Australia v Sri Lanka Game 4 SCG

[scoob]

Well I'd argue that the umpires should not get the howlers wrong in the first place and the DRS should be for the 50/50 that the players decide are worth challenging, as Warner and Clarke did.

Warners decision, well, top class umpires should get them right.

Trolling at its best... he got a few bites too!!!!

[therisingblues]

Well I'd argue that the umpires should not get the howlers wrong in the first place and the DRS should be for the 50/50 that the players decide are worth challenging, as Warner and Clarke did.

Warners decision, well, top class umpires should get them right.

Trolling at its best... he got a few bites too!!!!

I wouldnt call it trolling, I actually agree with the opinion, but I haven't seen the footage.
It seems there's no dispute about what happened though; Clarke was given out by the umpire to a ball, half of which the DRS showed would have taken middle stump. If a ball was traveling that high surely it is worth a check when it's the best batsman at the crease. To not use the DRS in that situation would show a ( in this case ) warranted lack of faith in the umpire. The rest has already been said by Booney, if he hadn't taken the DRS and it turned out he wasn't out, and there were no howlers later, then half the fickle hearts on here would be saying just the opposite to what they are now.
On a side note, what's the rule regarding the DRS? How many referrals are allowed and if the referral is justified does the team get another one?

[Lightning McQueen]

Well I'd argue that the umpires should not get the howlers wrong in the first place and the DRS should be for the 50/50 that the players decide are worth challenging, as Warner and Clarke did.

Warners decision, well, top class umpires should get them right.

Trolling at its best... he got a few bites too!!!!

Yep, Boney has been banned for trolling, terrible stuff

[scoob]

Saying that the DRS is for 50/50 calls on LBW decision is clearly not what the DRS is for... to say it is either dumb or trolling IMO

[scoob]

Well I'd argue that the umpires should not get the howlers wrong in the first place and the DRS should be for the 50/50 that the players decide are worth challenging, as Warner and Clarke did.

Warners decision, well, top class umpires should get them right.

Trolling at its best... he got a few bites too!!!!

I wouldnt call it trolling, I actually agree with the opinion, but I haven't seen the footage.
It seems there's no dispute about what happened though; Clarke was given out by the umpire to a ball, half of which the DRS showed would have taken middle stump. If a ball was traveling that high surely it is worth a check when it's the best batsman at the crease. To not use the DRS in that situation would show a ( in this case ) warranted lack of faith in the umpire. The rest has already been said by Booney, if he hadn't taken the DRS and it turned out he wasn't out, and there were no howlers later, then half the fickle hearts on here would be saying just the opposite to what they are now.
On a side note, what's the rule regarding the DRS? How many referrals are allowed and if the referral is justified does the team get another one?

1 unsuccessful one in ODI (hence peoples problem with it)... unlimited successful referrals.

[Booney]

Saying that the DRS is for 50/50 calls on LBW decision is clearly not what the DRS is for... to say it is either dumb or trolling IMO

Howlers like Warners are the calls umpires simply should not make.

50/50 calls where our best batsman and the non-striker think might have been going over the top, thats (IMO and obviously Clarke and Waners ) is what the DRS is for.

The shit decisions Eramus made afterwards have nothing to do with Clarkes referral and are completely his responsibility and international umpires should not get them wrong. The Clarke dismissal was ( in the trackers view ) less than half a ball from going over the top, no shame in the umpire not getting that wrong.

On a side note, when it was raining the other night and they showed the WI v Aus clash at the 'G, there was one plumb LBW that the umpire simply just fired him out and two close-ish run-outs that were not out, but close, where the umpires just shook the head "not-out". How refreshing that was to see.

[scoob]

Saying that the DRS is for 50/50 calls on LBW decision is clearly not what the DRS is for... to say it is either dumb or trolling IMO

Howlers like Warners are the calls umpires simply should not make.

50/50 calls where our best batsman and the non-striker think might have been going over the top, thats (IMO and obviously Clarke and Waners ) is what the DRS is for.

The shit decisions Eramus made afterwards have nothing to do with Clarkes referral and are completely his responsibility and international umpires should not get them wrong. The Clarke dismissal was ( in the trackers view ) less than half a ball from going over the top, no shame in the umpire not getting that wrong.

On a side note, when it was raining the other night and they showed the WI v Aus clash at the 'G, there was one plumb LBW that the umpire simply just fired him out and two close-ish run-outs that were not out, but close, where the umpires just shook the head "not-out". How refreshing that was to see.

But they do happen - always have always will, hence the ICC introduced the DRS to eliminate them. This was the intention for the DRS not 50/50 decisions they are supposed to be still in umpires hands - you win some close ones you lose some close ones.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Well said scoob. Can't blame people for not understanding what drs is in place for, when the actual cricketers don't know either. Mahela used a challenge in a recent test for a similar dismissal. Then herath got given out to a howler. People weren't overly concerned about drs that day.

[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?

[The Sleeping Giant]

Nothing wrong with the system if it's used for what it was meant for.

[scoob]

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.

[Lightning McQueen]

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.

8/10, nice post.

[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.

[scoob]

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.

[Lightning McQueen]

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.

I found it funny how they pumped Reiffel's tyres as an umpire and then bang, he want and made some howlers.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Another issue which will raise it's head again is the bats batsmen use. Watched some of the highlights from the India v England game, and I have never seen the ball go as fast to the boundary. Dhoni hit a straight one which came off the stumps at 45 degrees and still beat the fielder who was at mid off.

[MAY-Z]

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.

the icc encourage umpires by selecting them

the team are not going to come out and say that they thougt clarke was selfish are they

[daysofourlives]

Give it up Booney, your getting slaughtered and rightly so

[Lightning McQueen]

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'm sure Bailey isn't going to get up there and badmouth our national test skipper, he'd be straight on the Hodge scrapheap.

[Booney]

Give it up Booney, your getting slaughtered and rightly so

Sure, I'll listen to you....

You're* You are....