DRS doesn't stop "kicking the ball away outside leg stump". Batsmen do that as a defensive measure as they cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches outside leg stump.
I hate DRS and all it's brothers, cousins and derivitives in all sport. It'll be a sad day when football goes down that road.
What does DRS stand for? Sorry not a cricket fan! And do they have something called DRS in F1?
yes, they do have DRS in F1 - i think its the section of the track where they are allowed to open the rear spoiler to reduce drag, and is therefore called the Drag Reduction System, although i stand to be corrected on that.
" Point 3.3 (f) in the playing conditions states: "The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire's questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out."
So when it was evident Kallis could not be out caught, because he had not hit the ball, the evidence for an lbw decision should have been considered from the point of view that the on-field umpire had ruled it not out. The projected path of the ball - clipping leg stump - was then an umpire's call, according to the DRS, and Kallis would have been not out. "
I hate DRS and all it's brothers, cousins and derivitives in all sport. It'll be a sad day when football goes down that road.
Wanna elaborate ?
Sure, I don't think any technical help at all sholud used be used in any sport. Everything should be left to human judgement on the spur of the moment. If goal line tech is fully introduced that will be the thin end of the wedge. Next for off-sides, penalties etc. I am a massive cricket fan but think the games is poorer for the introduction of Hawkeye et al. Hope that makes it clearer for you.
I kind of dont mind technology if it is a yes or no decision. Is the ball over the line? Was the ball touched down? But as soon as it is down to an individual judgement, I start to worry, we can see penalty calls in football replayed from eight angles and still disagree as to whether it was a pen or not. Ditto with suspect catches in cricket. Like Riviera, I suspect it might be the thin end if the wedge. Look how umpires now call for the third umpire to review run out decisions almost every time, even when you can clearly see the batsman was home, just in case...
I hate DRS and all it's brothers, cousins and derivitives in all sport. It'll be a sad day when football goes down that road.
Wanna elaborate ?
Sure, I don't think any technical help at all sholud used be used in any sport. Everything should be left to human judgement on the spur of the moment. If goal line tech is fully introduced that will be the thin end of the wedge. Next for off-sides, penalties etc. I am a massive cricket fan but think the games is poorer for the introduction of Hawkeye et al. Hope that makes it clearer for you.
Yep. Dont agree with you but thats my/your prerogative. I think you're in the minority. All studies have proved that Technology is more reliable- and i personally think it adds to the excitement waiting for the decision.
I kind of dont mind technology if it is a yes or no decision. Is the ball over the line? Was the ball touched down? But as soon as it is down to an individual judgement, I start to worry, we can see penalty calls in football replayed from eight angles and still disagree as to whether it was a pen or not. Ditto with suspect catches in cricket. Like Riviera, I suspect it might be the thin end if the wedge. Look how umpires now call for the third umpire to review run out decisions almost every time, even when you can clearly see the batsman was home, just in case...
So,whats the problem in making sure? Ump would look a bit silly if he gave the wrong decision and was proved wrong on the replay (it has happened).It happens all the time in rugby when the Ref asks 'Is there any reason i cannot give a try?'
I know there is a lot of cricket lovers out there.
I know DRS is not everyones cup of tea,however, i think its a fantastic innovation - something that football could well do with looking at TBH.
Anyway, there was an incident in South Africa v Pakistan test today that opened up a 'loophole' in the way DRS works.
Scenario...
Kallis is given out caught to Ajmal. Kallis refers it thinking that the umpire gave him out caught (it came direct off the pad too). Hawyeye shows that he didnt hit it,and therefore decision is to be reversed, however, the replay also shows that it would have been Umpires Call (ie less than half the ball was clipping leg stump) for LBW and gave Kallis out LBW.
The loophole here is that the Ump has given him out caught and yet even though its Umpires call for LBW - there was no Umpires call for LBW in the first place.!
For all you non cricket lovers out there, please dont come on saying ' errrr, crickets boring !!!!' - it just shows the density of oneself.! Dont denigrate - be constructive ! Or at least go out and find out the rules of cricket - probably the best sport in the world.
It shouldnt have given him out LBW. In the spirit of the game the batsmen should be given out or not out in the way that was appealed and the umpire gave his decision for. If the umpire does not ask the fielding captain or/and the bowler what he's appealing for and assumingly gives it out caught then the decision should be made on whether he was out caught if it went to referal. Nothing else.
I hate DRS and all it's brothers, cousins and derivitives in all sport. It'll be a sad day when football goes down that road.
Wanna elaborate ?
Sure, I don't think any technical help at all sholud used be used in any sport. Everything should be left to human judgement on the spur of the moment. If goal line tech is fully introduced that will be the thin end of the wedge. Next for off-sides, penalties etc. I am a massive cricket fan but think the games is poorer for the introduction of Hawkeye et al. Hope that makes it clearer for you.
