Should the DRS be mandatory?

[rich1uk]

...We're seeing decisions upheld when there is no mark, how does that even make sense...

Those decisions are usually made in the light of other evidence presented to the 3rd umpire at the time, M_S.

If we accept that "Hot Spot" cannot show very thin contacts but the video replay suggests a tiny deflection and/or the audio (as broadcast live and then replayed, not "Snicko") suggests some contact then we are asking the 3rd umpire to take into account "Hot Spot" only in making their decision. I can understand the reluctance to do this.

the problem is tho that some umpires will overturn when there is no mark on hotspot and some wont , that's why I said earlier that the umpires need better training and guidelines on what should constitute sufficient evidence to overturn the onfield decision

[DeltaAlpha]

I don't doubt a word of what you say about the technology, DA. I understood previously, but you explain very clearly why "Hot Spot" cannot always show contact. It can, however, show when there has been some contact, undetectable to the human eye or ear, and that is why I (and apparently the ICC now) reckon it should be retained as part of the UDRS process.

Vaughan is just “flying a kite”.

That only stands while Snicko is developed further, mainly in terms of how quickly it can be used, D/L. When there is a technology (Snicko) available, at some time in the future, that can be used for all contacts between bat and ball, it doesn't make much sense to have another (Hotspot) that can only show some of them.

To answer hftb's concern about Snicko, the reason that the audio waveform and the video cannot be perfectly synchronised is that the video consists of frames taken at intervals of 20ms whereas the audio waveform is continuous. This means that, sometimes, there just isn't a video frame that shows the ball exactly as it passes the bat, but there will be a 'click' shown in the audio waveform.

[D/L]

I don't doubt a word of what you say about the technology, DA. I understood previously, but you explain very clearly why "Hot Spot" cannot always show contact. It can, however, show when there has been some contact, undetectable to the human eye or ear, and that is why I (and apparently the ICC now) reckon it should be retained as part of the UDRS process.

Vaughan is just “flying a kite”.

That only stands while Snicko is developed further, mainly in terms of how quickly it can be used, D/L. When there is a technology (Snicko) available, at some time in the future, that can be used for all contacts between bat and ball, it doesn't make much sense to have another (Hotspot) that can only show some of them...

The advantage that “Hot Spot” has over “Snicko” is that when it registers a contact, it is usually fairly certain that it is contact between bat and ball and any marks on the wrong part of the bat can be discounted, as they often are, DA.

“Snicko”, on the other hand, however it is further developed, will presumably always register sounds that may not be produced by contact between bat and ball.

We should not throw away any of the technologies we currently have but perhaps, as rich1uk says, we need human beings who can interpret it more consistently.

There will always be errors where humans are involved but technology, as well as probably helping to raise the standard of on field umpiring by its mere presence, means that we don’t have some of the abysmal standards of unchecked and unaccountable umpiring that we used to have and which, sorry to say, we still have in county cricket.

[DeltaAlpha]

My ultimate preference, D/L, would be to ditch the lot, rather along the lines of what Albondiga and Kipper have said, and have some quality on-field umpires like Dickie Bird (even though he is a Yorkshireman). Of course, he made mistakes, but batsmen would just walk with a wry smile and that would be the end of it.

Of course, that's not going to happen and there seems to be quite some difference between posters as to what the way forward should be, but what rich said (didn't see that post) is certainly something that needs attention.

[Arthur Crabtree]

DRS needs to go back to being an insensitive tool which can only overturn blatently incorrect decisions.

Isn't that what the umpires call does for LBW? It means that the decision has to be really wrong, or else it stays on field. In fact, the reading now is that the decision has to be really wrong, for it to be overturned, ie a howler. Which is why KP's edge wasn't overturned. He may have missed it, but it wasn't extremely wrong. But commentators (for it they who create the controversy) won't have it. They want the 60-40 ones overturned. The only really bad one I can think of was Erasmus giving Trott out, purely because he overturned a decision that wasn't obviously wrong.

