Is Drs Necessary?

futureblackcap

Well-Known Member
As I've previously said... Option A) I'm happy if they keep it and ALL nations use it and the reviews are given to the umpires ie. two review per umpire, per innings.

Option B) They can it and people can stop whinging...
 

Ljp86

Well-Known Member
Staff member
It needs to be severely upgraded and the technology advanced so that all games have all possible technology available when making a review.

If they don't have it like that then it's on a hiding to nothing.
 

Kram81

Well-Known Member
I also don't like how using the thing is now a 'tactic' in the game. Players should be there to simply play cricket not to worry about umpiring decisions and thinking about how they can possibly overturn them.
 

nairbe

Active Member
It is simple really. All teams must use it and you simply design a program to make the decision and get rid of the third umpire. Last night would not have happened, the computer would have said not out as there was no hot spot, no snicko, no deviation. I maintain, someone did very well out of that decision.
An algorithm could also make that decision in seconds so every decision could be electronic and a tool the umpire can use. The team challenge is ok but all teams have shown poor judgement of how to use it.
 

troll3y

Active Member
It is simple really. All teams must use it and you simply design a program to make the decision and get rid of the third umpire. Last night would not have happened, the computer would have said not out as there was no hot spot, no snicko, no deviation. I maintain, someone did very well out of that decision.
An algorithm could also make that decision in seconds so every decision could be electronic and a tool the umpire can use. The team challenge is ok but all teams have shown poor judgement of how to use it.
You're not a programmer, are you?
 

nairbe

Active Member
You're not a programmer, are you?

No i am not, only do data base work in my job not need to be writing programs. Although NSW has just done away with rego stickers because they have scanners that can do some amazing number of number plates per second and you are telling me that with the tech where it currently is we can not write an algorithm for the job. I imagine the telecasters already have one.
 

troll3y

Active Member
Sorry, I didn't mean for that to be so blunt. That is what I'm saying, though: even with the technology available, it is effectively impossible to program something that requires so much human interpretation. I used to work for a branch of a toll road company, and my sole job was to validate the infringement letters generated from the imperfect number-plate recognition software. Even from square-on, the software would still sometimes misconstrue letters (an E instead of an F, for instance), and that would bewilder me. With so many factors on the cricket pitch (imperfect hot spot, swinging ball, scrambled seams, dust, wind, noise in the stump mics, manual synchronising of multiple cameras and sound, etc), I don't realistic see it being solved by one human-less software package. A flash of light off a bat sticker could potentially throw the software into a frenzy!

I've also worked in behind-the-scenes cricket broadcasting, and again, I can't see any of the technological companies with that kind of software, especially since both Hawkeye and Hotspot are still having minor problems themselves and are still just "almost" 100%. Admittedly, I'm not in the industry anymore and I was on the graphics side of things, but the amount of manual intervention that is required of the technology ALREADY is, I think, evidence enough.

The focus should be on the third umpires' interpretation, not the tehnologies'.
 

nairbe

Active Member
Fair enough, but can the umpires be trusted to do what they are instructed. The disappointing decision made the other night was so bad because everyone could see it was wrong. There was no grey area it was not out. This is why i keep asking who made all the money from that decision. With this sort of behaviour in the umpires box it is very difficult to mount an argument to convince the Indians that they should accept the DRS.
 

Sharkman84

Member
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cric...uring-summer-ashes-series-20130919-2u06v.html

DRS referrals to be 'topped-up' during summer Ashes series

September 19, 2013 - 7:41AM




England and Australia will be granted additional reviews during the forthcoming Ashes series as part of a change to the controversial Decision Review System, the International Cricket Council said on Wednesday.


At a meeting of the ICC's chief executives' committee at the global governing body's Dubai headquarters, officials agreed the number of reviews will be "topped-up" to two after 80 overs of a Test innings.
Currently, teams are only permitted a maximum of two unsuccessful reviews per innings.


The new playing conditions will be trialled from October 1, meaning they will be in force for the Ashes which begin with the first Test in Brisbane starting on November 21.

Wednesday's statement from the ICC came after England's recent 3-0 Ashes series win at home to Australia was beset by numerous rows over the use of DRS, with both sides unhappy at different times.

Things got so bad the ICC took the highly unusual step of sending their general manager of cricket, Geoff Allardice, over to England to meet the teams midway through the series in a bid to address their concerns.
One repeated complaint centred around the third umpire's use of DRS and the way in which the replay official interpreted their remit while another problem area focused on the reliability of the Hotspot thermal imaging device in detecting thin nicks.

