Usman Khwaja b. DRS

the ashes
T3
D1
 
Usman Khwaja b. DRS
 
DRS gets his customary minimum one victim per inning.....that's 10% of the wickets gobbled up by this very potent wicket taker...the .DRS.

he is taking wickets.....but he's driving nails in his own coffin..this guy DRS

Aren't you missing the obvious point that if there was no DRS, it would have still been out? Or is that too much for you to comprehend?

Duty281 wrote:Aren't you missing the obvious point that if there was no DRS, it would have still been out? Or is that too much for you to comprehend?

 
 
ha ha......any amount of twists, turns convoluted logic....spiralled arguments, play on words  ain't gonna pull DRS of this mess that it is sinking in with every passing inning. 

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Aren't you missing the obvious point that if there was no DRS, it would have still been out? Or is that too much for you to comprehend?

ha ha......any amount of twists, turns convoluted logic....spiralled arguments, play on words  ain't gonna pull DRS of this mess that it is sinking in

That isn't any convoluted logic. If there was no DRS, it would have still been out.

Any serious cricket fan, or anyone with a drop of common sense, will recognise it was the error of the 3rd umpire, not the technology.

don't be surprised if with an outside chance DRS gets canned for the 4th test....
 
I can bet anything in this form DRS will not make it to the next round of ashes series in aus

The only change possible for DRS, not in this series though, is the possible removal of Hotspot.

Absolutely no problems with DRS thus far in this Test. Only backward cricket nations like India don't want it.

Duty281 wrote:The only change possible for DRS, not in this series though, is the possible removal of Hotspot.

Absolutely no problems with DRS thus far in this Test. Only backward cricket nations like India don't want it.

 
LOL....there is a risk of "mass regression"...more and more nations arer likely to turn backward

Well any sensible person would see there's been no problem with DRS in this Test so far.

Duty281 wrote:Well any sensible person would see there's been no problem with DRS in this Test so far.

yes Duty my friend......you are right this world is so full of foolish and "insensible" folks

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well any sensible person would see there's been no problem with DRS in this Test so far.

yes Duty my friend......you are right this world is so full of foolish and "insensible" folks

I know not one person other than yourself that thinks there's been a problem with DRS in this Test match.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well any sensible person would see there's been no problem with DRS in this Test so far.

yes Duty my friend......you are right this world is so full of foolish and "insensible" folks

I know not one person other than yourself that thinks there's been a problem with DRS in this Test match.

yeah only one person thinks so...and as a consequence DRS will change massively.

thanks for conferring godly status on me

I think to say "there is nothing wrong with DRS, the problem is the human error" over and over again is to hide your head in the sand personally. You wish to entirely separate the technology used in DRS from the human component, but DRS, because of the way it has been set up, as a system has both the technology and the human component. And at the moment, the system as a whole isn't working, or at least not optimally (it works to some extent, because it still does more good than harm), because it is not correcting the mistakes it was introduced to correct. For whatever reason (human error, unclear guidelines, etc.) it is not doing its job at the moment.

Mike Selig wrote:I think to say "there is nothing wrong with DRS, the problem is the human error" over and over again is to hide your head in the sand personally. You wish to entirely separate the technology used in DRS from the human component, but DRS, because of the way it has been set up, as a system has both the technology and the human component. And at the moment, the system as a whole isn't working, or at least not optimally (it works to some extent, because it still does more good than harm), because it is not correcting the mistakes it was introduced to correct. For whatever reason (human error, unclear guidelines, etc.) it is not doing its job at the moment.  

it doesn't matter whether the human made the error is using technology
OR the technology failed...whihc has also been the cases in this series.

DRS FAILED is the net resultant....how the world looks at....at an astounding minum success rate pf 10% dismissals per inning:laughing: 

Mike Selig wrote:I think to say "there is nothing wrong with DRS, the problem is the human error" over and over again is to hide your head in the sand personally. You wish to entirely separate the technology used in DRS from the human component, but DRS, because of the way it has been set up, as a system has both the technology and the human component. And at the moment, the system as a whole isn't working, or at least not optimally (it works to some extent, because it still does more good than harm), because it is not correcting the mistakes it was introduced to correct. For whatever reason (human error, unclear guidelines, etc.) it is not doing its job at the moment.  

+1

Not sure where this 10% figure comes from. Using hyperbole does little to advance your case.

