets a marginal decision wrong, then there's not much of a hoo-ha about it. Yes, the manager will moan and sky will replay it 20 times, that is until the next time it happens.

I really cannot recall all this fuss before DRS.

[D/L]

I hear Vaughan wants to get rid of "Hot Spot" from the UDRS. That would be "throwing out the baby with the bath water". It's not the first daft thing he's said and I don't suppose it'll be the last. It's kept his name in the media, though.

"Hot Spot" is useful for proving a positive. The fact that, like so many other things, it cannot prove a negative, does not render it useless, as Vaughan seems to be saying.

[D/L]

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

Simple - because it can be and, if it leads to an increase in the proportion of correct decisions, that is why it should be.

[DeltaAlpha]

I think it may be a matter of scale, DrR; there are far more decisions to be made in cricket than in football, I would guess, so far more baggage to be carried.

I agree with Vaughan, actually, D/L; I think Hotpot is a very dubious technology. More effort should go into developing Snicko: in my opinion, a much more reliable technology.

[hopeforthebest]

If the third umpire stuck rigidly to the protocol of how he should apply DRS many of the problems we've seen would not have occurred. If the DRS system was not used it we would return to the invidious position where millions of TV viewers would be shown all mistakes made by the umpires.

[Gingerfinch]

I think it may be a matter of scale, DrR; there are far more decisions to be made in cricket than in football, I would guess, so far more baggage to be carried.

I agree with Vaughan, actually, D/L; I think Hotpot is a very dubious technology. More effort should go into developing Snicko: in my opinion, a much more reliable technology.

DRS is to complicated though and is taking over from the actual game. I know there are more correct decisions now, but I'd rather go back to pre-DRS when the umpire ruled.

[rich1uk]

I don't understand why we should use DRS because of TV replays showing bad decisions etc? As I've said before, there's no technology in Football (although there will be for the charity shield) and if a linesman gets a marginal decision wrong, then there's not much of a hoo-ha about it. Yes, the manager will moan and sky will replay it 20 times, that is until the next time it happens.

I really cannot recall all this fuss before DRS.

but you are not comparing like with like ginger

before DRS and the advent of all the technology broadcasters now use we didn't have anywhere near the same access to things like messageboards, twitter and other social medias where everyone can now have their tuppenceworth on any incident instantly

have you looked at football messageboards when a linesman gets a decision wrong that leads to a goal being disallowed incorrectly and the amount of arguments it causes

as you know i'm a baseball fan and there is immense pressure being brought to bear over there to increase the scope of instant replays to help umpires due to the amount of drama from incorrect calls

and just stopping the use of DRS wouldn't really help now tbh as broadcasters , in most of the world, would still be using all the technology and showing the errors, we need to be focussing on fine tuning the use of the system , training umpires better in recognising what the technology is telling them and what is and isn't possible, giving umpires better guidance on what should and should not be considered conclusive evidence to either overturn or uphold the onfield decisions

DRS has more than halved the number of incorrect decisions being made by umpires already , we just need to let it evolve and make sure people's expectations of what it can and cannot do are reasonable rather than just abandon it

[DeltaAlpha]

DRS is to complicated though and is taking over from the actual game. I know there are more correct decisions now, but I'd rather go back to pre-DRS when the umpire ruled.

I quite agree, DrR, but, once you've started, you can't go back.

[rich1uk]

btw ginger you say we don't see the same fuss getting caused about incorrect decisions in football matches and when they do get made they are forgotten fairly quickly

how long ago was the hand of god ?

[Gingerfinch]

rich

So what is they show errors. People should just accept that a human will make a mistake. Ever tried reffing or umpiring? It's almost impossible to get 80% of the decisions right. I know that goes against my argument but imo supporters should worry about the game rather than the officials.

[Gingerfinch]

btw ginger you say we don't see the same fuss getting caused about incorrect decisions in football matches and when they do get made they are forgotten fairly quickly

how long ago was the hand of god ?

Bloody ref

[rich1uk]

rich

So what is they show errors. People should just accept that a human will make a mistake. Ever tried reffing or umpiring? It's almost impossible to get 80% of the decisions right. I know that goes against my argument but imo supporters should worry about the game rather than the officials.

in an ideal world I would agree , its just never gonna happen so we have to try and make the current system better

[Gingerfinch]

rich

So what is they show errors. People should just accept that a human will make a mistake. Ever tried reffing or umpiring? It's almost impossible to get 80% of the decisions right. I know that goes against my argument but imo supporters should worry about the game rather than the officials.

in an ideal world I would agree , its just never gonna happen so we have to try and make the current system better

To late to go back. It's like a horror film.

[KipperJohn]

DRS is to complicated though and is taking over from the actual game. I know there are more correct decisions now, but I'd rather go back to pre-DRS when the umpire ruled.

I quite agree, DrR, but, once you've started, you can't go back.

Therein lies the problem. Of course cricket has, and will, continue to evolve - and there will be heated debate as to how it does.

I know I can't have it both ways - I enjoy the access that I can now get to watching cricket like never before - so to complain about the presentation and decision-making that goes with it is probably hypocritical - but there is no harm in sticking to beliefs and principles one feels passionately about, however old.

By the way, just because a camera is there for one purpose, it doesn't necessarily follow that one should used it for another.

[Albondiga]

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.

From one 'juggernaut' to another -- I could go for a third umpire helping the two on -field umpires if he reviews in real time without the use of technology .