What's your stance on photo finishes and the like? Should we replace that with a man on the finish line for Olympic 100m sprint final?
I know there is a lot of cricket lovers out there.
I know DRS is not everyones cup of tea,however, i think its a fantastic innovation - something that football could well do with looking at TBH.
Anyway, there was an incident in South Africa v Pakistan test today that opened up a 'loophole' in the way DRS works.
Scenario...
Kallis is given out caught to Ajmal. Kallis refers it thinking that the umpire gave him out caught (it came direct off the pad too). Hawyeye shows that he didnt hit it,and therefore decision is to be reversed, however, the replay also shows that it would have been Umpires Call (ie less than half the ball was clipping leg stump) for LBW and gave Kallis out LBW.
The loophole here is that the Ump has given him out caught and yet even though its Umpires call for LBW - there was no Umpires call for LBW in the first place.!
For all you non cricket lovers out there, please dont come on saying ' errrr, crickets boring !!!!' - it just shows the density of oneself.! Dont denigrate - be constructive ! Or at least go out and find out the rules of cricket - probably the best sport in the world.
It shouldnt have given him out LBW. In the spirit of the game the batsmen should be given out or not out in the way that was appealed and the umpire gave his decision for. If the umpire does not ask the fielding captain or/and the bowler what he's appealing for and assumingly gives it out caught then the decision should be made on whether he was out caught if it went to referal. Nothing else.
Not true Kent. See my post of 8.13 which provides a word-for-word explanation from the rule-book(copied from cricinfo)
I hate DRS and all it's brothers, cousins and derivitives in all sport. It'll be a sad day when football goes down that road.
Wanna elaborate ?
Sure, I don't think any technical help at all sholud used be used in any sport. Everything should be left to human judgement on the spur of the moment. If goal line tech is fully introduced that will be the thin end of the wedge. Next for off-sides, penalties etc. I am a massive cricket fan but think the games is poorer for the introduction of Hawkeye et al. Hope that makes it clearer for you.
What's your stance on photo finishes and the like? Should we replace that with a man on the finish line for Olympic 100m sprint final?
He wants more refs behind the goal-line for footy.After all, that works - just ask Neil Lennon.
Well as far as photo finishes in races are concerned I think that's a bit different, you need a winner in a race or it's pretty pointless. What I particularly don't like about DRS in cricket is that the reviews show things that were not clearly visible to the naked eye originally, like in the example above. Things like if the ball hit bat or pad first, sometimes it goes bat, pad, bat but so quickly that not even the batsmen knows. I like this decisions to be left with umpire. Run outs are now ridiculous with everything referred. Sure I know I may in the minority but that's how I feel. Look at tennis, Hawkeye in that is just crazy, 63/64 of the ball is out but the remaining tiny fraction is touching the line and it's given in. We used to say "on the line is in" but now it's a minuscule thread just touching the line. I like sport to be natural and human as far as possible and anyway none of the technology is totally infallible as we have seen many times. Hawkeye in cricket when it is being tested still replays some balls that actually hit the wicket as missing. That was reported by Angus Fraser from an ICC meeting and India still use that as one of their excuses for not using DRS.
I hate DRS and all it's brothers, cousins and derivitives in all sport. It'll be a sad day when football goes down that road.
Wanna elaborate ?
Sure, I don't think any technical help at all sholud used be used in any sport. Everything should be left to human judgement on the spur of the moment. If goal line tech is fully introduced that will be the thin end of the wedge. Next for off-sides, penalties etc. I am a massive cricket fan but think the games is poorer for the introduction of Hawkeye et al. Hope that makes it clearer for you.
What's your stance on photo finishes and the like? Should we replace that with a man on the finish line for Olympic 100m sprint final?
He wants more refs behind the goal-line for footy.After all, that works - just ask Neil Lennon.
The refs behind the goal are a good idea but I don't think we really know their mandate. They should be allowed to step in more but I reckon they are under orders not too, their presence is just to satisfy those calling for more technology but they have been shown up to be pointless.
Well as far as photo finishes in races are concerned I think that's a bit different, you need a winner in a race or it's pretty pointless. What I particularly don't like about DRS in cricket is that the reviews show things that were not clearly visible to the naked eye originally, like in the example above. Things like if the ball hit bat or pad first, sometimes it goes bat, pad, bat but so quickly that not even the batsmen knows. I like this decisions to be left with umpire. Run outs are now ridiculous with everything referred. Sure I know I may in the minority but that's how I feel. Look at tennis, Hawkeye in that is just crazy, 63/64 of the ball is out but the remaining tiny fraction is touching the line and it's given in. We used to say "on the line is in" but now it's a minuscule thread just touching the line. I like sport to be natural and human as far as possible and anyway none of the technology is totally infallible as we have seen many times. Hawkeye in cricket when it is being tested still replays some balls that actually hit the wicket as missing. That was reported by Angus Fraser from an ICC meeting and India still use that as one of their excuses for not using DRS.