The ICC should go to the tv people and tell them to turn the antagonism down. But I suppose they can't because all the gear belongs to the broadcaster. Also the anchor needs to stop people (Warne, Holding, Botham) from making analysis based on emotion rather than an understanding of the system. The broadcasters need educating about their own equipment, how it works within the DRS. At the moment we have a cricketing Babel.

[D/L]

My ultimate preference, D/L, would be to ditch the lot, rather along the lines of what Albondiga and Kipper have said, and have some quality on-field umpires like Dickie Bird (even though he is a Yorkshireman). Of course, he made mistakes, but batsmen would just walk with a wry smile and that would be the end of it.

Of course, that's not going to happen and there seems to be quite some difference between posters as to what the way forward should be, but what rich said (didn't see that post) is certainly something that needs attention.

Was Dickie Bird a “quality” umpire, DA? He may have been cricket’s first celebrity umpire, but the truth is we don’t really know how good he was at his job. If he was as good at umpiring as he is at being an ambassador for Yorkshire, then he would have left a lot to be desired, but that’s by the by.

I know though, that before the advent of TV replays, and then technology with TV replays, both of which came before UDRS, but which are the technological basis for it, umpires were under little pressure to get decisions right; nobody could say with any certainty that they hadn’t!

At least now there is scrutiny, and most people do their job better under scrutiny when to fail it may lead to downgrading or dismissal.

Also, for those inevitable times that an umpire gets a difficult decision wrong, there is now UDRS to correct it and no reasonable minded person would blame an umpire for getting a difficult one wrong.

[DeltaAlpha]

The thing about Dickie Bird was that players respected his decisions, D/L, and accepted them, whether they agreed or not. That's all gone by the board now, and I just wonder whether getting a mathematically higher percentage of 'correct' decisions is worth the amount of dissent and controversy that we now have.

One thing is certain though, and that is that I used to enjoy watching test matches on TV far more than I do now - all the technology and analysis just bores me. I'm even beginning to enjoy watching t20 and that's come as something of a surprise to me.

[D/L]

It is far easier to have respect for the decisions of a person who, at normal speed and completely unaided by technology, has just one shot at getting it right, DA.

The dissent we now have is aimed almost entirely at the 3rd umpire seemingly getting it wrong in the face of all the evidence presented to him and with plenty of time to examine it.

That was inevitable, I suppose. Is it a price worth paying for getting more decisions right? I’d say so; well worth it.

[Making_Splinters]

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

[Arthur Crabtree]

Bird did ok as an umpire because he was a consistent not outer. If he was doing that today, his decisions would be overturned. At least he was consistent though. It's difficult to compare him with the present day, because his decisions weren't analysed. If he produced a howler, there would just be an awkward silence.

David Shepherd was a terrible umpire, but he was allowed to be seen as a likable character. Today he would be torn to pieces, on tv, in the papers, on message boards.

Bird was always angry. That used to annoy me. Most of the umpires seemed to be angry back then.

[hopeforthebest]

Bird did ok as an umpire because he was a consistent not outer. If he was doing that today, his decisions would be overturned. At least he was consistent though. It's difficult to compare him with the present day, because his decisions weren't analysed. If he produced a howler, there would just be an awkward silence.

David Shepherd was a terrible umpire, but he was allowed to be seen as a likable character. Today he would be torn to pieces, on tv, in the papers, on message boards.

Bird was always angry. That used to annoy me. Most of the umpires seemed to be angry back then.

Dicky Bird was a fussy and irritating pain in the ass and I bet he's upset he didn't think of the crooked finger out signal before Billy Bowden.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yes. He was one of those umpires who wouldn't give a decision for a couple of beats, and then when he did, it would be with anger that the batter hadn't walked. We only wanted a decision.

[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.

[hopeforthebest]

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.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Can we partly blame that era of umpires as well for allowing the players to get away with ridiculous over rates, which back in the seventies and eighties were often terrible.