Australia v Sri Lanka Game 4 SCG

[Booney]

Well both Clarke and Mahela seem to think that the close ones are the ones to be checked and expect the umpires to get the definitive ones right. As do I and I would think most people.

As TSG notes, it is the system that is wrong in the first place not any individuals interpretation of how it best used.

For instance, the Warner dismissal, surely the third umpire can make that call to the field umpire?

If Yourself, Clarke and Mahela all want to use it that way then that is fine - but it was not the intention when the ICC brought the DRS in (hence limiting it to 1 per ODI - so to discourage it's use - unless obvious howler). It's not to protect the batsmen from 50/50 but to protect the Umpires from the odd howler that have always been a part of the game.

Agreed. But your best batsman gets a 50/50 when the side is 1/fa not many, it will be used the vast majority of the time by all captains around the world.

Perhaps the ICC should encourage and reward top class umpiring, not implement a system to protect poor umpiring. I think we would all agree with that.

It's interesting that the Australian team had no issues with Clarkes use of the referral ( according to Bailey ) yet many on here and other forums I have read do. The beauty of hindsight.

I would think they do reward good umpiring by means of selection for games etc. The DRS was implemented to give to umpires confidence to make a decision knowing if they missed something blatant it can be reviewed - if the captains/players wish to abuse it you can then blame the umpires for making an error - as I've said before can not be eliminated from the game. The DRS is currently being used to undermine the umpire decisions not to eliminate mistakes.

Absolutely, the players are using it ( so they believe ) to their advantage not to that of the umpires. Not all the time though as we saw on Sunday.

[scoob]

If Yourself, Clarke and Mahela all want to use it that way then that is fine - but it was not the intention when the ICC brought the DRS in (hence limiting it to 1 per ODI - so to discourage it's use - unless obvious howler). It's not to protect the batsmen from 50/50 but to protect the Umpires from the odd howler that have always been a part of the game.

Agreed. But your best batsman gets a 50/50 when the side is 1/fa not many, it will be used the vast majority of the time by all captains around the world.

Perhaps the ICC should encourage and reward top class umpiring, not implement a system to protect poor umpiring. I think we would all agree with that.

It's interesting that the Australian team had no issues with Clarkes use of the referral ( according to Bailey ) yet many on here and other forums I have read do. The beauty of hindsight.

I would think they do reward good umpiring by means of selection for games etc. The DRS was implemented to give to umpires confidence to make a decision knowing if they missed something blatant it can be reviewed - if the captains/players wish to abuse it you can then blame the umpires for making an error - as I've said before can not be eliminated from the game. The DRS is currently being used to undermine the umpire decisions not to eliminate mistakes.

Absolutely, the players are using it ( so they believe ) to their advantage not to that of the umpires. Not all the time though as we saw on Sunday.

So you are saying on Sunday Clarke misused it and it disadvantaged the Australian side?

[therisingblues]

Well I'd say it's that hindsight thing Scoob, and it shows that Australia was disadvantaged.
I am curious how many people would call it misuse if he didn't call for the DRS and was later shown to be not out?
Finally, there seems to be a sentiment that the umpires are within their rights to make howlers if a team makes an unsuccessful challenge. I remember cricket in the 80's and 90's where people would call for an umpire's head if he got even a line ball decision wrong at a crucial time, now the emphasis has shifted completely to how a side manages the DRS. People will whinge either way; challenged and he shouldntve/ didn't challenge and he should've; difference is the umpires now have a license to bullshit and the players take the slack for the decisions that go wrong.

[Booney]

Yes TRB, if the review had shown the ball was 3cm higher it would have been not out. Hindsight being the operative word.

[scoob]

OK I give up talking sense - you blokes can keep talking about how the DRS is used for line ball decisions as you obviously don't take into account why the ICC introduced the DRS.

If you are not going to use it for howlers you might as well scrap the whole thing!

[Booney]

Personally, I dont play international cricket so I dont actually use the DRS. Nor did I consult the ICC for their interpretation of how the system be utilised.

I'm commenting on how I see the people who do play international cricket use it.

As for scrapping the whole thing? I'm happy to agree with you on that one.

[scoob]

Personally, I dont play international cricket so I dont actually use the DRS. Nor did I consult the ICC for their interpretation of how the system be utilised.

I'm commenting on how I see the people who do play international cricket use it.

As for scrapping the whole thing? I'm happy to agree with you on that one.

So you admit you don't know why the ICC introduced it? You have a fair bit of cred then... FFS!

[Booney]

"Cred" - on here....

Anywho, I just read through the ICC's DRS rules, to add to my "cred". You should do the same.

The Umpire Decision Review System (abbreviated as UDRS or DRS) is a technology based system used in the sport of cricket. The system was first introduced in Test Cricket for the sole purpose of reviewing the controversial decisions made by the on-field umpires in the case of a batsman being dismissed or not. The new review system was officially launched by International Cricket Council on 24 November 2009 during the first Test match between New Zealand and Pakistan at the University Oval in Dunedin.It was first used in One Day Internationals in January 2011, during England's tour of Australia. The ICC had made the UDRS mandatory in all international matches bt it later decided to end the mandatory use of DRS and now it will be up to both the teams to mutually agree on DRS use. However, the ICC's executive board made it clear that the DRS would still be part of all ICC events and that they support the use of technology and would continue to work on its development.

On October 29, 2012 The International Cricket Council made amendments on LBW protocols, increasing the margin of uncertainty when the ball hits the batsman's pad.

[scoob]

"Cred" - on here....

Anywho, I just read through the ICC's DRS rules, to add to my "cred". You should do the same.

The Umpire Decision Review System (abbreviated as UDRS or DRS) is a technology based system used in the sport of cricket. The system was first introduced in Test Cricket for the sole purpose of reviewing the controversial decisions made by the on-field umpires in the case of a batsman being dismissed or not. The new review system was officially launched by International Cricket Council on 24 November 2009 during the first Test match between New Zealand and Pakistan at the University Oval in Dunedin.It was first used in One Day Internationals in January 2011, during England's tour of Australia. The ICC had made the UDRS mandatory in all international matches bt it later decided to end the mandatory use of DRS and now it will be up to both the teams to mutually agree on DRS use. However, the ICC's executive board made it clear that the DRS would still be part of all ICC events and that they support the use of technology and would continue to work on its development.

On October 29, 2012 The International Cricket Council made amendments on LBW protocols, increasing the margin of uncertainty when the ball hits the batsman's pad.

Controversial being the operative word. A 50/50 decision is not controversial, a huge nick onto a bad then being adjudged LBW is controversial.

This, it says is it's sole purpose.

Thanks for clarifying my point.

[Booney]

"Cred" - on here....
Anywho, I just read through the ICC's DRS rules, to add to my "cred". You should do the same.
The Umpire Decision Review System (abbreviated as UDRS or DRS) is a technology based system used in the sport of cricket. The system was first introduced in Test Cricket for the sole purpose of reviewing the controversial decisions made by the on-field umpires in the case of a batsman being dismissed or not. The new review system was officially launched by International Cricket Council on 24 November 2009 during the first Test match between New Zealand and Pakistan at the University Oval in Dunedin.It was first used in One Day Internationals in January 2011, during England's tour of Australia. The ICC had made the UDRS mandatory in all international matches bt it later decided to end the mandatory use of DRS and now it will be up to both the teams to mutually agree on DRS use. However, the ICC's executive board made it clear that the DRS would still be part of all ICC events and that they support the use of technology and would continue to work on its development.
On October 29, 2012 The International Cricket Council made amendments on LBW protocols, increasing the margin of uncertainty when the ball hits the batsman's pad.

Controversial being the operative word. A 50/50 decision is not controversial, a huge nick onto a bad then being adjudged LBW is controversial. This, it says is it's sole purpose.
Thanks for clarifying my point.

Only if it is given out.

[scoob]

Adjudged LBW is not given out these days?... keep digging Booney