India vindicated in opposition of DRS- Shastri

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/marred-ashes-tests-leave-india-feeling-vindicated-on-decision-review-system-20130725-2qklo.html

The man is a c*nt. EPIC c*nt.

And Darryl Harper, the man who utterly embarrassed himself in the 2009 West Indies v England series by making some shocking DRS decisions as third umpire, is also speaking out against it. Incompetent c*nt.

THe technology isn't perfect, but apart from the Agar dismissal at Lord's, it's been human error rather than the technology itself that's caused the problems. Find better humans FFS!

And ban India.

Inevitable. Surprised it took so long for him to shoot off, to be honest. He is a qunt.

Given all the controversies, DRS really could be improved upon. It's become a skill rather than just being about getting the correct decision. That said, Watson is out.

I still think dedicated 3rd umpires are the answer.

taipan wrote:I still think dedicated 3rd umpires are the answer.

Bit it doesn't take a genius to be a third umpire. Most of us could do it no problem. You see the evidence presented to you on the screen, you take into account the on field umpire's original decision, and you make a pragmatic decision of your own.

The simple principle should be- Look for every reason to UPHOLD the on field umpire's original decision, not for every reason to reverse it.

Henry wrote:look for every reason to uphold the on-field umpire's decision

I guess that's why they decided as they did on the Trott dismissal

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:I still think dedicated 3rd umpires are the answer.

Bit it doesn't take a genius to be a third umpire. Most of us could do it no problem. You see the evidence presented to you on the screen, you take into account the on field umpire's original decision, and you make a pragmatic decision of your own.

The simple principle should be- Look for every reason to UPHOLD the on field umpire's original decision, not for every reason to reverse it.

Well, for whatever reason they seem to struggle with it.

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:look for every reason to uphold the on-field umpire's decision

I guess that's why they decided as they did on the Trott dismissal

A suspected inside edge on the replay, and an original not out call on the field. If I was Aleem Dar I would have thumped Erasmus at the end of play.

the point being that the turd umpire did in that instance stick with the original decision that was made on the field

there's just been too many umpiring errors, on the field and off

both ways

lardbucket wrote:the point being that the turd umpire did in that instance stick with the original decision that was made on the field

there's just been too many umpiring errors, on the field and off

both ways

Huh? No he didn't. I thought you were being sarcastic. Dar gave it not out, Australia reviewed it, and Erasmus overturned it despite there being clear signs there was an inside edge onto the pad. You are talking about Trott in the second innings at Trent Bridge, right?

In the rugby Ive watched the onfield ref has asked the TMO to look at asomething he wasnt sure about

did he ground it? ...was there a forward pass? ....blah blah blah

I dont see that communication with the DRS because its the players wanting a review

The Trott decision would have stood if Dar had been able to say to the thirdy his reason for giving it not out was he smashed it

This is ridiculous. It's still the humans who are making the errors.

The ICC says that without DRS, 92% of decisions are correctly given by the umpire, with DRS, 97%.

How Shastri can argue that as it's not 100% then it would be better to forgo the improvement for a worse decision rate is anybody's guess.

Well basically Shastri speaks 99.99% bullshit. He's working hard to get it up.

The bloke is one of the biggest thunderqunts in cricket. To think I used to like him. I'm going for a f*cking shower.

In Rugby League and AFL I have seen some terrible third umpire decisions.

So it's not just limited to cricket.

Shastri and Sunny are paid by the BCCI to give "commentary" that is pro-BCCI.

Everything he says can be ignored.

The umpires on the elite panel should all be instructed to give Indian batsmen out whenever any opposition bowler appeals, and to deny every appeal possible made by the Indian bowlers ... they'd come around eventually.

lardbucket wrote:The umpires on the elite panel should all be instructed to give Indian batsmen out whenever any opposition bowler appeals, and to deny every appeal possible made by the Indian bowlers ... they'd come around eventually.

aye


and when the poms come out here....the pitches will be hard and bouncy....Oz bowlers will be allowed to bowl full full bungers at Jimmeh and Lady Di ... and not one one pom supporter will be allowed admission into the ground...we'll still be thrashed but it would be hella funny

krikri wrote:The ICC says that without DRS, 92% of decisions are correctly given by the umpire, with DRS, 97%.

How Shastri can argue that as it's not 100% then it would be better to forgo the improvement for a worse decision rate is anybody's guess.

This, basically.

We got some poor outcomes at Trent Bridge simply because one side used all their reviews up by gambling on marginal calls.

As alluded to above, the 'umpires call' decision is the one that needs a tinker. If reviews are not lost when the impact is 'umpires call' that might be better. Worth a try.

Oh, and better umpiring in the middle.

Basically India don't want it because they reckon men around the bat and excessive appealing for bat/pads and LBWs at home will give them more wrong decisions in their favour.

Well it's worked for them for years.

krikri wrote:The ICC says that without DRS, 92% of decisions are correctly given by the umpire, with DRS, 97%.

I'm not sure where these stats come from, and frankly I doubt they'd hold up for this series.

Of course the umpires have some advantages in that many dismissals *bowled, caught at point) aren't remotely contentious, and that gets their figures up, but it doesn't seem that they've performed well on the lbw's, thin snicks, and bat pads through many of the recent series. Do these figures only detail the 'out' calls, and state that 92-97% of them are correct, or do these figures reflect all appeals (including those given 'not out')? It'd be reasonably easy to check the former; to check on the latter would require perusal of all the commentary and detailed analysis of all the 'not out' calls.

For mine, watching the poms jump up and down in delight and squeal like schoolgirls when they thought DRS showed that Rogers was out when it didn't made DRS worthwhile.

Aye, Broad's schoolgirlish display should be made into a gif by someone with the appropriate expertise. He looked like a 12 year old who'd just got her push up bra autographed by Justin Beiber.