Thought bubbles on the DRS

In Test Matches

Automatically Review all dismissals

Allow the fielding team 4 unsuccessful reviews per innings

Allow the umpire to call a review

In JAMODIs

WGAF about JAMODIs

No, I think they should stick with 2 per innings. If we have 4 it slows the game down even more with speculative appeals. We don't want teams getting lucky with half-hearted reviews, they should only be encouraged to use it when they're reasonably certain.

Yeah, it's meant for howlers not speculative reviews, and it would take away from the game if every wicket was reviewed. Even reducing it to one per innings could make sense, so that teams save it for when they're really sure.

Might be an idea for an umpire to be able to use the technology, we have the regular no-ball checks already, but again it would dominate the game if every appeal was referred upstairs by the on-field umpire.

Not sure what's best. Every system has its flaws.

I'd like to say give more power of review back to the umps (so that it is not considered their weakness if they check) .... but the downsides of that are known, and clear.

I'd make it one review per team per innings. That would get rid of speculative reviews and make it so its only used for genuine howlers.

Neil D wrote:I'd make it one review per team per innings.  That would get rid of speculative reviews and make it so its only used for genuine howlers.

Although there are some reviews where there is inconclusive evidence, or once I remember a review where there was a nick but it turned out to be a no-ball so they lost the review (and an extra run to add insult to injury) anyway.

You'll never get rid of speculative reviews 100% - after the 3rd over of England's second innings Clarke was effectively down to one review but that didn't stop him gambling on England's key wicket of Bairstow.

1. No reviews should be allowed by the players.

2. The third umpire should review every dismissal.

3. If the third umpire thinks the on-field umpire may have erred (howler) when giving a "not-out" decision, he lets the on-field umpire know that he wants to take one look at it & if he believes it is required, further review. The speed of technology might need to be improved to prevent this costing too much time but if it was only used for howlers then that might not be the case. Players are to maintain their normal positions while this is happening & are not allowed to form a huddle.

4. Each team has an expert representative who supervises the operator of DRS technologies (particularly hawkeye) to make sure there is no manipulation of those technologies.

WideWally wrote:

4. Each team has an expert representative who supervises the operator of DRS technologies (particularly hawkeye) to make sure there is no manipulation of those technologies.

What hawkeye operator? Its just a computer system, you plug it in and it tracks the ball through the cameras.

Or should each country have their own second computer to track the first computer? Owl eye, Kestrel eye and Eagle Eye Cherry?

WW is convinced that some sneaky, cheating, cunning Englishman keeps manipulating hawkeye and the pitch map to England's benefit.

Who could each country appoint as their specialist eye?

West Indies = Rohan Kan-eye
England = Lord Hawke eye

Aye.

Who would use One Eye?

Gary 111 wrote:

WideWally wrote:

4. Each team has an expert representative who supervises the operator of DRS technologies (particularly hawkeye) to make sure there is no manipulation of those technologies.

What hawkeye operator? Its just a computer system, you plug it in and it tracks the ball through the cameras.

Or should each country have their own second computer to track the first computer? Owl eye, Kestrel eye and Eagle Eye Cherry?

the cameras are fixed and calibrated by humans. the placing of the stumps in the virtual 3-d field is also done by humans

It's time for neutral Hawkeye operators.

It would be better if they threw Hawkeye in the rubbish bin where it belongs.

I've just had a thought.

Introduce human-neutral umpires. Johnny 5 at one end, Wall-E at the other (see below). With their tank tracks, they could retreat appropriately to square leg at the end of an over.

Pump enough cricket input into them that they could make autonomous decisions.

They can also film and photograph everything that goes on, so they could consult themselves (each other, in borderline cases) where video or still evidence is required.

CASE SOLVED.

WideWally wrote:It would be better if they threw Hawkeye in the rubbish bin where it belongs.

Did Hawkeye change the result of this name in any way?

taipan wrote:

WideWally wrote:It would be better if they threw Hawkeye in the rubbish bin where it belongs.

Did Hawkeye change the result of this name in any way?

That is a strange question. The thread is about possible improvements to the DRS system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the test just played.

WideWally wrote:

taipan wrote:

WideWally wrote:It would be better if they threw Hawkeye in the rubbish bin where it belongs.

Did Hawkeye change the result of this name in any way?

What a strange question. The thread is about possible improvements to the DRS system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the test just played.

Quite right, I apologise. It was just with all the weird accusations floating around I made an immediate link to the test just completed.

My thought is to use it correctly and not for spurious hopes. Rewards shalt theneth be reapeth.

I don't think there's anything wrong with DRS ... it's the application and interpretation of it, not just by the players. All this umpire's call stuff is nonsense, something should not be out at one point in the match, and then not out later on in the match. I think there should be a definitive element to Hawkeye, even if it's like with the Hughes dismissal, where more than half the ball has pitched on, so must half the ball be interpreted to be hitting the stumps. Or make it 10% or 1% for all I care ... just make out OUT and not out NOT OUT. No ifs or maybes or yes if you're that guy, no if you're that guy, yes if I saw it, no if I didn't, etc.

I think the actual number of reviews is fine. It's just what happens after the review is called for. I would just be keen on the 'benefit of the doubt' nonsense, be it for batsman or umpire, being removed. I would like to see all marginal/inconclusive stumpings like that one with Agar simply given as OUT. If there's no conclusive evidence that somebody is not out, then they should simply be given OUT. No benefit of the doubt.

I would also correct that issue with the DRS where the third umpire is always going into it seeking a reason to support the on-field umpires initial call. The third umpire should have absolute power of veto, he should be making the decision all over again, as if he was seeing it for the first time. In fact, they should have a fourth umpire, locked in a dark room, seeing none of the match, who simply receives the footage of what happened, without bias of whether it was given out or not out, and he is then allowed to use the appropriate technology to determine whether the call is OUT or NOT OUT.

There. That's what I'd do you c**ts.

I think the umpire's call is a strange one, but it allows for the margin of error. What should happen for certain, say for the Rogers dismissal, is that the 3rd umpire should alert the on-field umpire that it's only just clipping and he may want to review his decision.

Brass Monkey wrote:I think the umpire's call is a strange one, but it allows for the margin of error. What should happen for certain, say for the Rogers dismissal, is that the 3rd umpire should alert the on-field umpire that it's only just clipping and he may want to review his decision.

I understand where you are coming from but think that might cause even more confusion.

Yeah, I suppose it would bring it more into question - they sort of tried that to start off with, IIRC.

Well, contrary to some on here I think they have Hawkeye about right. As the line of the mat is drawn through the middle of the outer two stumps the batsman already gets the benefit. And as you say the umpires choice gives a fair margin of error. I doubt that any would dispute that Hawkeye gets the pitch of the ball spot on. The problem seems to be with the predictive path which is basically what the umpire does with the naked eye anyway.

The major problem lies with captains making wrong referrals.

Yeah, just the general scrotum-pulling. It's better than without. How many whinges did I hear from the Indian commentators during the Australia series about bad decisions? Loads. They're blaming the umpires for being human, but get their hex bags out to ward off that 'technology' witchcraft.