The DRS debate: here we go again

Maybe we're thinking about this whole DRS thing wrong. So far it's either been "umpires only" or "players can review"...I've been considering this a little differently and I think it should be considered on modes of dismissal. I know the biggest concern is that players have a role in umpiring, but let's be honest - they already do. They appeal, affecting the umpires decision, and when catches are close to the ground, they can say "yes it carried" or "no it didn't" and batsmen, in general, accept this quite happily. It's a minor role, but a role none-the-less. My suggestion would be to add one minor addition to that role, as explained below...We know what we have. We have slo-mo, hot-spot, snicko, etc...so let's try to make the most of them, still give power to the umps out in the middle, but allow mistakes to be kept to a minimum, and keep the game delays to a minimum. Stumpings/run outs - Reviews to be initiated by the on-field umpire (as it already is)...Although, having said that, can the on-field umpires please, PLEASE, make some decisions without always resorting to the review? I know you can do it! Bowled - On-field umpire...'nuff said. Although if there is a missed no-ball, can be overturned by third umpire. But again, if the umpires on the field could get it right in this regard, it would help keep the game tickin' over nicely. I don't understand what has happened to umpires, but like you Kev, it frustrates me no end when they miss it, or call it after the fact. Caught behind/close fielder (such as bat-pad) - On-field umpire...HOWEVER, a player should be able to comment to the umpire if they haven't hit the ball. If they relay this simple message, then review. Otherwise, keep walkin' pal. If the on-field umpire isn't sure if there's an edge, take it upstairs, but only if there's doubt. Caught - On-field umpire...refer if there's any doubt on whether it carried, and only then if the batsman doesn't want to take the fielder's word for it. Which should never happen. 'Cause of the spirit of the game and such and such. LBW - On-field umpire...Reviews allowed to be made upstairs if need be - i.e. check if unsure if it pitched in-line, impacted in-line, etc etc., but I think the umpire should be okay to make the decision nine times out of ten. Again, the batsman should have the right of reply to say, "Actually, Mr. Umpire Sir, my bat did indeed make contact with the ball." At which point the umpire should say, "Well then, let's check it out and ensure your wicket is legitimate." Or alternatively, "I know ya clown, but it hit pad first. On yer bike..." Or words to that effect. I think players trying to judge if it pitched in-line or what-have-you has undone any good work of the DRS. LBW decisions, I believe, would form 90% of incorrect decisions by players to review, and therefore, shouldn't be part of it. Now...what about those "howlers" that disadvantage the bowling side? Well, these happen few and far between. Most of the times, they are 50/50 decisions which really the umpire probably has correct, or has a legitimate reason for deciding as they have. However, on the off chance that the umpire has made a grievous mistake, the third umpire should have the ability to over-rule. Because let's face it, if there is a possible wicket, A) the fielding side will appeal, and B) there should be time for the third-umpire to say "Hold play, I think there's a wicket here" after seeing a replay. So essentially - Umpires on the field make the decisions, can refer if they feel the need, the batsman can only refer if they've hit it (or haven't) depending on the decision, and the third-umpire can over-rule if need be. I think this type of system allows the umpires to feel like they're in control, it allows mistakes to be kept to a minimum, it regulates the speed of the match, and it should encourage the spirit of the game to be upheld. I don't think it's about making the players do the work of the umpire, or undermining them, just making sure we have the right result if a mistake is made.

to me there is a glaring deficiency in a system that allows reviews to avoid "howlers" then allows two "howlers" in a row. Its ridiculous that as a batsman is trudging off he,everyone at the ground and watching TV, the umpire, and the bowler all know he is not out with the replay clearly showing a howler on the big screen. Herath winking when Henriques was given out shows how ridiculous it is, he KNEW it wasnt out and was laughing at the replay. In situations like this the 3rd umpire should alert the umpires a mistake has been made and recall the batsman (who hasn't even made the gate). So remove the review from the players, give it to the umpires and 3rd umpire. I have to say I am appalled with desperate reviews checking for the slightest mistake, hitting a millimeter outside the line, landing a millimeter outside leg, the seam a millilmeter outside the stump/bail etc. Clarke the other day being a case in point, it was a hail mary grasping at straws, not trying to overturn a howler. If the players DO have a right to review it should only be "ball hit bat then pad" or "didnt snick it", not what Clarke did.

