futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
Consistency is all they need. Personally I'd prefer that at least half of the ball needed to hit the stumps for it to be out, regardless of the original decision.
Is Drs Necessary?
- Thread starter shashivardhan
- Start date
Consistency is all they need. Personally I'd prefer that at least half of the ball needed to hit the stumps for it to be out, regardless of the original decision.
Bluey Zarsoff
Active Member
The 'minimum of half the ball hitting the stumps' rule, and the representation of it on the TV screen, are separate issues in my mind.
It makes no sense the TV simulation showing the ball hitting the stumps and then the decision being given as NOT OUT.
If the ultimate decision is to be NOT OUT, then show the ball in the simulation missing the stumps.
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
I'm confused. You want the simulation to deliberately give an incorrect simulation, depending on the decision? That doesn't make sense to me.
Personally, I think the simulation should always show the "correct" simulation and people would start accepting the fact that at least half of the ball needs to be hitting the stumps for it to always be given out.
Bluey Zarsoff
Active Member
I think yours is a reasonable argument. But the logic in showing the stumps getting knocked over in a NOT OUT scenario just makes no sense to me.
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
I guess we agree to disagree then hehe.
At least we can agree on that there needs to be a change.
Bluey Zarsoff
Active Member
I guess we agree to disagree then hehe.
For the record I see it a bit like a speeding fine. There's a tolerance allowed in the measuring of the speed that you are travelling at that they subtract from the speed they record and charge you for travelling at. I just think that the tolerance should be subtracted in the visual representation of the ball progressing down the wicket. If it is deemed you are NOT OUT it makes no sense to me showing a batsman being dismissed. State the tolerance on the screen if needs be, but don't show someone being bowled out and the bails flying when he is about to be given NOT OUT.
But I have no issue agreeing to disagree on this because its a tricky one.
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
I partly agree with you but the problem is...it's so inconsistent. The main reason why both Australia and England used the system so badly is because it's a bad system. Why should the ICC use a system which is not designed to make the "right" decisions but to prove the original decision "right"?
I've been pulling my hair out at some of the decisions that have been reversed or not been reversed because it's so inconsistent. Personally, I'd never like to see a review by the batsmen after being given out rejected because the ball is only clipping the top of the bails yet this is happening with the current system.
Plus, the system is not doing what it's suppose to be doing as you say (getting rid of the howlers). That decision (can't remember the batsmen - maybe Shane Watson?) in the last Ashes's series where Shane Warne was beside himself (like me) on how the edge wasn't overturned when the ball was at least two inches away from the bat. You could put it down to bad third umpiring but it's because the system is wrong in my opinion. I think it's crazy how the on-field umpires are protected against being showed up these days.
Bluey Zarsoff
Active Member
As we saw, it wasn't just the teams that used the system badly in the recently completed series. The umpires also used it poorly, in particular the one upstairs.
Everything that went wrong in the Ashes was human error and nothing else. The system itself is not to blame for idiot umpires not following protocol properly or some dipshit technician who turns off the hotspot camera for the one ball it was required.
JM71
Member
I wrote an opinion on this very topic
DRS reviewed
DRS reviewed
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
Bluey Zarsoff
Active Member
Not sure where DRS is at now that Channel 9 have done away with Hot Spot?
nairbe
Active Member
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/story/678311.html
So nine have given in on hot spot, i would see this as running up the white flag. The DRS now will have a short life span, we will only see even worse third umpire decisions leading to the scraping of the system.
So nine have given in on hot spot, i would see this as running up the white flag. The DRS now will have a short life span, we will only see even worse third umpire decisions leading to the scraping of the system.
Bluey Zarsoff
Active Member
Could well be. It makes no sense whatsoever that the sport itself isn't paying for technology that forms a part of it's own rulebook.
Brian Lara
Active Member
DRS? I've thought for a long time that if they're going to use drs, then there's no point in having wings on F1 cars. Although I do now remember having a chat with a guy saying a rear wing is necessary for safety reasons. It negates lift.
Bulls 2 win Shield
New Member
Yes but:
1 - Reduce the number of reviews to either 1 per innings or 1 for batsmen 1-7 and 1 for 8-11 per innings.
2 - The ICC should fund Hot Spot and Snicko so it's consistent worldwide.
3 - All countries should use DRS.
1 - Reduce the number of reviews to either 1 per innings or 1 for batsmen 1-7 and 1 for 8-11 per innings.
2 - The ICC should fund Hot Spot and Snicko so it's consistent worldwide.
3 - All countries should use DRS.
nairbe
Active Member
MMM? can't say i get it but that's no surprise. F1 cars would simply take off into the air if not for the wings to create down force, it is basic aero dynamics. The DRS on the other hand has had a consistent record of the crash and burn. AH!! there it is
test cricket has become an F! car without wings, my god what to do. I have it,