England's Summer Of Cricket against New Zealand and AUSTRALIA!

[Harv]

This was clear human error though. The system is fine and has been proven beyond question to increase the number of correct decisions. There isn't even a debate about that. I don;t get this argument that the system has to be 100% or not used at all. That's crazy.

Whats the point of it then. Either get the cunting decisions right or **** it off. The video clearly shows he hit the pad and was nowhere near the ball.

I hope someone farts on the third umpires ****ing pillow and the prick gets pink eye.

****!!

[Shaggy]

This was clear human error though. The system is fine and has been proven beyond question to increase the number of correct decisions. There isn't even a debate about that. I don;t get this argument that the system has to be 100% or not used at all. That's crazy.

There's not even an argument.

[Hollowman]

i've not seen it - i've only read what is on here and the BBC live text

but i'm 100% convinced he was out

A perfectly civilised position to take.

[PTP]

A perfectly civilised position to take.

- at the end of the day the umpire and 3rd umpire are more qualified than any of us to make the decisions, so we've got to just bow down to their experience

[Hollowman]

Whats the point of it then. Either get the cunting decisions right or **** it off. The video clearly shows he hit the pad and was nowhere near the ball.

You can't judge the system on one decision. Or even two (this one and the Trott one, which I didn;t see quite as many tears about) are the only egregious decisions. I supported the Agar call fully.

The point of the system is clear - since its inception it has increased the number of correct decisions by something like 7%.

Throwing away that significant improvement because isolated bad decisions are still made is idiotic.

[Sarb]

But it's still a system prone to human error isn't it?

And I still don't fully believe in it's prediction of ball trajectory/direction either. A ball can react totally differently off the pitch, through the air etc. Who really knows if a ball was going to hit the stumps for example?!


Someone wrote a good article on it a couple of weeks ago, Gilchrist I think. Will try and dig it out

[Shaggy]

Also if there was no DRS Khawaja would still be out! Nothing to do with DRS, the umpire(s) just ****ed up.

[Hollowman]

The hawkeye ball trajectory is subject to a massive error correction though - more than half the ball has to be going against the decision given to overturn it.

And I've always thought that argument was insane - by definition, an LBW ball doesn't pass the leg, doesn't hit the wicket. So saying that Hawkeye is some sort of conjuring trick when umpires have to determine the flight of the ball with the naked eye seems like a nonsense argument to me.

[Shaggy]

The hawkeye ball trajectory is subject to a massive error correction though - more than half the ball has to be going against the decision given to overturn it.

And I've always thought that argument was insane - by definition, an LBW ball doesn't pass the leg, doesn't hit the wicket. So saying that Hawkeye is some sort of conjuring trick when umpires have to determine the flight of the ball with the naked eye seems like a nonsense argument to me.

[Hollowman]

And every system is still open to human error. Just like the sport is. What do people want, a game played by robots and refereed by robots to ensure zero errors?

You do what you can to improve the process you have, and DRS clearly and demonstrably improves the overall process. No question.

[Harv]

You can't judge the system on one decision. Or even two (this one and the Trott one, which I didn;t see quite as many tears about) are the only egregious decisions. I supported the Agar call fully.

The point of the system is clear - since its inception it has increased the number of correct decisions by something like 7%.

Throwing away that significant improvement because isolated bad decisions are still made is idiotic.

Well there has to be a better way to use it then. Not only have we lost a wicket but we've lost a review too now.

Why dont they implement some sort of sensors on bat edges that is full proof and crease technology.

....or they could just leave the game as it was for 100 + years.

[Sarb]

Also if there was no DRS Khawaja would still be out! Nothing to do with DRS, the umpire(s) just ****ed up.

Yeah I know that. But what I'm saying is that the system still has human input so prone to human error. It's pretty much the same with bringing in video technology to football. Referees have so many differing/varying interpretations of the rules that what's the point. You still aren't going to get consistency

In this instance there's enough room for error for the decision to be overturned. He hasn't done it. Due to it being a video system and incorrect decisions being made then more questions are going to be raised especially when wrong decisions are clearly made.

Just don't agree with the system. Maybe they need to limit it in use. If the wrong decision carry on then it's going to get binned I imagine

[Shaggy]

Kevin Rudd @KRuddMP
I've just sat down to watch the test. That was one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever seen. KRudd

[Sarb]

The DRS is not the solution, it's part of the problemNot only does the review system rob the game of spontaneity and drama, it does not get rid of the mistakes it was created to eradicate

Adam Gilchrist

July 17, 2013

Comments: 233 | Text size: A | A

Heartbreak at Edgbaston in 2005: the DRS has put paid to the spontaneous emotion of moments like this © Getty Images

Enlarge

Related LinksBlogs : The DRS problem: it's not the humans
Blogs : If Gilchrist is good, is Waugh bad?
Sambit Bal : How about demanding honesty from the players?
Blogs : It's the humans, silly
Blogs : Don't blame the DRS
The Short Stuff : 'An appalling piece of umpiring'
News : Clarke draws line under Broad debate
Brydon Coverdale : Sins of omission are no sins at all
David Hopps : Wrong place, wrong time, wrong call
In Focus: Technology in cricket
Players/Officials: Ashton Agar | Michael Clarke | Steve Harmison | Michael Kasprowicz
Matches: England v Australia at Nottingham
Series/Tournaments: Australia tour of England and Scotland
Teams: Australia


In a week of fantastic Test cricket filled with high drama and controversy, it was inevitable - given one of those controversies was over someone walking, or not walking - that I was drawn into the debate.