From where I'm standing the only dismissals where DRS has actually contributed negatively are the Trott and the Khawaja ones. I guess you could argue Hughes or even Agar if you really wanted to, but that's still 4 dismissals in... 7 innings.

Technically, it was Khawaja b. DRS C. Prior You can't be bowled by DRS.

Mike Selig wrote:Not sure where this 10% figure comes from. Using hyperbole does little to advance your case.

From where I'm standing the only dismissals where DRS has actually contributed negatively are the Trott and the Khawaja ones. I guess you could argue Hughes or even Agar if you really wanted to, but that's still 4 dismissals in... 7 innings.

 
DRS/ 3rd umpire/ technology calls all included in the package.
 
the reactions to this DRS dismissal.....and especially for my friend Duty.......the list of insensible and foolish
 
 
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/657361.html
 
Usman Khawaja's dismissal before lunch at Old Trafford, adjudged caught behind after the on-field umpire's call was reviewed and upheld, has triggered an outpouring of furious tweets from former players and even the Australian prime minister. Here's a selection:
Kevin Rudd: "That was one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever seen" © PA Photos
 
 
"I've just sat down to watch the test. That was one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever seen. KRudd"
Kevin Rudd, Australian prime minister

"Usman Khawaja has every right to knock on the umpires door over lunch & just ask HOW?"
Tom Moody, former Australia batsman

"That is a ridiculous decision by both the on & off field umpires. DRS creating yet more controversy. Any wonder players don't walk!"
Alec Stewart, former England captain

"And people say you should Walk .... No chance when you get decisions like that...."
Michael Vaughan, former England captain

"DRS was introduced to eradicate the human howlers...humans are out to prove that no technology can eliminate human errors."
Aakash Chopra, former India batsman

"Umpires protecting each other is the main reason DRS is causing controversy!"
Scott Styris, former New Zealand allrounder

"Shocking decision to give #usmanKhwaja out. What is the technology there for? Umpires may need a trip to specsavers n get a hearing aid."
Azhar Mahmood, former Pakistan allrounder

"Thing to remember is that without DRS we would still be saying that was a shocking decision. Not the system's fault but those operating it."
Steve James, former England batsman


"Now that's b.ull-shyytee !!! Sorry ... Now you all know why I hate DRS!  b.ull-shyytee."
Dean Jones, former Australia batsman.

"It's really quite obvious why we end up enslaved to robots in the future."
Jarrod Kimber, ESPNcricinfo

"just saw the khawaja dismissal. oh dear. you dream of playing the ashes and this is what you get...."
Harsha Bhogle, commentator and ESPNcricinfo columnist
 
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23516909
Legendary Australia leg-spinner Warne added: "That's a shocker, that's an absolute shocking decision."

The decision review system has been under constant scrutiny during the Ashes following a series of controversial decisions

KP_fan, what you're struggling to grasp is this:

The original decision was out. If there was no DRS, it would have remained out. And about 4 of those quotes back up what I said.

Nobody is arguing (I hope) that the Khawaja decision was anything short of poor (although I worry about how much cricket Kevin backstabbing Rudd has watched - personally the Khawaja decision would not make my top 30 of umpiring howlers, and it's not even the worse call of the series so far). However you have claimed 10% of dismissals per innings due to DRS. Could you for once answer the question and tell me which other dismissals apart from Trott and Khawaja you put into that category?

Duty281 wrote:KP_fan, what you're struggling to grasp is this:

The original decision was out. If there was no DRS, it would have remained out. And about 4 of those quotes back up what I said.

 
i will try to answer you and Mike selig throuhg this post...
 
it's not only  about when DRS was called( and allowed to be called)...and gave a wrong answer.....
 
the issue here is much broader.... when bad decisions got throuh.... inspite of having technology...because of :
1) technology error
2) 3rd umpire errors
3) inconsistent implemntation laws from ICC  limiting the usage of technology to correct errors
 
 
and this would mean agar's stumping, smith's grassed catch, Broad's daylight robbery, Roger's groin-before-wkt, Hughes's lbw pitching putside ( calibration issue) and probably a few more that I missed...that should be avoided .
 
the whole gamut of bad decisions because of combinations of items 1) to 3) are to be looked together....and are making DRS controversial and hence untenable.
 
and I predict again......it won't last in it's current form until next ashes.
items 3) most defnitely..... and 2) to a great extent will be altered

Is it like when you predicted that only rain would save England from defeat against New Zealand, only for England to win by 200-odd runs?