I think hawkeye works brilliantly in tennis, it avoids all the old flare ups and arguments about whether the ball was in or out, and has also shown how accurate most line calls are. If the ball brushes the line, it's in, both players know the rules...
What does DRS stand for? Sorry not a cricket fan! And do they have something called DRS in F1?
yes, they do have DRS in F1 - i think its the section of the track where they are allowed to open the rear spoiler to reduce drag, and is therefore called the Drag Reduction System, although i stand to be corrected on that.
Yes, that's correct. A coincidence that both systems use the same initials!
I kind of dont mind technology if it is a yes or no decision. Is the ball over the line? Was the ball touched down? But as soon as it is down to an individual judgement, I start to worry, we can see penalty calls in football replayed from eight angles and still disagree as to whether it was a pen or not. Ditto with suspect catches in cricket. Like Riviera, I suspect it might be the thin end if the wedge. Look how umpires now call for the third umpire to review run out decisions almost every time, even when you can clearly see the batsman was home, just in case...
So,whats the problem in making sure? Ump would look a bit silly if he gave the wrong decision and was proved wrong on the replay (it has happened).It happens all the time in rugby when the Ref asks 'Is there any reason i cannot give a try?'
Just the whole stop start thing Pres, and in the example I give, why bother with the umpire at all? Do away with umpires calls, and just have the telly decide every time the ball hits the wicket in a run out situation. I also think that unless every game has the same technology available, it is not a fair way of doing things. That is what used to happen in Rugby League until recently.
Another interesting one from this test... Philander nicks one behind when on 1. Umpire calls front foot no-ball. However, tv replays after show that it wasnt a no-ball- if was a perfectly legit delivery.
that partnership was worth 67 runs, which would have only yielded 5 runs if he was given out. This would likely have made the difference between winning and losing the Test for Pakistan.
Another interesting one from this test... Philander nicks one behind when on 1. Umpire calls front foot no-ball. However, tv replays after show that it wasnt a no-ball- if was a perfectly legit delivery.
that partnership was worth 67 runs, which would have only yielded 5 runs if he was given out. This would likely have made the difference between winning and losing the Test for Pakistan.
It seems as though the umpire(s) in the middle for this test are not up to the job. The referral system at very worst will help to sort out incompetence and glaring errors
I would imagine that the umpires are themselves reviewed with the aid of DRS. If they find an umpire that is consistently inconsistent with the DRS then surely they would take steps?
Comments
I hate DRS and all it's brothers, cousins and derivitives in all sport. It'll be a sad day when football goes down that road.
And do they have something called DRS in F1?
" Point 3.3 (f) in the playing conditions states: "The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire's questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out."
So when it was evident Kallis could not be out caught, because he had not hit the ball, the evidence for an lbw decision should have been considered from the point of view that the on-field umpire had ruled it not out. The projected path of the ball - clipping leg stump - was then an umpire's call, according to the DRS, and Kallis would have been not out. "
I don't think any technical help at all sholud used be used in any sport. Everything should be left to human judgement on the spur of the moment.
If goal line tech is fully introduced that will be the thin end of the wedge. Next for off-sides, penalties etc.
I am a massive cricket fan but think the games is poorer for the introduction of Hawkeye et al.
Hope that makes it clearer for you.
All studies have proved that Technology is more reliable- and i personally think it adds to the excitement waiting for the decision.
Sure I know I may in the minority but that's how I feel.
Look at tennis, Hawkeye in that is just crazy, 63/64 of the ball is out but the remaining tiny fraction is touching the line and it's given in. We used to say "on the line is in" but now it's a minuscule thread just touching the line.
I like sport to be natural and human as far as possible and anyway none of the technology is totally infallible as we have seen many times. Hawkeye in cricket when it is being tested still replays some balls that actually hit the wicket as missing. That was reported by Angus Fraser from an ICC meeting and India still use that as one of their excuses for not using DRS.
I answered your question honestly. You can't ask the people a question if you are just going to attack those who don't give the answer you want.
Philander nicks one behind when on 1. Umpire calls front foot no-ball.
However, tv replays after show that it wasnt a no-ball- if was a perfectly legit delivery.
that partnership was worth 67 runs, which would have only yielded 5 runs if he was given out. This would likely have made the difference between winning and losing the Test for Pakistan.