Print

[tim2000s]

Interesting listening to Mcgrath and Gilchrist yesterday on TMS. Both were saying that they felt that DRS had gone too far in the wrong direction and it was affecting the on-field umpires in the wrong way, even though Mcgrath has historically supported it.

Both seemed to think that it was less the technology and more the way in which it could be used. The current mechanism allows for opportunistic use, where as, if for example, each team had only one DRS review, it might change the way they use it, electing only to use it when there was an obvious mistake . Listening to Phil Tufnell later in the day, they were trying to determine what an obvious mistake might be, and the answer they concluded was that it was any occasion where the wrong decision was made...

The question is, how do you think that DRS should be used? Should it be used? Should we go back to old-fashioned cricket with only the on field umpires? Should you have one review per player? One per side? What's the best approach to take?

[potzy248]

Give the power back to the umpires.
If there is a clear howler then the 3rd umpire should intervene.
As you say the DRS is being used as a lifeline with the batsman crossing his fingers as he waits for the decision.
 Aussies have shown how selfish they are by using it when they are clearly out. Complete waste of time IMO.

[joeljonno]

I like it. I think it is a useful tool.

It is getting stick because the Aussies are using it poorly and the English quite well.

There are obvious human-errors and some technical issues with hot-spot that have gone against DRS recently but what would have happened if it wasn't there. The torals would have been higher and the possibility that both games would have ended in draws.

[ajmw89]

1 review only.  That will stop the opportunistic punts.  England have a very good system going and use it sensibly when fielding, as opposed to Aus.  It is different for the batting team, but I suspect with 1 review, it would only be used in cases of a batsman given caught behind when he hasn't hit it or given lbw when he has hit the ball.

[MD2812]

1 review with a clause that if you review an LBW decision and it goes to umpires call the decision remains the same but you don't lose the review.

[Manormanic]

I think two is fine. It does allow for the odd opportunistic or tactical review but I don't actually mind that so much as it adds to the drama of what is supposed to be the premier form of the game and the right decision is made in the end, and in most instances the risk of not having one when you need it outweighs the desire to gamble early.  I also think that recent change of margin in favour of the umpires original call is a good thing.

In this series, what we have seen is that England play as a team and review only when they are sure they have a chance of the call being changed, whereas Australia play as a bunch of individuals and want THEIR decision reviewed come what may.  Shane Watson, for example, has never met a decision he didn;t want to review...

[smokem]

1 review with a clause that if you review an LBW decision and it goes to umpires call the decision remains the same but you don't lose the review.

Yeh I thought about this myself. But if it's plumb and the on-field ump gave it out, isn't it still umpire's call if the batsman asked for a review?

[Buzz]

The issues in this series haven't been with the technology - they have been the decisions made by the 3rd umpire where they have consistently made mistakes, which are odd - reference Agar and Trotts' dismissals from this and the last test.

The way people use the DRS is up to them, they understand the risks - I don't care if a team use it for speculative decision or wait for dead certainties. I just want to see the right decision being made - so if there is no hotspot mark then the guy is not out!

There are still the issues about claiming catches (Ian Bell on 3) and others but it isn't the system that is broken, it is the way the umpires are using it (not even the players...)

[SelectCricket]

I agree with MD2812, I also think that when the fielding side review a not out and it's given not out on umpire's call, I still believe they should keep that review and not lose one because at the end of the day they were still right in the way of it was hitting the stumps..

[Dhiraj]

Old fashioned cricket with on field umpires. 3rd umpire to intervene in case of inside edge LBW's, catches and out of a no ball.
Way too much money in the game today on unnecessary things!!

[magicman84]

Its just the fact they don't seem to be using the technology correctly. If the 3rd umpire had used it the way it should we would not be having this debate.

[Jacky]

I think DRS should be left to the umpires domaine, this means if the on field umpire has made a shocker (Broads decision), then the third umpire tells him to over turn it via and audio ear piece.

[MD2812]

Yeh I thought about this myself. But if it's plumb and the on-field ump gave it out, isn't it still umpire's call if the batsman asked for a review?

If more than half the ball is hitting the stumps it shows up as "Wicket:hitting" rather than "Wicket:Umpire's call"

[Dan W]

You can't uninvent things and I wouldn't want to be increasingly reliant on Umpires who, in fairness, can be pretty rubbish) considering they're supposed the best in the world at what they do).

I like the fact the games end more accurately. A win isn't as cherished if it's down to a mistake, and a loss made more unbearable.

[stevie_94_]

Get the ICC to pay for it and not the broadcasters or individual boards, because otherwise we get situations like with Trott, when the cameraman had switched to showing the previous root dismissal so could not record the next ball. Also standardize it, instead of having what is it 'eagle eye' in aus have one standard company that does world wide and force India to use it. If they dont sanction them for each test and ODI its not used in.
On its use during the game I feel that two decisions is fine, but that there should be an unlimited number of umpires reviews. If the umpire isnt 100% sure of his decision then he should be able to ask for a review as well