Agnew on DRS writing on BBC

A lot of the newspaper headlines will be about the decision review system again and it is very frustrating and disappointing that in an Ashes Test we are talking about something that should only be a minor aspect of the contest.

I have always felt that the game has pushed DRS too quickly, too soon. I have gone a bit quiet on that over the last couple of years because it is here and it is pointless to rail against technology that is being used.

But this series has shown there are still issues with it technically and in terms of its implementation by umpires. The TV umpire has to find good reasons to overturn the on-field decision and in the case of Khawaja's dismissal there were plenty.

There were several instances on Thursday that led you to believe there are still issues with DRS. Hot Spot did not seem to reveal itself at all, and there were strange things going on with the 'Snickometer' marks, which were not matching up to where the sound looked like it was being made.

DRS is not satisfactory at the moment and, unless it is going to be 100% accurate, what is the point of it? It is still causing all these arguments and it was supposed to come in and kill the arguments stone dead.

Test Match Special analysis
Alec Stewart
Ex-England captain & Test Match Special summariser "Ridiculous decisions by both the on and off-field umpires. DRS is creating yet more controversy. Is it any wonder players don't walk?"

With each passing day of this Ashes series, India, who have taken a lot of stick for their anti-DRS stance, have been proved to be more and more right. It is just not working properly.

The authorities will not withdraw it but they are going to have to do something about it pretty quickly because it is losing credibility - and once it loses credibility there are going to be more problems.

Oh dear K_P fan.  

I am a Scotsman and even I understand that without DRS Khawaja would still have been out (umpire's decision).

Let's look at the facts here. It was TWO human errors that caused an awful decision. One by the onfield umpire and the second by the third umpire by not using the tools available to him to overturn the decision - that is nothing more than rank misuse of DRS technology and no fault of the technology. Even messrs Botham and Warne (watching it unfold) could see through the technology that the decision should have been overturned but crucially those that made the final decision erred.

We have seen DRS come under the spotlight in this series but it is not the technology that is erring but the human decision makers. That is what needs addressing here. The technology is fine the humans operating it are in error.

I do recall the irony in the recent India/England series when Indian batsmen were angry at some decisions - secretly I bet they would have loved to review it.

See this is why people get annoyed with you when trying to debate, because you can't just say "I was wrong" instead you repeat your points ad infinum and shift your argument.

It's strange because your first two messages on the subject said "DRS has claimed 10% of dismissals per innings". You then try to backtrack by saying that you weren't only talking about DRS, and then mentioning the Agar stumping, which is clearly not a dismissal (because it was given not out) and IMO not incorrect anyway (but that is besides the point).

Had you said "due to a combination of factors including the use of DRS, there has been an error rate of about 10% in decision making in this series" you would have had a point (the actual statistics show between 90 and 95% of correct decisions depending on interpretation, so you wouldn't be far off). Instead, you opted for the headline of "DRS claims 10% of dismissals" and then got defensive and backtracked when it was pointed out that this was not the case.

A simple "my original statement was incomplete/out of context/mistaken/deliberately exaggerated to draw attention(*)" would suffice in this case.

As to Agnew, there is a simple answer to the question "unless [DRS] is going to be 100% accurate, what is the point of it?"
Because regardless of its faults, it still produces more accurate decisions than you would have without it. As I said after the first test, not to do something good because it isn't perfect is a perverse way of reasoning.

(*) delete or modify as appropriate

Mike Selig wrote:See this is why people get annoyed with you when trying to debate, because you can't just say "I was wrong" instead you repeat your points ad infinum and shift your argument.

It's strange because your first two messages on the subject said "DRS has claimed 10% of dismissals per innings". You then try to backtrack by saying that you weren't only talking about DRS, and then mentioning the Agar stumping, which is clearly not a dismissal (because it was given not out) and IMO not incorrect anyway (but that is besides the point).

Had you said "due to a combination of factors including the use of DRS, there has been an error rate of about 10% in decision making in this series" you would have had a point (the actual statistics show between 90 and 95% of correct decisions depending on interpretation, so you wouldn't be far off). Instead, you opted for the headline of "DRS claims 10% of dismissals" and then got defensive and backtracked when it was pointed out that this was not the case.

A simple "my original statement was incomplete/out of context/mistaken/deliberately exaggerated to draw attention(*)" would suffice in this case.

As to Agnew, there is a simple answer to the question "unless [DRS] is going to be 100% accurate, what is the point of it?"
Because regardless of its faults, it still produces more accurate decisions than you would have without it. As I said after the first test, not to do something good because it isn't perfect is a perverse way of reasoning.

(*) delete or modify as appropriate

Spot on Mike.

If DRS rectifies just one wrong decision per test (normally much more than that) then it sure beats an old duffer of an umpire making a completely wrong decision and having to stick with it a la like India want.

I know there is the Mike way of arguing against KPF's 10 % claims with lots of logic. But as Mike himself put it, there is a different underlying logic to that statement/argument if we take out the stronger sense in which it is put.
And many posters here seem to forget that UDRS, and the technology involved are not one and the same. And I don't think the argument that technology is working fine and it is only human error that is doing DRS in. We all know what happened with the Trott wicket. We could argue that it happened because the person in control was not focused. But how do we explain hotspot not really working well today? Or for that matter, during most of the series?
The umpire's call system has brought about very confusing inconsistencies to the UDRS that can undermine its credibility among players as well as supporters. There is serious room for improvement as far as the technology is concerned.
There is no point hiding behind stats, you can't wish away the issues with DRS with stats as the ICC seems to be doing these. And of course, they should improve the umpire's training program. The ICC need to act, and act soon.
Perhaps a word with the committee who appointed umpire Hill into the elite panel could be a nice start while they are at it!.

msp83 wrote:I know there is the Mike way of arguing against KPF's 10 % claims with lots of logic. But as Mike himself put it, there is a different underlying logic to that statement/argument if we take out the stronger sense in which it is put.
And many posters here seem to forget that UDRS, and the technology involved are not one and the same. And I don't think the argument that technology is working fine and it is only human error that is doing DRS in. We all know what happened with the Trott wicket. We could argue that it happened because the person in control was not focused. But how do we explain hotspot not really working well today? Or for that matter, during most of the series?
The umpire's call system has brought about very confusing inconsistencies to the UDRS that can undermine its credibility among players as well as supporters. There is serious room for improvement as far as the technology is concerned.
There is no point hiding behind stats, you can't wish away the issues with DRS with stats as the ICC seems to be doing these. And of course, they should improve the umpire's training program. The ICC need to act, and act soon.
Perhaps a word with the committee who appointed umpire Hill into the elite panel could be a nice start while they are at it!.

Yes ways should be looked at in training those using the technology and strict guidelines given to them ie no over-turning unless clear evidence and there certainly wasn't that with Khawaja today. For flaws in DRS it is still capable of rooting out duff calls that riddled the sport before DRS so those shouting against it (ie K_P Fan) they should ask themselves would they sooner see two or three poor calls per test overturned (via DRS) or none being overturned as happened in the bad old days with umpires having the final say? (Those figures of mines are just examples by the way).

If KP_F stopped trying to be deliberately awkward, he'd actually raise some good points...

At the end of the day it cannot be denied DRS has reversed far more incorrect decisions correctly than incorrectly so that must be seen as an improvement. Sure it is not perfect (yet) but certainly an improvement on what India want ie some old duffer out in the middle making two or three wrong decisions or more a test and it standing without hope of it being changed.

Just to reiterate my position which may have become lost in all the hooha, it is clear to me that:
- DRS "works" to the extent that it corrects more injustices than it causes;
- it doesn't work optimally because too many times it creates injustices (at least twice this series, possibly 3 times if you count the Hughes LBW) or fails to rectify them for whatever reason (Broad, Khawaja and Smith - IMO twice because the 1st LBW should be given out - does anybody seriously doubt it would have hit leg-stump?)
- to simply say "the system works, it's the humans who make mistakes" is inadequate, because part of the point of DRS was to get rid of obvious human errors, and to simply separate the human component from the technology is unrealistic, because humans use the technology, so we should be looking at ways to improve the whole system.

The point is not whether DRS works or not, that is too simplistic or black and white. The point is how can you improve the system so we minimalise the chances of the type of errors we have seen recently. There are some obvious paths for improvement which the ICC should take a look at:
- first of all the system has to be standardised across the board. It is not right that some matches are played under what are essentially different regulations, and it is not right that some matches have hotspot, others don't etc. The ICC has to fund DRS rather than the host board (which is surely a conflict of interest in the first place?) - this will be easily done by attributing a sponsor to 'DRS moments'.
- specialist TV umpires as in rugby union (particularly as you now have a 4th/reserve umpire as a matter of course).
- more training and better training to umpires as to how to use the system.
- clearer and more transparent guidelines so fans and commentators actually know what framework the officials are working with.
- making the conversation between the officials public (as with rugby union); why should the commentators hear it but not us?
- have a look to see whether you should increase/decrease the number of reviews available to teams to avoid the situations where teams use up their reviews and are then victims of an injustice; whilst it is easy to say "their fault" the result is unsatisfactory because DRS is not meant to be a moral arbiter of people's ability to use reviews correctly, but there to reverse clearly incorrect calls. A food for thought: one review, but you keep it if it's "umpire's call" (or "inconclusive evidence" for a catch).
- a genuine debate over the role of umpire's call - I don't mind it myself, but it's clear quite a few people do.

However:

msp83 wrote:[...] KPF's 10 % claims [...]

They are not claims, they are mistatements. Perhaps it is my mathematical side, but this kind of statement annoys me, it annoys me when people back up an entirely reasonable argument by misquoting figures (by which I mean quoting genuine figures but making them appear like something else - as KPF has done, or taking them entirely out of context). It is like when politicians say "we spend x on welfare" or "crime has fallen by y" but then fail to add "but most of that is on pensions, and only a tiny minority on jobseekers allowance" or "actually it's only this type of crime which has fallen by y".

People use statistics because figures make an impact, but there should be far greater responsibility with quoting statistics accurately and precisely. In this case, KPF made the precise statement that DRS was causing on average 10% of the dismissals in a test match. That is demonstrably not the case, and IMO to make that kind of mistatement cheapens the (at times genuine) argument he has. The correct statement is along the lines of "in spite of DRS, there is still between 5 and 10% of incorrect decisions being made in test matches" - the inference being that for a system which is meant to do its utmost to eradicate mistakes, this is not good enough. Then he would have a much better case.

It may be just me, but the world would be a much better place if people accepted when they were wrong, and just moved on.

msp83 wrote:But how do we explain hotspot not really working well today? Or for that matter, during most of the series?

Hotspot has always struggled to pick up the faint nicks. Going back to Ian Bell's inside edge at Sydney, and a couple from the England-India series which caused controversy (IIRC one was Dravid caught at bat-pad and overturned - correctly as it turned out - despite nothing on hotspot). I also seem to remember one of the Akmal brothers nicking off to Mitch Johnson and walking, yet nothing on hotspot, and I think it was Prasanna Jayawardene gloving a bouncer off Tremlett (when SL were rolled over for 78 or whatever it was) - clear glove, and correctly overturned despite no hotspot.

I have no idea why this is, because I don't claim to understand the science at all. Hotspot overall is a great tool, but I think people (including sometimes the umpires) place too much emphasis on it - it is one factor out of many.

There are rumours from fairly knowledgeable sources that vaseline on the edges somehow helps mask edges. I am not sure how serious they are, but a couple of guys I know believe this to be genuine.

I like mysti's idea of somehow tracking the ball rotations - but again for the very faint edges is there a change? Do we know? In any case, the possibility should be looked at.

Mike, I think its not just about the still remaining 5-10 % incorrect calls as such. Why I would like the system of umpire's call to go is because when you have a situation where a particular situation would mean one batsman out and the other not out, it can quickly erode the very credibility of the system among players and fans. Also, the 3rd umpires tend to place too much emphasis on the original call. I wonder whether Kumar Dharmasena would have still given Khawaja out if he was just to take a call on the basis of the evidence presented to him alone?
It is a matter of consistency, it is a matter of credibility.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/657527.html

With regard to yesterday's happenings, allow me to flag upfront that I only saw the one hour highlights programme yesterday. With that caveat, I still have some some sympathy for the third umpire.

As I understand things (and please tell me if this is wrong which it may be), Hot Spot and the Snickometer were either not working properly yesterday or at least could not be consistently relied upon.

Certainly, as regards the appeal for Smith being caught behind, I thought with some certainty that he was out when I first saw it although the technology did not support that view; and that despite a clear sound suggesting a nick.

My immediate reaction on seeing the Khawaja appeal was that he didn't hit it although I wasn't entirely sure due to some sound being heard and the reaction of the close-in fielders. Now, it would help my line of reasoning here if Khawaja's dismissal had been after the Smith appeal. Nonetheless, I can just about understand the third umpire taking the view that ''as I can't rely on Hot Spot and snicko, I'll be governed by the sound and the on-field umpire's decision''.

I do think and fear that as the application of technology increases, debates on whether someone was in or out will not be resolved with certainty but could actually increase with more angst being thrown into the mix. A relevant aspect here (rarely considered) is that the third umpire realistically needs to give his decision within a couple of minutes whilst professional cricket analysts and some posters have hours to dwell on the incident.

I would also make the point that it is very rare for a third umpire using DRS to overturn a good decision and make it into a bad one. I do think we need to keep things in proportion and have that in mind.

On a particular specific aspect, I have felt for some time - and agree with Mike - that the criteria for judging an lbw decision using DRS needs to be different depending upon whether the batsman is playing forward or back.

More reactions from cricket writers and analysts


Gideon Haigh

Last updated at 12:01AM, August 2 2013

“You’re messing with my career, Darrell,” Mark Ramprakash complained to Hair of that ilk when disgruntled to be given out in a Lord’s Test some years ago. Right or not, at least Ramprakash knew who to blame.

As Usman Khawaja walked off just before lunch at Old Trafford yesterday, he could only shake his head, and inwardly shake a fist at “the system” — a technological/bureaucratic nightmare that has almost become a third competitor in this Asges series.


'The DRS had another of those days when it looks like your grandma trying to make a call on a smartphone'




DRS a Joke wearing thin

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/cricket/article3831894.ece
Richard Hobson

Kumar Dharmasena is sitting at home watching the Zapruder video of Kennedy’s assassination. “Interesting,” he thinks, and rewinds. After a few more plays he rings the Pentagon. “That bullet,” he says, “I think it missed.”

A man is in court for stealing a watch. The prosecution offers no CCTV evidence or witnesses and the watch is never found. Judge Dharmasena deliberates and comes to a guilty verdict. “I just thought he nicked it,” he explains.

KP - thats weak. I mean getting rid of the DRS just so that players have someone in particular to blame for errors defies belief.

K_P Fan.

I don't see anyone here saying DRS is perfect but it sure is a step up from leaving it totally in the hands of a duff old 60-year-old man who has been out in the sun for hours to make the decision.

The DRS system gives us a far better amount of correct decisions than what India want ie left in the hands of umpires. Do you deny that?

kingraf wrote:KP - thats weak. I mean getting rid of the DRS just so that players have someone in particular to blame for errors defies belief.

 
the mood is building up as obvious from players current and ex and the media......DRS in the form it is in is untenable.
It will not be thrown out but will have to undergo major changes in all 3 areas I listed.
 
eitehr those changes have to happen before the next major series....whihc happens to be the next Ashes.
 
what are those changes...how to implement them?...is not my problem....but ICC's...for it's a Frankenstien of their creation.
 
Else DRS will be put in temporary suspension

As for the tweaks I don't believe teams should lose a review if their review shows the ball to be hitting the stumps but not in the centre (when decisions are changed). Punishing a team when the review was fractions out is a tad severe in my opinion.

The irony is that its DRS showing how bad the umpires are. But still with it we have more correct decisions.

Does he want to get rid of DRS so we can go back to burying our heads in the sand ... The umpires are being shown up which ironically means we need DRS even more than we need before!! Off course the system can and 'will' be improved upon. I have plenty of ideas.

But sorry KPF it is moronic to go back to burying our heads in the sand and just praying that the umpires will be kind to us!! We just cant do that anyway - because tech is showing them up even more!!

The issue here should not be about the fact that without DRS he would still have been out.

The question should be how is it possible with the evidence supplied on review in slow motion that the Third Umpire still believed there was a nick.

What convinced him that there was not irrefutable evidence of missing the ball?

Well we have seen 3 bad 3rd umpire decisions in this series- which is clearly not right!

They issued a statement that trotts decision was incorrect- so they admitted there was no evidence to suggest it didnt hit Trotts bat and it was a mistake by the 3rd umpire..

We shall see if they issue a statement(which they will have to) after this test

Which was the 3rd Mysti? I give you Trott and Khawaja obviously.

I think a bit of perspective is required. Depending on where you stand the umpires in this match have made between 3 and 5 mistakes* (with the Smith caught behind and first LBW being debateable) - Hill has made 2 or 3 mistakes and Howell 1 or 2. Whilst this is not great, it is not exactly the big disaster some would have you believe. How many players have made fewer than 3 mistakes over the course of the 2 days so far? Cook has already made quite a few more in his innings to date... You have to bear in mind that these guys are out there all day in oppressive heat, and unlike the fast bowlers can't just go and put their feet up for a few overs to rest.

By the high standards of the elite panel it's been a poor test so far for the umpires, but let's not blow things out of proportion. The standards of umpiring globally remain high, and I don't buy into the rhetoric that umpiring is getting worse (in fact the contrary is probably true) - it is just that unlike 20 or even 10 years ago we now have the technology which scrutinises their every move.

* with the caveat that we don't know how many no-balls they may have missed.

Mike Selig wrote:Which was the 3rd Mysti? I give you Trott and Khawaja obviously.

I think a bit of perspective is required. Depending on where you stand the umpires in this match have made between 3 and 5 mistakes* (with the Smith caught behind and first LBW being debateable) - Hill has made 2 or 3 mistakes and Howell 1 or 2. Whilst this is not great, it is not exactly the big disaster some would have you believe. How many players have made fewer than 3 mistakes over the course of the 2 days so far? Cook has already made quite a few more in his innings to date... You have to bear in mind that these guys are out there all day in oppressive heat, and unlike the fast bowlers can't just go and put their feet up for a few overs to rest.

By the high standards of the elite panel it's been a poor test so far for the umpires, but let's not blow things out of proportion. The standards of umpiring globally remain high, and I don't buy into the rhetoric that umpiring is getting worse (in fact the contrary is probably true) - it is just that unlike 20 or even 10 years ago we now have the technology which scrutinises their every move.

* with the caveat that we don't know how many no-balls they may have missed.

the decision yesterday that wasnt overturned but had a hot spot snicko and noise on review!

It was our second lost review

Nah there wasn't anything on hotspot, or indeed snicko (which was strange because there was a noise). Live I was fairly sure he hit it, but after watching quite a few replays... hmmm not so sure.

I'm going to cut Howell a bit more slack on the Bresnan caught behind call than I have so far. Whilst I maintain that you ought to see that Bresnan has missed it (he is not that close to the ball) there is a fairly sharp sound (and live it is close enough to being at the same time as the ball passes the bat) but more than that it is the direction the ball takes (swings in after the ball passes the bat) which I reckon fooled him. Exactly the type of call which DRS was meant to address though.

Interesting thread.

I notice this morning in a Melbourne newspaper some items from an interview with Warren Brennan , the inventor of Hot Spot , in which he states that he has always emphasized that the system is not an exact science and that hotspot - and snicko - could not be expected to pick up every edge.  

"We are continuing to try and improve the technology...(but) ...some ...failings we can't get over"

He likens the search for very faint hot spots to a search for a needle in a haystack , but hopes to develop the technology over time.

As I have said before , we should accept that 100% certainty is not possible , which I think the above demonstrates further. So the first issue is : does DRS improve decision making ? Surely it does , often enough to be one point in its favour.
Second question is whether it sometimes makes things worse - and despite the Trott case , which is unusual , I would say no : sometimes , like Khawaja's review , we see a failure to correct an error , but this is an issue of public perception only , since without DRS the original wrong decision would stand in any event.
Thirdly we must consider the cost , and here it is a bit fuzzy. Old fashioned types like me dislike the loss of the old principle that the umpire's decision is final and should be accepted with grace ; but realistically we know that battle is long lost. The financial issues that mean inconsistent availability of technical support are a problem , perhaps not insoluble. But perhaps the main cost is that all the messing about and lengthy delays detract from the flow of the game and take away from the dramatic moments when an appeal is answered...how much this bothers you is a matter of taste I suppose.

So if we agree DRS is here to stay (India excepted ?) how much change is needed ? My finger is getting tired so I will address this in a separate post...

Tbh I have been repeating the same things over and over and over again. I cant do it anymore!

Had enough. The umpires are rubbish. they are the ones that are making drs look inadequate..

Or they are not rubbish and have allways been on this or an even worse level- yet we have been accepting(without the use of decent replays and tech) an umpires guess more than anything else for a very long time..

100% correct- never going to happen. however in the long run we can get to 99% if not more- its allways about improving and improving.

its not about howlers- its about what is in and what is out.

missing the edge by a mm or missing an edge by 3 inches is immaterial. its not out

a bowl that is clearly hitting the wicket but only 49% is shown up on Hawk eye is 99% going to be out. even a ball that is hitting with only 2% of the area of the ball is 95% out!! (this is going by the stats that 19 in 20 hawk eye deliverys are accurate to within 2% of the ball size- I am sure i read this when it first came out!)

we have to trust that in the above cases its out!

However I have argued the need for more reviews- this is only needed when so many bad decsions happen. Its happening. umpires need to get better or we need to use the system more. No one is going to buy the howler thing any more- and Tbh i have had enough of hearing it..

its out or its in...

if that cant be proven batters need benefit of doubt. not the umpire

simple as that, the umpires are clearly not good enough to have benefit of doubt.

Btw I am not blaming them- the job is clearly to hard for one human one the field-

I dont buy that the 3rd umpires job is to hard though- getting 2 if not 3 decisions wrong is crazy- it shouldnt have ever happened even once!

I havent slept all night so not sure if the above makes sense..

  OK , I see KP fan had a litany of complaints above :

Agar stumping ...well this was not a DRS issue. A line decision , in which I felt the TV umpire erred , but others see it differently...an on field umpire would surely have said "too close to call" , so I have no complaints , though perhaps with the aid of slow motion replays it ought to have been given.
Smith "catch" of Bell...most of us who have played the game agree this was out. But once the on field umpires concluded they couldn't be sure we all knew it would be given not out...TV just doesn't show low catches clearly enough.
Both the above were not DRS issues.
Broad caught at slip...well clearly out , though too much was made of the "catch at slip" - big deflection from Haddin's glove and it was not nearly so clear to Dar from where he was standing. But yes it should and would have been overturned...if Australia had not used their reviews.  So what could have fixed that one ? Well if Australia hadn't gone fishing earlier...personally I reject the notion that reviews should be increased , as it would lead to every lbw call being reviewed !
Third umpire intervention in the case of horrible errors ? Sounds attractive , but where do you draw the line ? Would really be just too subjective... To be honest , I think that is just one of those things , and you wear it...
Rogers bizarre lbw ...he had the choice to review , and didn't ...'nuff said...move on.
Hughes lbw "pitched outside leg" ...Rubbish. Might have looked a bit dodgy in real time , but the TV pitch map
showed it was - just - OK. Not a Hawkeye prediction , a clear picure of what actually happened. Correct
decision.


Really only the Trott lbw , where a partial technical failure and some poor umpiring from the third official made a mess of it , and this Khawaja thing , where it appears Dharmasena didn't trust the sound replay , have been both clearly wrong and down to the DRS system.
While a number of on field errors have been corrected successfully.

A couple of caught behind decisions have seemed less than clear cut , but eventually either the batsman has 'fessed up , or enough evidence has been produced via snicko etc that the correct result seems to have been reached.

So we are down to two cases in three matches.  Plus a few instances where teams had used their reviews (Broad catch , and the same man's clear lbw of Smith on Thursday)  and one or two slightly uncertain calls like Smith being apparently caught behind off Anderson.  Is this enough to be calling for a wholesale overhaul of the current review system ?

As I have said on another thread , it may be a good time for a coach/captains/umpires/experts get together to discuss issues relating to DRS so that a better understanding of the system evolves. But evolution rather than panic reaction is what is needed in my view.

Alfie - very much in agreement with the general tone and conclusion of your post immediately above.

I think people forget (or just don't know) how far we've come. During the 1970/71 six match Ashes series down under, not a single lbw appeal was answered in favour of any England bowler. This was perceived by captain Ray Illingworth as being due to a mix of prejudice (by the Australian umpires), incompetence and fearfulness of giving an "out" decision.

Hi guildford...remember that in 1970/71 well. Funny thing is it wasn't seen as such a big deal at the time. Didn't have wall to wall TV slow motion laser guided replays then...

Round about the same time I was playing in a competition in which one of the regular umpires - who was actually highly rated in most aspects - was known as the archetypal "not outer" when it came to lbw. We appealed more in hope than expectation (I recall being seriously shocked when I actually won a decision from him ! ) , and I think batsmen adapted by being a little more ready to play with their pads when he was at the bowler's end.
But the point here is that he was consistent . Everyone knew he wasn't giving lbw unless it was 120% out , so everyone knew where they stood. (right in front of their stumps the bloody batsmen  ) So although it maybe wasn't ideal it was fair to all...

I have a hunch most players - and fans - would have little problem with DRS if it was seen to be consistent. Think that is the biggest issue.