I think the DRS is doing a pretty good job as it is. A little tinkering here or there could be done, but overall it achieves what its there for. I think waiting for a reviewed decision adds an additional dynamic to the spectators experience. If players waste reviews trying to get away with 50-50 call then it's their team that suffers and it's a selfish ploy. But that's the way the cookie crumbles and players will need to re-learn to live with the 50-50 call that went against them. At the end of the day, the DRS has reduced howlers in cricket and I think it has benefited the game. The BCCI need to shoved back into their place by the ICC and made to play by the same rules everyone else is playing by. Their resistance is petty and holding back the game.

Ben Graham commented on Fox that he believes every wicket should be reviewed like NFL.But I think if each decision is reviewed it will hold up the game too much. I like the spontaneous celebration of the fielding side when they get a wicket. When a decision is reviewed and even if it goes in favour of the fielding side their jubilation is a little more subdued because they have to wait.

The more I think about this the more I realize that technology designed to improve spectator viewing has done nothing but undermine umpires. If you don't believe me look at run out decisions where umpires refer them even though they are nodding their confident that the batsman is out all because they don't want to be made to look like idiots because they couldn't see that a batsman was in by half an inch when the bails were knocked off. Or the recent trend of checking wicket taking balls to see if the umpire missed a no-ball call. This one really irritates me because for starters it removes the excitement of seeing a wicket taken but more importantly, it basically says that the ICC do not trust their own umpires to call no-balls when they are there and their ability to make the right call on 50-50 situations. If the umpire missed seeing that a bowler had landed 6 inches over the crease then that's one thing, but if this is to eliminate umpires missing the no-ball call when the bowler's foot is barely an inch over then that's just ridiculous and you may as well have a gopher who can just stand there counting the number of balls left to be bowled in an over because everything will be referred anyway.

DRS should stay for now.

With the example you used about being hit 3metres out of the crease, isn't there an aspect of hawk eye that says an impact at this distance stays with the umpire's call? Also, I think you would have a hard time convincing the broadcasters to not show hawk-eye. If they have the pictures I reckon they would be inclined to broadcast it.

"If we assume the idea of the DRS is to eliminate mistakes or, at the very least the howler, then the option to call in the technology should be left with the umpires and the umpires only." This is the crux of it, well said Bayman. No need for me to add anything here, just hand it to the umps...

The DRS debate can be summed up as "People are whiners. Maybe a technological fix that kinda works will shut them up. Nope ? Oh well". As they will whine no matter whether DRS is used or not, lets simply ban this whole stupid idea of institutionalising dissenting agianst the umpires decision. Hire umpires. Get them to decide if the appeal is given or not.

Andy, Did you actually think about that first sentence before you wrote it? The only reason for the DRS is to (hopefully) provide umpires with the opportunity to get their decisions right because somebody - not me, incidentally - thought that would be a good thing. The only other possible use of it is to give us all something to watch on television while those on the field are not getting on with the game. To that end, how do you propose and support the theory that the intention of the DRS was 'to benefit the game of cricket itself' if it's not about actually getting umpiring decisions right? And how does the game of cricket actually benefit from the Clarke decision being proved right and the Warner and Henriques decisions being proved wrong. Because it was the rules surrounding the DRS which allowed that to happen. I could just buy into the notion that DRS is intended to benefit players (if it's not the umpires) but the idea it's sole purpose is to benefit 'the game of cricket itself' - with the advantages it brings to umpires and players as an unintended side benefit - is fanciful to say the least. The only statement you've made with any connection to logic is the last concerning the tactical use of DRS. Given the current scenario I fully agree with you on that. But, I repeat, how ignoring the obvious errors perpetrated on Warner and Henriques is benefitting the "game of cricket itself" escapes me.

If the intention of DRS was to benefit umpires then Umpiring would be the sport and umpires would be the celebrities/superstars with the cricketer relegated to the roles of a necessary support act. DRS is intended to benefit the game of cricket itself. I don't like the tactical use of DRS by the players but the players/captains make their choices and live or die by them.

