DRS means you may as well walk: Marsh

Agreed. When it comes to LBW's the law pretty much seems to be worded to suggest that you've got to be pretty certain the ball is going to hit the stumps to give it out. Which is why hard spun balls going at sharp angles are really hard to give out. It's a bit annoying that something that is almost rightly given not out because there's no way you can be sure, can then be challenged and have a computer track the ball at angles an umpire never could and decide it's out. As for the marginal, barely flicking the stumps ones (or barely pitching in line or barely hitting in line) I've always thought umpires giving those out, even though they came back umpires call and upheld their decision, really were bad calls, because if a ball is shown by the computer to only be barely flicking the stumps, there is no way the umpire could have been sure it was going to hit the stumps and should have therefore given it not out.

Also, when it comes to "hitting the stumps" it requires extrapolation. The computer calculates where it believes the ball would go using physics to give a pretty accurate estimate. However, where the ball pitches or strikes the pad no such extrapolation is required. They have the actual data of where the ball went for that part. So while you probably want a bit more margin for error to go with Umpires call on hitting the stumps, pitching and hitting in line don't really need that.

Yeah Warney was carrying on. It was close but hardly adjacent.

I wish there was a DRS on commentators. Get excellent 3rd ump Chris "the Gaffer" Gaffaney to dismiss them when they are out of line. The umpy turned down an LBW as he thought it was missing leg. DRS duly showed clipping leg. End of story.......you would have thought. Yet Warney and his favourite captain, Tubby, banged on for ages why it was out and what a poor decision it was. Umpiring is hard enough without these dingbats raving on about a marginal decision.

really i think we just need to tweak the system so that hitting in line needs half the ball to be declared in line. i dont mind if its only just hitting the stumps as you only need a touch for the bails to come off if the legs not there.

I have no problem with him walking. It certainly saves significant time for the third umpire review. But of course, as pointed out, there is no guarantee they would have reviewed it, and there is no guarantee that an fine edge is always detected enough for DRS to overturn, though it usually will be. But it all depends on if you are thinking "I hit it, he caught it, I'm out" or if you are thinking "I wonder if I can get away with that". Personally I have always worked on the belief that bad decisions can even themselves out over your career, but if you walk whenever you are out they never will. So it's totally reasonably to not walk, it's not cheating, just accepting that human error happens, it's happened against you and maybe you can occasionally benefit from it also.

One big example being Smith's first innings dismissal. He reviewed being given out because he believed he was hit outside the line. Hawkeye seemed to clearly confirm he was hit outside the line yet gave it as umpires call, suggesting there was maybe 0.0001mm of the ball overlapping the stump line at that point or something. While other things I've seem given as umpires call have the ball smashing hard into the leg or off stump, but because the dead-centre of the ball is fractionally to the outside of the dead centre of the stump it goes as umpires call.

No it isn't. While it's against the laws of the game to dispute the umpires decision (now with the exception of DRS), it is totally within the rules for a batsman to basically give themselves out. When you know you hit it and you know the opposition is going to review it if you are given not out, it's good to walk because it saves all sorts of wasted time waiting for the third umpire to step through things.

It is worth pointing out that he also walked a couple of times in the NZ ODI series, his hero is gilchrist and he has modelled his game on it

Nifty Nev, love it CT, one for the oldies. Not near as controversial as the original Nifty, nor as another blast from the past, Dyer's "catch".

There is a margin of error, that is why there is a green light, orange light and red light. Warne carried on like an idiot and said we should remove the on field umpires from the DRS, but if that happened we would have got the same result, it still would have been not out. While Warne's reasoning was wrong, I actually agree with removing the on field umpires original decision from the DRS process. Green and orange should belong to the batsman at all times, and wickets should only be given on red, when a wicket has definitely been taken.

When a batsman walks he is saying he is not interested in what the umpire has to say and he is going to make the decisions, it's really no different to standing there when the umpire says out. Play the game, let the umpires do their job, and take the good with the bad.

There was no guarantee that Australia would have reviewed the decision, so of course Buttler deserves credit for walking, although personally I reckon he should have let the umpire make the decision.

Short version: it's a data driven system working with a small sample size, therefore Hawkeye has some accuracy problems with line-ball decisions.

Tell me what is the point of having the computer tracker (hawkeye) if the officials do not take it seriously? For instance. An appeal goes up and the umpire rules not out. Captain reviews and computer shows the ball hitting the stump. But because of the original decision of not out the decision stands. This is a nonsense. A very grey area in the DRS.

Nifty had every right to think he had caught it. It was only slow motion that showed the ball touching the grass in the process of the catch. Brilliant effort. Oh so close. Hats off to Jos Buttler for walking. Would like to see more of it. Sure put some egg on the face of Dhamasena.