bantam -

you seem to be suggesting that every appeal for lbw or a catch behind should be referred to the third umpire.

that would take 10 overs a day out of the game i reckon, and would wreck the flow of the play.

this is cricket, not american football.

Regarding the DRS lets just say for example,England or whoever say we are using it in our play.Then you will see the Indians run like pigs from a gun!.
England have enough runs now in my opinion,wont be more than 240 runs tomorrow,England win series woo hoo.

what ????

I mean allow England or whoever have the choice to have DRS against India in their innings,then watch the goalposts change.

I have no problem with India not using DRS, at the moment it is something that a board can opt out of and they have chosen to ignore it. I am sure that that will change eventually but I hope there are no more changes made to the way its used, like Lions says it could really slow the game down. One of the main problems with cricket is that like all popular televised sports the pundits go over every bad decision, after all they have to talk about something and this creates a constant debate and call to make changes to the way a game is officiated, how long will it be before the shouts for all close calls to be reviewed. I think the bad decisions are evened out over a series and i liked the fact that before DRS the umpires made all the decisions on the field. Up to now DRS has not changed the game I love to much but I would hate for the umpires to just use replays for everything.

To sum up.

Run outs, catches, a few close calls an innings reviewed, good.

Looking at every close call, bad

To sum up.

Run outs, catches, a few close calls an innings reviewed, good.

Looking at every close call, bad
________________________________________

This is how it is already. Both teams have 2 referals which seems sensible. I dont think it slows the game down to the extent that people lose interest. Infact, its done the opposite that its brought more attention and excitment to the game...... DRS must be used - by all!!!

Agree with you fellow wanderer,Umpires should be in control of the game.But when a change is implemented such as DRS the world of Cricket changes dramatically.Its there now,we cant ignore it so we move on with the times,DRS has to stay in my opinion now and we,ICC should make it a rule change so the Indians have to accept it.

Like I said i am sure that India will fall in line with the rest of the world eventually and I'm happy with DRS the way it is now , just don't want it to be used for everything.

A wanderers win with a Ngog double and England hopefully sealing a series win in India, been a good weekend nuns, enjoy the rest of yours.

Umpires are not going to be replaced - why on EARTH are some people writing on here as if they are??

Like I said i am sure that India will fall in line with the rest of the world eventually and I'm happy with DRS the way it is now , just don't want it to be used for everythin
_________________________________

Agree .

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

whoa hang on a bit Neon, i presume you ARE being facetious? - what sort of suggestion are you making here? Flashing lights and a big booming voice over the tannoy? Umpires are there for all sorts of reasons - counting down the over, making sure there's fair play, watching bowlers (and batsmen) don't stray on the wicket, handing your hat and jumper to whilst you are bowling (!!)- but most importantly to keep control.
Much as in football I'm not keen that the system is completely usurped, just that we use the 'two strikes and you are out' DRS way - i.e. two referrals and that's it

I like to think your joking here Neon but if not I just think umpires and officials in all sports play a vital role on the field of play. There a part of the history and the spectacle of so many events, cricket has been an awesome sport for years with them so why change things to that extent.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I personally don't like DRS at all.

What goes around comes around in the end.
I mostly dislike DRS when you are at the ground watching live......a wicket falls and you have to wait for the no-ball or the challenge. To me it takes away the excitement of seeing a great catch or the bails flying into the air.
It's only because of all the replays and technology that brings DRS into play.....I reckon we should see one replay at full speed and go with what the umpire decides.

England

I personally don't like DRS at all.

What goes around comes around in the end.
I mostly dislike DRS when you are at the ground watching live......a wicket falls and you have to wait for the no-ball or the challenge. To me it takes away the excitement of seeing a great catch or the bails flying into the air.
====================

exactly.

It already takes away one of the most important aspects of the game.

The recipe which made cricket a success is the formula which has been in place for the last century or more.

Sure, there have been tweaks to the game during that period - the lbw law, the no-ball law etc - but essentially the game has been between two sides governed by 2 umpires.

A batsman's out when the umpire says he's out. Those are what the laws have always been, and it works.

Using technology sounds like a great idea in theory, but it has the following problems :

1. it has already proven to be unreliable (hot spot, and even hawkeye).
2. it takes the excitement out of the game.
3. it takes up time and disrupts the game.
4. it leads to less reliance on umpires, which in the long run is likely to lead to the umpire's role becoming extinct.

Right now the situation is that each side has 3 uses of the DRS. This situation appears to be illogical though. The argument of using DRS is that the technology is there, so why not use it ? On that basis, it seems inevtiable that at some stage, it will be decided that only having 3 reviews is not sufficient and that everything can be reviewed.

That means the fielding side will ask for every possible nick to be reviewed, and every possible lbw shout. That will take for ever, will reduce playing time by maybe 20-30%, and will ruin the flow of the game. It basically turns it into something akin to american football.

Assuming noone wants to do that, then what is the argument in having 3 reviews per innings ? It issimply not viable to rely 100% on technology, so the answer must be to rely 100% on the umpire.

As well as creating this illogical system of having 3 uses of the technology, the system already ruins the spectacle because as southsydney says, you never know for sure whether it's a wicket or not, and also because it takes the game out of the umpire's hands and into the players' hands, which is the biggest deviation from the laws of the game in its history.

Yes, there have always been problems here and there with umpires' decisions, but it has always been accepted as part and parcel of the game. You are out when the umpire says you are out. You dont need technology to facilitate that arrangmenet, and the game has become the worldwide phenominan that it has based on it being umpired by the umpires, not by the players.

What I would suggest, if it is absoloutely necessary, is that instead of each side having 3 reviews per innings, the umpires should be given up to 3 reviews themselves, before they give the decision. That way the game is still left in the umpire's hands, but he is given assistance where he is unsure, and only to an extent which will not disrupt the flow of the game, and will not take time out of the game, and will not spoil the moment for the sides and the specatotrs, when that umpire's finger goes up.

I think India should have played one more spinner

A lot of great England performances from England in this series, Cook, superb, Monty & Scannel excellent, Anderson, superb! Great all round effort,

Normal service resumed then and we can chat about the game?
Agreed Wetherby Cook has had a great series - just how great it would have been has been somewhat soured by some dreadful umpiring decisions against him.
Wicket, wow....whats happening....!

Scannel SWAN!

i know you have probably all already spoken about it...but whats this thing with trott and some strange/unusual shot....!?

not sure exactly.

from what i gather i believe the ball slipped out of jadeja's hand in delivery, and trott walked up to it and belted it for 4.

is that right ?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator