How perfect is Hawk Eye to be certain that the ball would have barely "clipped" the stump? This was an LBW review.
==============•
That is literally the whole point of umpire's call, it keeps power with the on-field and encourages rational captains to only review when it is clearly a poor decision. It's actually a very clever solution to some of the issues with technology, although obviously not all.
On-field umpire is not always having the final say. So, how is it that the DRS system keeps power with the on-field umpire?
comment by gagsy:
This test match is a huge setback for DRS and will only make BCCI's stance on this issue more stronger.....
-----------
This worries me too, gagsy.
I am not totally against technology but I can understand BCCI position on this and I do not think it will change anytime soon....
gagsy, apparently snicko takes too long.
I have some issues with DRS. What is with the on field umpires call? If hawkeye shows it was hitting the stumps we should just use that, expecially if hawkeye is used to overturn decisions when only 2 mm of the ball is pitching in line.
We had the ridiculous situation where Rogers and Watson are given out to balls that hawkeye showed would have hit less of the stumps than not out decisions that went in Anderson and Root's favour.
Why no UDRS, surely the 3rd umpire can be used to call back players, eliminating the need for DRS.
My point exactly Duncan.
Like I said before, the whole idea of DRS was for getting rid of the howlers. Having team reviews will still not get rid of the howlers if the team has used up their reviews so DRS does nothing in the end.
Should not be used for LBWs as every call is marginal.
Only used for catches and edges.
No team reviews, only 3rd umpire will over rule if there is a howler. This will stop people standing there when they know they have edged it.
If this happens I am pretty sure BCCI will take this. They are just not happy with hawkeye after the ball pitches.....
Why no UDRS, surely the 3rd umpire can be used to call back players, eliminating the need for DRS.
---------
Having 2 reviews per innings is also ridiculous. If the first two batsmen make wrong calls, then the rest will suffer. In case of Watson and Clarke the decisions could have gone either way. The DRS was no better than human eye in the first test. Though you can not fault Broad for standing his ground, the third umpire should have the option to inform the on field umpire. Otherwise it is nothing but selective use. How can you minimize mistakes by selective use?
That decision against UK made no sense. There was no evidence to suggest there was a snick, but since there was not enough evidence to overrule the on-field umpire, the batsman is out?
Sign in if you want to comment
DRS and final outcome
Page 2 of 2
posted on 14/7/13
How perfect is Hawk Eye to be certain that the ball would have barely "clipped" the stump? This was an LBW review.
==============•
That is literally the whole point of umpire's call, it keeps power with the on-field and encourages rational captains to only review when it is clearly a poor decision. It's actually a very clever solution to some of the issues with technology, although obviously not all.
posted on 14/7/13
On-field umpire is not always having the final say. So, how is it that the DRS system keeps power with the on-field umpire?
posted on 14/7/13
comment by gagsy:
This test match is a huge setback for DRS and will only make BCCI's stance on this issue more stronger.....
-----------
This worries me too, gagsy.
posted on 14/7/13
I am not totally against technology but I can understand BCCI position on this and I do not think it will change anytime soon....
posted on 15/7/13
gagsy, apparently snicko takes too long.
I have some issues with DRS. What is with the on field umpires call? If hawkeye shows it was hitting the stumps we should just use that, expecially if hawkeye is used to overturn decisions when only 2 mm of the ball is pitching in line.
We had the ridiculous situation where Rogers and Watson are given out to balls that hawkeye showed would have hit less of the stumps than not out decisions that went in Anderson and Root's favour.
Why no UDRS, surely the 3rd umpire can be used to call back players, eliminating the need for DRS.
posted on 15/7/13
My point exactly Duncan.
Like I said before, the whole idea of DRS was for getting rid of the howlers. Having team reviews will still not get rid of the howlers if the team has used up their reviews so DRS does nothing in the end.
Should not be used for LBWs as every call is marginal.
Only used for catches and edges.
No team reviews, only 3rd umpire will over rule if there is a howler. This will stop people standing there when they know they have edged it.
If this happens I am pretty sure BCCI will take this. They are just not happy with hawkeye after the ball pitches.....
posted on 16/7/13
Why no UDRS, surely the 3rd umpire can be used to call back players, eliminating the need for DRS.
---------
Having 2 reviews per innings is also ridiculous. If the first two batsmen make wrong calls, then the rest will suffer. In case of Watson and Clarke the decisions could have gone either way. The DRS was no better than human eye in the first test. Though you can not fault Broad for standing his ground, the third umpire should have the option to inform the on field umpire. Otherwise it is nothing but selective use. How can you minimize mistakes by selective use?
posted on 1/8/13
That decision against UK made no sense. There was no evidence to suggest there was a snick, but since there was not enough evidence to overrule the on-field umpire, the batsman is out?
Page 2 of 2