Yet another weird DRS decision...

Agree completely, great decision by the 3rd umpire, knew he nicked it, despite the technology not showing it clearly, and we ended up with correct decision

 

Re: I'll tell you why

Apart from that snicko isn't used and hotspot couldn't pick up a deflection. Nothing!

 

Re: I'll tell you why

I dont get why people dont get the issue? Unreal.

 

Re: I'll tell you why

but ears and that thing inside your skull called a Brain does Loko.

 

Re: I'll tell you why

Hot spot isn't 100% Watcher of the skies.
So whats your point.

Company's that people seem to hate like Sky and Fox with the ICC and a few other broadcasters are working on it and they've improved it a lot but it isn't 100%

 

You're arguing with the wrong person. Im not bothered about right or wrong decisions, im bothered about the game, it's history and the complete ugly mess DRS has made of a simple and beautiful game that for one hundred and fifty years did perfectly well without any outside interference.

Traditionalist, yes and proud of it. DRS is so bad i cant even watch the Ashes. Id rather go watch a village green game than the abortion that exists in professional cricket.

 

Adam Gilchrist article that sums up much of what i think

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/651695.html

 

While I wouldn't go as far as to say I can't watch the Ashes because of it, I agree entirely with the sentiment.

 

Re: I'll tell you why

My point is I don't believe the authority of the umpire on the field should be challenged by DRS because this is (was) the way the game has always been played, and despite wrong decisions players got on with it but never complained about it costing them a game or series because they know it works both ways. The game has never been about wrong or right decisions per se, it's been about the fielding side asking a question of the umpire and him giving his view on whether he thought it was out or not. This might sound obvious and somewhat simple, but it's the most important part of the game. It's the soul of the game, the very thing that defines it. That's now gone because players can question the authority of the umpire to make a decision.

Somewhat ironically wrong decisions are still happening but a team getting a howler often cant review it because they have no referrals left. "It's their own fault for wasting them" cry some - immediately forgetting their claims that getting decisions correct is more important than mistakes being made. I do wonder about those who said that Broad was cheating by not walking when he edged the ball to 1st slip. Again, the fielding side appealed to the umpire, not Broad, and the umpire gave his decision. Broad was entitled to wait for the umpires decision and he decided he was not out. That's how it works. Somewhere down the line Broad will get one the other way and balance will be restored.

I'd ask why the umpire is now needed at all. He's not needed to count balls, he's not needed to watch for a no ball, he's not needed to judge a catch or an LBW. All this can be done by computer and another umpire sitting in a booth. He's nothing but a token.

 

Re: I'll tell you why

.

 

Re: I'll tell you why

On the money there Watcher. IMO obviously. I won't let it stop me watching, it's not the players fault, but I would rather not have technology. Same goes for footy. The human decision/mistake is all a very valuable part of it, so let's let the umpires/referees get on with it, errors and all.

 

It was given Not Out. England referred. There was nothing on hotspot but the third umpire said he heard the edge in real-time and saw the deflection. Eyebrows were raised but later Snicko proved it to be the correct decision.

Where's the issue

 

Re: I'll tell you why

I think the game has to move with the times. Because we now have the technology to prove that the umpires have made incorrect decisions why should we not endeavour to ensure that as many of these errors are eradicated? The umpire may not have been questioned in the past, but in the past we had no way of knowing for sure whether or not he had made the correct decision, so naturally he's given the benefit of the doubt.

I completely disagree with you when you say that the most important part of the game is the fielding team asking the question and the umpire giving his view on whether he thought it was out or not. Surely the most important part of the game is the skill on show with bat and ball, and if good batting or good bowling is not rewarded with runs or wickets then that's a bigger injustice than questioning an umpires decision.

The technology may not have been used effectively this series, but in principle there is nothing wrong with it. I think it adds another level of excitement as the crowd waits to see if the ball would have indeed gone on to hit the wickets in an LBW review.

 

Re: I'll tell you why

They commentators always say they give people out more because of the Tec too.
Strauss mentioned the Watson dismissal today

 

Disagree. Surely the point of referrals is to use the technology to provide evidence? No point referring it upstairs if the third umpire is going to ignore the evidence from DRS and just go with his opinion.

 

Re: I'll tell you why

I've already answered that. It ruins the game, stops the flow, removes fans from the moment when an umpire gives a decision out and has nothing to do with its traditional format and removes the role of the umpire from the game in all but name. Again, this is extremely subtle to many, but it's at the heart of the game.

Quite.

You don't take wickets in many instances without making an appeal to the umpire. Batsmen only score runs and bowlers only take wickets in many instances by surviving and having accepted the umpires decision following an appeal. That subtle moment has been removed forever from the game. For instance...

Harmison to Kasprowicz in the 2005 Ashes at Edgbaston. Australia need 2 runs to win. Harmison bowls a bouncer, Kasprowicz hooks and appear to glove it to Jones behind the stumps. England appeal and the umpire gives it out. The crowd goes crazy and Flintoff bends down to console a crushed Brett Lee. A great moment in cricket and a great moment in sport. Only that had happened today that moment would never have happened because we'd have had an appeal by the Australians.

That's not how a game should finish and frankly anyone wanting to finish that series on a tv replay hasn't got a ****ing clue Indeed the previous Ashes game in this series was the first in history to be finished off the field of play via a DRS decision. You might like that, i think it's a sad, sad day for cricket.

 

Unless the tech is going to give every appeal in or out you're still left with a human making a decision based on what he can see. Mistakes will still be made, less of them maybe, but there will still be mistakes. The logic of those wanting to improve corect decisions therefore dictates that if the human element can be remove completely and we can rely on a computer to give every decision then the umpire should be removed entirely from the game.

Instead we can have this guy at the other end:

 

This thread makes no sense at all if the only DRS you've ever heard of is the Drag Reduction System on a formula one car. It's a handy piece of technology but I never realised it officiated at cricket matches.