That was exacerbated when an idiot who was pretending to be me on Twitter, under a fake account, started to be quoted in newspaper articles as me. To clarify: I have never had a Twitter account and still don't, so any accounts claiming to be me are fake.

Despite the fact that I was a walker, I don't judge any player, past or present, who chooses a different approach. However, I believe the Trent Bridge Test focused the light clearly on the Decision Review System, and overall I think the game is poorer for its inclusion.

The spontaneity and drama, the magic and intrigue that Test cricket always possessed has been lost. The reality and finality of seeing the umpire's finger raised has been erased, because everyone now looks to the batsman or fielding captain to see their response.

Compare the way the Trent Bridge Test ended on Sunday with the memorable scenes at Edgbaston in 2005, when in a similar result Australia fell agonisingly short of the target. Michael Kasprowicz was the last man out, caught behind off Steve Harmison, and if the DRS had been in place, we would probably still be looking at the tape because I don't think anyone really knows even now whether it was out or not. That's fine: I have no problem with the decision that was made.

I was part of the Australian team on that occasion and we, and the whole nation, ended up on the losing side in an incredible match. But what a magical finish it was for cricket. There was no possibility of that instant being lost, whereas now those split-second moments and the ensuing few seconds are quite different. The scenes that played out at Trent Bridge won't be remembered in the same way as those from Edgbaston.

In my opinion, the game is poorer for that. I don't say that because the decision to give Brad Haddin out caught-behind cost Australia a Test match. I understand the proposed benefits of technology eradicating umpiring errors but this Test match, which was full of wonderful technique and skill and fight, showed quite glaringly that the errors are still occurring.

I have always found it a frustration that under the DRS a player can question an umpire's decision. One of the strongest elements of the spirit of any sport is not questioning the umpires or referees. We now have a situation where players can do that, albeit limited times. That doesn't sit comfortably with me. Yes, technology is here, but perhaps a Test match like this has gone a long way to indicate that the umpires need to have full control as to when a decision is reviewed, rather than the players.




One of the strongest elements of the spirit of any sport is not questioning the umpires or referees. We now have a situation where players can do that





For the first time, I'm starting to understand India's reluctance to go with the system. It's not a remedy that seems to have cured the problem. In fact, it may even have become more of a problem. Listening to Michael Clarke talk about using his reviews poorly, it has certainly become more of a headache for captains.

It was an outstanding Test match, the kind of hard-fought Test I remember watching when I was growing up. But I feel technology took something away from the game, for both the teams and for the spectators.

The only sport I've seen where technology has really enhanced the sport - and they're getting it right - is tennis. The review system in tennis is adding to the spectacle and the occasion. It's so quick, and in fact it has probably sped the game up because we don't have players spending time questioning the umpire's call. They just refer it and the decision is made quickly. But those are line decisions, like run-outs in cricket, not catches or lbws. Perhaps cricket's DRS needs to be put on the back-burner until a better system is found.

Despite Australia's loss, there is plenty for the team to take from Trent Bridge into this week's Lord's Test. There was strong evidence the players were really united in their effort and were totally committed to doing whatever the team required. Those are good signs. It's going to be very tough, but I think what we saw there was the foundation of a group that has the potential to succeed.

It was so refreshing to see Ashton Agar's approach to Test cricket. What spoke volumes, as much as the 98 runs and two wickets and his cool head, was his reaction on getting out: the disappointed smile and then his interaction with his family, apologising to them for not getting a hundred. It was a wonderful and uninhibited approach from a player who doesn't expect anything from the game, and I don't expect that will change just because of the way he played at Trent Bridge.

Agar and the rest of the lower half of the order showed that if you watch the ball closely and occupy the crease, there will be runs on offer in this series. There's a position or two in the batting line-up that might come under scrutiny. I think Ed Cowan is the one who will feel the heat the most. But he has just been moved to a new position from anything else he's been asked to do in Test cricket, so one more opportunity at Lord's would allow him to feel he's had a fair crack at No. 3. The top six know they have to step up and be the predominant run scorers and not leave it to the bottom five.

The Australians will be gutted but it's a good thing that there is such a quick turnaround between Tests. There has to be a binding effect for a group like that, to know they were so close to achieving success together. I wouldn't expect much change in the team for Lord's. Despite the result, they have built up a nice unit and there is a bit of momentum - a refreshing change from what we have seen recently.

Adam Gilchrist was speaking to Brydon Coverdale

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine...ry/651695.html

[Hollowman]

Or they could continually strive to improve the rate of correct decisions, which has been trending upward ever since DRS came in. Oh, they are doing that.

Jesus. Did any Englishman make as much fuss over Trott's bull**** decision? If you're good enough, you level out occasional howlers yourself.

If you're ****, you don't.