The use of DRS will be the detriment of umpires having the courage to make on the spot decisions....
They will not want to be seen as incompetent by making the wrong decision and in the end they will be more likely to seek help from the grandstand, which in turn will mean more and more stoppages.....it won't be long and we will see 85 overs a day as the norm.

I've witnessed referees in rugby league over the last few years less and less willing to make a decision for fear of looking bad and regually go up-stairs instead blowing the whistle on natural instinct of which is usually always correct in the first place.

The game of American gridiron comes to mind of stop-start boring rubbish.

The use of DRS will be the detriment of umpires having the courage to make on the spot decisions....
They will not want to be seen as incompetent by making the wrong decision and in the end they will be more likely to seek help from the grandstand, which in turn will mean more and more stoppages.....it won't be long and we will see 85 overs a day as the norm.

===================

yes, sydeny, i agree.

but my suggestion is that the umpire can refer 3 times in an innnings only. but it is up to the umpire to decide when to make the referal, not the players, and he does it before the finger goes up, so when the finger does go up, you know that's the end of it

Yes...I could live with that..

"it won't be long and we will see 85 overs a day as the norm...."

what a load of rubbish. Never going to happen

..it won't be long and we will see 85 overs a day as the norm.
=================

some people on here are already arguing that all lbw and close catch appeals are referred to drs, rather than only 3 referalls per innings.

i reckon that would probably take 10-15 overs a day out of the game.

some people on here are already arguing that all lbw and close catch appeals are referred to drs, rather than only 3 referalls per innings...

i wasn't. Thats equally as silly, who said that?

i think neon suggested it.

also someone said that drs should be used for everything except for catches in the deep. cant remember who that was now ?

anyway, it doesnt matter who said what i dont think, im just glad that we're pretty much agreed that the drs shouldnt be expanded.

personally, on that basis i dont understand the argument for having it at all, but i accept that others may see it differently.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

agh, fair enough N

Poor olé neon.......that's about all he has got these days...sarcasm and memories...

Got to admit when it was first touted I wasn't for it as the initial excitement of taking a wicket was somewhat subdued, as others have cited as their main gripe.

However having become accustomed to it, the initial excitement hasn't gone for me even when a decision is reffered. In actual fact for me its gone the other way. The initial excitement is there, then a bit of apprehension in case its overturned, then adulation if it's upheld.

If it goes the other way then I'm content that the correct decision was reached regardless of my own disappointment.

So I'd say I can understand both sides but I do think it adds more emotion, whether positive or negative, to close decisions.

Cooks first innings lbw was a shocking decision that would have been rightly overturned on appeal. Surely no cricket fan from any nation wants to see someone sent back to the pavilion under these circumstances?

Same for Pujara's caught off the elbow

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Davidoff......I can understand where you are coming from with the DRS....but I was mainly talking about being at the ground live...
At home we can see all the replays and know the decision before it's actually announced but at the ground the big screens are pretty poor quality from most points of the ground.

Neon.....keep ya chin up olé mate, we have all gone through some sort of transition period at one time or another. Sth.Africa will soon be doing it tough with a few of their elder statesman knocking on the door of retirement.....

Rabbit, it is interesting about the team transitions.

I always like the idea of a minimum 3 youngsters - maybe 24 or under in a team with ageing players.

In your case, Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Hussey were supplemented

By Clarke.

So, I believe it's imperative that England go with Root and Bairstow in the batting. Not only are they very promising youngsters but Root offrrs a spin option and Bairstow could become the future keeper. Throw Finn in too and that should see us through any transitional times.

I think we need DRS, even though BCCI does not agree

Yorkie......I think to many teams seem to look for an all-rounder to cover the extra bowler.....it's not every year that we see a Botham or Hadlee come along.
The same applies to keepers these days I feel.....instead of selecting a good genuine keeper, teams seem to go for a batsman/keeper.

How times have changed....??