The DRS, it needs to be made clear, was never, ever going to be used ‘just to eliminate howlers’.
What batsman, certain he hasn’t hit the ball, is going to meekly accept the umpire’s raised finger just because he nearly hit it?
What bowler, knowing the batsman nicked it, is going to forgo a wicket because it wasn’t that obvious?
A batsman given out wrongly is just as out whether the decision was close or a ‘howler’; a bowler denied a scalp has been just as wronged whether it was an easy call or a difficult one.
And on such decisions do wins and losses, and cricketing careers, hang.
Nobody is going to fail to use the technology at their disposal out of an altruistic commitment to the imaginary ‘no-howlers’ principle. If we want it to just eliminate the wildly incorrect, we should just leave it up to the third umpire to intervene or not on his own – the players sure as hell aren’t going to stick to that ‘rule’.
Also, every cricket commentator on earth keeps saying “howlers” and it’s getting really annoying.
No, it’s not the use of the DRS to attempt reversals of close calls that bugs me: it’s the strategy.
As I said, DRS ain’t for howlers, it’s just to get decisions right as often as possible, or should be. Which is fine. It’s a noble aim. It’s just a shame it seems to be not that good at that.
But what I really object to is the strategy.
Cricket is many things, but one thing I always thought it was is a contest of cricketing skills. Batting, bowling, fielding, if you get my drift.
Tactics? These have to do with field placements, batting orders, bowling changes, choices on when to declare, whether to attack or defend, chase a total or play for a draw, and so on.
There is something infinitely depressing about the idea DRS use is now a part of a team’s strategic kitbag.
After the first Test, it seemed many people were less critical of Aleem Dar for missing Stuart Broad belting the ball directly to slip than they were of Australia for ‘poor DRS use’.
But all the Australians had done was call for reviews when they thought the umpire was wrong. And forget talk of howlers, that is the point of DRS. And it’s the whole point, and nothing but the point.
Sure, that cost Australia, but the idea of suffering a shocking call like that one – and those on-field calls shouldn’t happen anyway if the ICC is hiring umpires with even the merest shred of competence – is less sad to me than the idea that DRS use is now a ‘skill’ to be honed and practiced.
I don’t want teams getting together to practise their DRS technique. I don’t want the DRS to sit beside the bat and the ball as tools of the player’s trade. I don’t want instructional manuals to be put out letting kids know how to make the most of the DRS.
If a DRS is to be there, I want players to use it when they think the umpire is wrong, and to not use it when they think he’s right, and leave it at that.
I don’t want it to be the subject of plotting and planning and strategic decisions. That is just lame.
What’s more, what you’re going to get is genuinely going to go against the ‘spirit’ of the DRS. And that’s players second-guessing and rejecting the DRS when there actually has been a mistake.
“Have to save the reviews, won’t appeal,” they’ll think. And like Chris Rogers when he wasn’t out, and like famed DRS-incompetent Shane Watson when he had the batsman plumb, they’ll let slip the advantage they should have had.
And from trying to overturn ‘non-Howlers’, we’ll go to not trying to overturn actual howlers. And the whole thing will be ridiculous.
And from there, it’s just a short step to putting silicon tape on your bats to prevent the DRS working at all.
Because once you start thinking of the umpires as a system to be gamed, you’re going to look down every avenue of opportunity.
And so, we’ve reached a sad day in cricket. And it does, I think, make one despair.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
I didn't think it was possible, but it got worse last night. (And Watson wasn't anywhere near it!)
Colin
Guest
Hawkeye iis not a perfect system either. In fact hawkeye technology used for LBW decisions is so far from perfect, that I would have to endorse India’s decision not to use it. Hawkeye uses a triangulation computation to determine the path of the ball to the point where it strikes the batsman. From there on, the path of the ball is merely an estimated prediction based on a faulty assumption that the ball would not have deviated in its flight if it had not been obstructed by the batsman. The further down the pitch the batsman’s obstruction is, the less likely it is that the estimated path will be correct. There are many factors that can cause a ball to deviate from the predicted flight path and hawkeye can not build those into the predicted flight caculation. Some of these include ball velocity, ball rotation, ball condition, humidity, temperature etc I agree with those that think that DRS reviews should be at the sole perogative of the umpires. The players can appeal but only the umpire can decide to refer to DRS. I think India would accept this system. I also suggest that the margin of error for the predicted path of the ball should increase the further down the pitch the obstruction occurs. A batsman who has advanced a couple of meters down the pitch to a reverse swinging ball or spinning ball, should have more margin than one who is hit by a yorker within the crease. Perhaps DRS should just be limited to run outs, stumping and no balls!
anfalicious
Guest
Yep.
anfalicious
Guest
How is choosing when to declare any more "cricketing skill" than DRS? It's about knowing the game and the possibilities that might arise. The appeal of test cricket is that it's live action chess, more strategy is good. There's two things I would change; first I'd give the fielding side two reviews (having unlimited reviews for the bowlers would defeat the purpose of having an umpire) and then review every time the ump sticks his finger up (which they already do, but only for no ball, which makes no sense to me). Secondly, the third umpire *has* to be trained to use the technology. They shouldn't just be a field umpire who wants a rest this week, there should be specialist third umpires. I'm a little surprised to see the suggestion that trying to game the umpires might be something that will come out of DRS, as if no fielder has ever appealed something they think probably wasn't out, but might be given out if they appeal. Also, strategies and tactics aren't the same thing.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
and if every decision was right, we could then concentrate in whinging about the selectors :)
Holgate
Guest
Absolutely. The has thrived for 300 yrs without the DRS
Jayvan Collins
Roar Pro
I'm going to agree with your premise (that is should be canned) but unfortunately, in this era of money, media attention and technological advancements. I just don't think the game will remain marketable without it. I think what we all forget is this: Before UDRS, we whinged about the umpires. Now we just whinge about a system instead of the umpires.
Hookin' YT
Guest
Worked OK yesterday
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
which is why I have said the system should be canned. (what I meant by blatantly obvious ones is where the batsmen walk) Lets just get back to trusting the players and the umpire and if that's not good enough then cricketers should at least stop claiming that they play the gentleman's game
Jayvan Collins
Roar Pro
Who gets to decide what is blatant or not? Every decision to be checked that isn't? I have been told from people involved in umpiring that there is on average 15 genuine appeals per day (that doesn't count half hearted appeals - the really blatant ones). A review takes a minimum of 1 minutes - by the time it goes up stairs, checked, goes back down to the field and play is ready to resume. So, on the avverage day of cricket we have a minimum of 15 minutes (that's 3.75 overs of cricket). Imagine now if you will a game in India... last day... spinning wicket... players all around the bat... I'm thinking there would be conservatively 20 appeals on average a day there... that's a minimum of 5 and half overs in time... Cricket is all ready slow... please let us not slow it down further.
Me Too
Guest
All wickets reviewed if called for. Fielding team can ask for a set amount of reviews.
WoobliesFan
Guest
Depressing device....depressing Ashes team.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
If DRS is to work we need two things: - technology that works: at the moment the technology is contentious and should not be used until fulproof - every decision (that is not blatently obvious) to be checked: this idea that you can only have two wrong reviews per team is ludicrous as once the reviews have been spent the umpires can make wrong decisions for the rest of the innings with no chance of them being corrected. I can't see anyone agreeing to having all decisions reviewed as it would be endlessly boring There is no choice but to can the DRS at this present time.