bcci vindicated ?

Would she have any that have been jazzed on in a shit box?

It's for a friend.

he should go easy and not go all hardcore at slightest pretext.

spangler wrote:Would she have any that have been jazzed on in a shit box?

It's for a friend.

Yeah, why not. Anyting goes, so herhis pimp told me.

embee wrote:Put DRS back in the hands of the umpires

The umpires are on the ICC panel ...and the ICC should foot the bill for any technology needed at a Test

All out decisions to be reviewed by the tv ump (obvious dismissals still need to be a fair delivery)

Umpire can call for a review of a close decision ...

Fielding team can review two decisions for free (after umpire has said not close) ...and further reviews cost 10 runs ... " not out ...umpires call"  do not count as a used review ...

Overwhelming evidence required to overrule on field umpire

nice to see some sense from the worrier nation...embee to replace the bnlg

embee wrote:Put DRS back in the hands of the umpires

The umpires are on the ICC panel ...and the ICC should foot the bill for any technology needed at a Test

All out decisions to be reviewed by the tv ump (obvious dismissals still need to be a fair delivery)

Umpire can call for a review of a close decision ...

Fielding team can review two decisions for free (after umpire has said not close) ...and further reviews cost 10 runs ... " not out ...umpires call"  do not count as a used review ...

Overwhelming evidence required to overrule on field umpire

It'd take all day. They'd review absolutely everything, to be sure, just like they do now with run outs - even the ones quite obviously out by four yards on first viewing.

On field umpires would become obsolete as every adjudication will be made by a man in a box watching TV. Might as well have a hatstand at each end.

The best "solution" is to keep sides to one review per innings. For "howlers" - not the marginal nicks and LBWs that players gamble might fall in their favour on a good day. That's not what the system was brought in for. The technology isn't consistently accurate enough to pick up every tiny detail. But it sure can detect a ball that pitched half a foot outside leg stump or a delivery that came off the arm guard not the glove.

Take the speculative reviews out of the equation by giving teams just the one chance to challenge a decision - so they'd better be damn sure that they use it wisely.

A Test match is played over 5 days ...are we really going to notice a few delays for decision reviews?

the on field umps wont review everything ...because the fielding team has a back up review...the on field umps original decision is to stand unless overwhelmingly wrong

The main factors they need to work on is that they get the reviews correct and that every decision in every innings is able to be reviewed

Or the off field ump could be allowed to say, "Back up 30 secs sport. I think you just made a clanger".

you can add that to the review process too

Shane Watson wants world cricket's powerbrokers to scrap the controversial Decision Review System - and he's not just saying that because he's one of the worst at using it.
''To me, DRS is like dissent,'' the Australian all-rounder said. ''You are saying, 'That's a bad decision, that's out'. And then you refer it. DRS came in for the one a player hacks onto his leg and it's given out lbw, or it's definitely pitched outside leg stump.
''I don't agree with it because, one, I am horrendous at it, but two, because umpires are there to make decisions. And the decision is final. That's what you learn growing up, whether you are happy with it or not.''
The Australians struggled with the use of video referrals at critical times during the last Ashes series, with Watson failing - on all but one occasion - to successfully challenge the umpire's initial call.
Advertisement
It opened him up to criticism that he was being selfish as he attempted to preserve his wicket. ''That's what people think, 'He's being selfish','' he said. ''It wasn't ideal how I used it and got it wrong. I wouldn't have gone for it if I thought it was blatantly out. It's a punt, even if you definitely think you're not out, there's still a chance. Even some caught behind decisions; some guys thought they definitely didn't hit it, and they were given out.
''I knew, from the backlash I heard through other people, that I'd prefer to just go out and not worry about it [challenging]. People branding me certain ways because I am trying to use DRS … As a top-order batsman, you think you're not out and then you see the replay and go, 'Oh, that's closer than I thought'. In the end, I make light of it because it wasn't ideal.''
With that in mind, Watson says he backed England fast bowler Stuart Broad's decision to not walk after edging a delivery in the first Test that was not detected by umpire Aleem Dar.
''It's difficult for him, because the umpires are there to make a decision,'' Watson said. ''I wouldn't walk because I enjoy batting. I don't want to go. If I'm given not out, and I'm a chance of batting longer, I'm not going anywhere.''


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/scrap-drs-says-one-who-gets-it-wrong-20131115-2xmet.html#ixzz2knNUJzxx

he makes many good points. It is part of cricketing culture, not to question the umpire. Now DRS turns in on the head and umpires are questioned repeatedly. Sometimes you feel for the umpires, who may otherwise be very senior but their errors are glaringly exposed in front of the world. I feel that is in appropriate.

What have you done with the real bucky?