Should DRS Be Handled By Umpires?

Dunc

Davidoff,

I agree with what you are saying but what about looking at it from the batsman's point of view. If he is given out and reviews it. It is shown to have pitched just in line with leg stump and is just clipping the bails then yes, he should still be out, but it really doesn't seem fair that the team, and batsmen further down the order, has one less review to use.

I suppose but again we would have frivolous reviews for marginal lbw out decisions then. You can guarantee that every lbw would be reviewed as there is less risk involved.

I don't think the system needs changing atm. Captains just need to get smarter. We've seen a reversal from India who were excellent in the CT with the review system, where historically they have generally not used it so well

No DRS for LBWs period. Then this will work very well....

Whilst I thought originally that DRS in the hands of the umps was a good idea, I now realise that it defeats the object of DRS to do this. DRS is there to prevent the howler. In many cases the Umpire will not realise he's made a howler, because its a howler; he's completely mis-seen the entire events, resulting in a ridiculous decision.

Jezzer

Not if the Third umpire tells the on field umpire straight away that he has made a boo boo.

Like the idea what they are doing in the FLT20, where you can hear both the onfield umpire and third umpire discussing the dismissal. That is the way forward in my opinion....

The problem I have is the ICC at the end of the year or after 6 months make a certain change to DRS, try and improve etc... Am fine with that.

But why do they not after every calendar year, ask players and umpires what problems they feel have occurred within DRS. The ICC can then invest their money properly on improving that problem rather than a panel sitting round a table thinking of what to change. Ask the players, umpires what they feel is right, needs improving- That way everyone can get a better understanding

I keep hearing criticism of DRS, but actually I think the system is fine as it is.

The contentious decisions at Trent Bridge were not caused by DRS, they were caused by people's (Erasmus' ) lack of ability to follow the DRS decision rules, and this is a real howler in my opinion - much more so than any on-field decision.

In the Trott case, Aleem Dar thinks he's hit it so gives it not out, correctly. Australia review, as they're entitled to do, and so Erasmus has a clear decision to make.....is there clear evidence that Dar is wrong?

The side hot-spot is not available, so the evidence is incomplete, but there could still be clear enough evidence from the other angles, however the zoomed slow mo suggests a potential deviation, and the front hot-spot has a mark on the ball before it hits the pad (which could be from the contact with the floor).

Either way, the only way to overturn in this case would be if the visual showed a clear gap between ball and bat.

The infuriating thing is that the correct outcome is clear to every logical spectator, but Erasmus has failed to follow the extremely simple logical path. Furthermore, DRS is criticised, but actually if DRS had been implemented correctly (which is not a split second decision) then the correct decision would have been reached.

Perhaps training is the issue......the number of players and umpires who give comments in interviews that demonstrate that they don't understand the logic of the process is incredible.

Well said, ainsdale

The issue with the umpires using DRS is that it will become the "thin end of the wedge" - just as side on run out decisions the camera was used for "close" decisions it is de rigeur now for an umpire to call for a replay if DRS becomes the third umpires decision then why have an umpire in the field at all... except to count balls and hold jumpers.

Also what makes sport interesting to folk is the conflict of opinion over officials decisions - players (especially in cricket but also in Rugby) accept good bad or indifferent calls - publically at least and it is the fans who spend hours discussin them in the pub afterwards.

Imagine how dull and flaccid a conversation about the ashes would be if every decision was scrutinised by tv before actually being given out.

The 2 reviews I think works, I also think it needs a tweak in one respect if you review an LBW as a batter - and it shows "umpires call" at least once then you should not lose the review - its a fair review, not frivolous but you got the rough end of the stick - the rest of the side is not punished. However if you review and it is clearly hitting all three then you lose it.

Similarly as a bowling unit, if it shows umpires call you keep your review if it shows missing or outside at any point you lose it.

The good teams (and I include England here) have got the idea that you don't review lbw as a bowling side if it is not out... unless you are 100 percent certain - (or possibly its the last wicket and you have 2 left.. which is an awkward situation which also needs tightening up).