Should the DRS be mandatory?

[Red Devil]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v ... 12343.html



wonderfully well put by Dhoni - that is exactly the problem with DRS at the moment. The umpires call nonsense should be scrapped, either you are out or you are not out, it is stupid to say it was not out because the ump already said not out, but it would have been out if the ump had said out. India do have most of the 50-50's going against them, so Dhoni and BCCI should be demanding more objectivity in the DRS.

I am very very happy to see that ind are taking this stance, hopefully we can get DRS working properly and have it used in all the games.

[Making_Splinters]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2014-15/content/current/story/812343.html



wonderfully well put by Dhoni - that is exactly the problem with DRS at the moment. The umpires call nonsense should be scrapped, either you are out or you are not out, it is stupid to say it was not out because the ump already said not out, but it would have been out if the ump had said out. India do have most of the 50-50's going against them, so Dhoni and BCCI should be demanding more objectivity in the DRS.

I am very very happy to see that ind are taking this stance, hopefully we can get DRS working properly and have it used in all the games.

There is a limit to the accuracy of the technology, hence the umpire's call because the system can't definitively say if the decision was correct or not.

India need to take on the DRS or stop complaining about umpire decisions.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It's about saving face now. If India embrace DRS, it has to be different from the one they rejected. As long as its used consistently, the present system is the best one.

[bigfluffylemon]

"There is a growing feeling in the team that marginal calls go against them" - in other words, whingeing about the umpires' decisions rather than addressing the actual reasons they're losing. Pathetic.

Marginal decisions are by definition beyond the limits of accuracy of the technology. The DRS was never supposed to be 100% accurate, it was supposed to eliminate the howler - the catch that was grounded, the nick to the keeper that wasn't given, the lbw with bat on it. Complaining about the really tight calls is ridiculous, as it was never supposed to adjudicate them.

[Red Devil]

I disagree

If you're going to use DRS for lbw's then I believe that you go with the technology. To say that the decision is out if it was given out by the ump, but that the decision would be not out for the same delivery if it was given not out feels wrong. I don't see how anyone can really argue with that because it ensures as much consistency and fair treatment as possible.

[Arthur Crabtree]

As it stands, it admits that nothing is certain, but it eliminates the unconscionable.

[rich1uk]

I disagree

If you're going to use DRS for lbw's then I believe that you go with the technology. To say that the decision is out if it was given out by the ump, but that the decision would be not out for the same delivery if it was given not out feels wrong. I don't see how anyone can really argue with that because it ensures as much consistency and fair treatment as possible.

its basically the same principle that applies to all referrals tho

because the predictive element is not 100% accurate if it is only clipping then that is not considered conclusive enough to overturn the onfield decision

if there was a review of a caught behind and there was maybe a slight mark on hotspot then if the onfield umpire had given it out it would stay out but if the onfield umpire had given it not out then that might not be considered conclusive enough to change the decision

so the same evidence would lead to two different decisions depending on what the onfield umpire had decided initially

what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive

[GarlicJam]

what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive

This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.

Trim the tolerance.

[DiligentDefence]

what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive

This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.

Trim the tolerance.

Agree with this.

[hopeforthebest]

what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive

This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.

Trim the tolerance.

Agree with this.

The third umpire blundered as only more than half the ball is the tolerance. So that third umpire needs reeducating.

[rich1uk]

what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive

This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.

Trim the tolerance.

Agree with this.

The third umpire blundered as only more than half the ball is the tolerance. So that third umpire needs reeducating.

the third umpire didn't blunder , he doesn't make the judgement on how much of the ball is hitting , that's programmed into the software

[hopeforthebest]

what is possibly arguable is what tolerance is applied to make it an umpires call rather than considered conclusive

This is the nub right here, imo. I've seen an LBW appeal reviewed and the prediction is that 3/4's of the width of the ball was going to hit the stumps, the review was turned down due to the on-field umps not out. It was going to smash the leg-stump, it is patently out.

Trim the tolerance.

Agree with this.

The third umpire blundered as only more than half the ball is the tolerance. So that third umpire needs reeducating.

the third umpire didn't blunder , he doesn't make the judgement on how much of the ball is hitting , that's programmed into the software

If the TV replay showed 3/4 of the ball hitting the stump then the software must have also shown that to third umpire.

[GarlicJam]

This has happened far more than once, and it has been explained by the commentators that the whole ball needs to be hitting the stumps/pitching in line/etc for a decision to be overturned. Whereas I had thought it just needed to be half the iwdth of the ball.

[rich1uk]

If the TV replay showed 3/4 of the ball hitting the stump then the software must have also shown that to third umpire.

the software is programmed to the agreed tolerances , if the software says "umpires call" do you really think the 3rd umpire is going to say "ah well I thought it was only 48% of the ball that was hitting not 51% so i'll over-rule

the 3rd umpire just goes with whatever the software says

[hopeforthebest]

If the TV replay showed 3/4 of the ball hitting the stump then the software must have also shown that to third umpire.

the software is programmed to the agreed tolerances , if the software says "umpires call" do you really think the 3rd umpire is going to say "ah well I thought it was only 48% of the ball that was hitting not 51% so i'll over-rule

the 3rd umpire just goes with whatever the software says

The software doesn't make any decisions, it simply provides data. If it made decisions automatically there would be no need for the third umpire.