In response to these issues, and a technology trial conducted during the third Ashes Test at Manchester's Old Trafford ground, the ICC said they'd set up a Working Group to look at ways of improving both DRS and the training of umpires.

Officials also suggested a Real-Time Snickometer -- currently used by television broadcasters covering matches but not part of the DRS -- could be added to the list of tools at the third umpire's disposal.
"The CEC (chief executives' committee) agreed a Working Group be constituted to consider how the ICC should best use technology in umpire decision-making in the future," the ICC statement said.
"The considerations of the group will be wide ranging and include a review of the objectives and philosophies of using technology, the technologies, protocols and procedures as well as the role and training of television umpires.

"It was also agreed that a trial will be conducted whereby a team's referrals will be topped-up to two reviews after 80 overs of an innings.

"This trial will start from 1 October 2013 in all Test matches in which the DRS is used, with the results being monitored and considered by the Working Group."
As for adding 'Snicko' to the DRS, the statement said: "Noting that most of the contentious decisions relate to faint edges, the performance of the Real-Time Snickometer during the ICC Champions Trophy 2013 and the Ashes, and the potential to use this technology to assist the umpires in making these decisions was discussed.

"An independent assessment of this technology will be conducted before a decision is made on its inclusion in the list of approved DRS technologies."

One Ashes controversy that had nothing to do with DRS concerned the umpires' decision to take the players off the field for bad light during the ultimately drawn final Test at The Oval in south London when England were just 21 runs adrift of victory, with the floodlights on.

There has also long been a feeling spectators are also being short-changed by time-wasting tactics sich as slow over-rates.

But a meeting of leading match officials has promised a clampdown and the ICC said: "The CEC also endorsed the umpires' intention to become far stricter on poor over-rates and time wasting and to maximise playing time in conditions where it is safe to do so."

Meanwhile two white balls, one from each end, will continue to be used during a one-day international innings although this will be reduced to one ball when ODIS are cut to fewer than 25 overs in the first innings.
 

troll3y

Active Member
This. Is. Ludicrous. I can't see any logic anywhere in this decision. Surely this is encouraging players to gamble on their reviews? I honestly like the BCCI's idea better (I can't believe I just typed that), that you don't lose the review if there's an Umpires' Call in the process.

There has also long been a feeling spectators are also being short-changed by time-wasting tactics sich as slow over-rates.
This is the second typo I've seen in a Melbournian newspaper article in recent days. Strange.
 

futureblackcap

Well-Known Member
The changes make no sense whatsoever. As I posted elsewhere. It's not the amount of reviews that is the issue, it's the bias towards the original decision that's the issue.

If they stopped protecting umpire's feelings then teams would start getting better at using the review system and we wouldn't have so many decisions that I roll my eyes at haha.
 

Bluey Zarsoff

Active Member
Something I hate about the current system is the simulated representation of the ball that's just been bowled. Why show the ball hitting the stumps and then say it is missing the stumps. There is a leeway of half a ball. If the ball isn't hitting by more than half a ball and will therefore be deemed to miss the stumps, show it missing the stumps.
 

Ljp86

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Something I hate about the current system is the simulated representation of the ball that's just been bowled. Why show the ball hitting the stumps and then say it is missing the stumps. There is a leeway of half a ball. If the ball isn't hitting by more than half a ball and will therefore be deemed to miss the stumps, show it missing the stumps.
Yep, pretty much this. I can't understand how if the ball hits the stumps it can be either out or not out depending on what the umpire's call is for that particular decision. Surely if the ball is hitting the stumps (even if only by a few millimetres) then it's hitting the stumps and therefore has to be out?
 

Bluey Zarsoff

Active Member
Yep, pretty much this. I can't understand how if the ball hits the stumps it can be either out or not out depending on what the umpire's call is for that particular decision. Surely if the ball is hitting the stumps (even if only by a few millimetres) then it's hitting the stumps and therefore has to be out?
The way the result is shown on the screen makes no sense.

On the tennis, in the ball is in they show it in. If it is out they show it out. How hard is that?
 

Sharkman84

Member
The way the result is shown on the screen makes no sense.

On the tennis, in the ball is in they show it in. If it is out they show it out. How hard is that?

100% agree BZ.

I think it's high time that cricket followed tennis' lead.

If it's hitting the stumps with half the ball, it's hitting the damn stumps.

How hard can that be?
 
Top