If we assume the idea of the DRS is to eliminate mistakes or, at the very least the howler, then the option to call in the technology should be left with the umpires and the umpires only. In the recent ODI, Michael Clarke's call for review on a marginal call for him but an obvious out for everyone else effectively burnt both Warner and Henriques. It is the clear weakness in the concept. During the recent Test series Sri Lanka tended to burn chances like a pyromaniac as they reviewed almost every decision when their best players were given out. Not necessarily because they thought the decision wrong but because they put so much store in the contributions from those three players, Dilshan, Sangakarra and Jayawardene. Any effort to keep them at the crease was considered worth it. It is now being used tactically by players when, apparently, the original reason was to eliminate the poor decision which now seems less of a priority. The end result the other night was that the umpire's got right the Clarke call which was reviewed and upheld but their reputations took a beating because the two decisions which would have been overturned were not allowed to be reviewed. I'm all for just letting umpires umpire and to hell with the technology. If, however, the pampered politically correct among us want the correct decisions one hundred percent of the time why do we set limits on the number of challenges and why do we allow players to make the call? The limits are set almost certainly because the players get to initiate the challenge and without a limit there'd be challenges damn near every over and ninety overs a day would soon become eighty. Presumably there's some official concern that if only umpires could make the call they would do it every time to eliminate being seen to be wrong - which would also bring in delays and show umpires as people too frightened to take responsibility and make a decision. So there's a limit which means a couple of guys (or one in an ODI) get the option and the rest get burnt, a la Warner and Henriques. In other words, the ICC accepts that some decisions may be wrong and chooses to do nothing about it. In that case, why not accept them all and flick the technology altogether. We might even get some umpires with more confidence in their ability.

Allanthus, your second paragraph hits the nail on the head.

Sorry Gavjoshi, but some of your points are contradictory and illogical. The batsmen don't "decide their own fate", they are given not out or out just as they always were. The DRS allows a batsman to challenge an obviously incorrect call, eg if he knows he has edged it into his pad and can't be out lbw. That part of the system isn't broken at all, if a previous batsman wants to take a punt and try to challenge a 50/50 call as opposed to a howler, then they are not using the system correctly and the side is vulnerable later in the innings. Until captains use the system properly they get no sympathy from me - use DRS to challenge when you are 100% the decision is wrong, otherwise cop the 50/50 decision just like you always have. It is not a flaw of DRS that incorrect umpiring decisions occur. They did in the past, they do now and will do so in the future. DRS has nothing to do with umpiring skill. Anyone who has umpired knows how hard it can be - I will never forget one occasion umpiring when big bad Barry Kavanaugh was batting, the ball flew past the edge of his bat, I heard the "snick" and my finger went straight up. A second later I realised there was no appeal, no excitement from the field, and Barry was standing at the crease giving me the biggest WTF look you've ever seen. I quickly reached my left arm across to scratch the so called itch i had under my raised right arm, then smoothly went into into a couple of raised arm stretches and somehow, got away with it. The point being, I reckon I could umpire pretty well, I would have put my house on that being out, but it obviously wasn't. Just like what happened to Paul Reiffel. But I digress... you suggest that because only 12% of calls were overturned in the world cup, the umpire was in doubt those 12% of times and could have asked for a review. You can't draw that conclusion. The umpire may have been in doubt 50% of the time and just happened to get most of them right. Or he may not have been in doubt for any of them, and just happened to get 12% wrong, even though he had no doubt at the time of the call. Which, depending on your personal view, might be an acceptable or unacceptable ratio. I'd suggest that if most of the umpires decisions were correct and not challenged, and of those that were, only 12% were proven to be wrong and 88% correct, then that's a pretty good outcome. If the crusade to get 100% of the calls correct comes at a cost of the umpire self-referring any call where he has some doubt, then that is surely too big a price to pay. It will become like run outs, where every appeal is referred, because the umpire has nothing to gain and everything to lose from making a call. With the next logical step being on field umpires replaced by hat stands, and every other decision being made from the TV control room. As for your romantic but naive notion that cricket is a gentleman's game... there are countless books and articles dispelling this. Should players cop decisions on the chin and play in a sporting manner? Of course they should, and both the written and unwritten codes should demand this. But for as long as an icon of the game such as Warnie carries on like he has recently, any idea that cricket is a game played by gentlemen should be forgotten.

Here Here, Exactly how I feel on the matter.