Making_Splinters wrote:Completely agree, D/L. Cricket has to move beyond these quaint notions of umpire fallibility being acceptable.
Any decent coach will know if a player has been a 'victim' a bad decision - saying it can ruin a career is way OTT.
KipperJohn wrote:Making_Splinters wrote: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.
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.
D/L wrote:KipperJohn wrote:Making_Splinters wrote: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.
Albondiga wrote:D/L wrote:KipperJohn wrote:Making_Splinters wrote: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.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest