Usman Khwaja b. DRS

First topic message reminder :

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

Yeah. Tbh maybe I lost the the plot the couple of days..

I HAVE possibly got a bit sensitive. I blame a lack of sleep.

As guildford stated elsewhere you are a top contributer.. I could and should have tried to put my points across in a better way.

 

mystiroakey wrote:Yeah. Tbh maybe I lost the the plot the couple of days..

I HAVE possibly got a bit sensitive. I blame a lack of sleep.

As guildford stated elsewhere you are a top contributer.. I could and should have tried to put my points across in a better way.

 

Mysti - I am glad to see we agree on one thing at least.  Can the two of us now move on please?

Off course.

Havng just read through this thread, I think we just got into a situation of 'talking past each other'.

I think most of us would agree with the following:
1 - Hawkeye technology has worked very well as part of the DRS.
2 - There are discussions to be had regarding the judgement of 'umpires call' on LBW decisions, both with regard to the amount of ball that has to be hitting the stumps and what happens to any reviews in such circumstances (personally, I'd keep 'Umpire's call', but reduced to those calls where the ball is really only shaving the wickets - half the ball diameter is too much, and make it not a lost review).
3 - Hotspot is less successful as a technology to determine whether there was an edge.
4 - Camera images and sound will never allow for perfect decision making, as these are subject to human interpretation. While these are often useful (although not always conclusive) at judging edges, they are next to useless at judging whether a catch carried.

I'm with Mike's comment that DRS as currently implemented is better than nothing, but that there is still room for significant improvement. The issues to improve though are more to do with system than with technology (although in the medium term something more reliable than Hotspot is needed) - it is the human elements both of deciding what decisions get reviewed (need for more referrals?) and in the video umpire's confidence in overturning a decision that have led to question marks being raised..

Bumped and edited---

the ashes
T3
D5



KP 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

Ha Ha Ha...I told ya...thhis guy DRS will drive itself out

I shouldn't respond to KP fan here...but I will.

I think KP might have been unlucky there. But he was given out on the field , so DRS is only marginally relevant.

...but don't let me stop you  

Once more, KP_fan misses the point that without DRS KP would have been out anyway. Besides which, he was out anyway.

The simple fact is:

DRS is better than no DRS.

Of course DRS is not 100%, but then it never will be, but it always will be better than not utilising the technology at the ICC's disposal. DRS has done more good than bad in this series. It's human nature I suppose, to only concentrate on the bad and not the good. Lest we forget, without DRS, Australia would have probably won the first Test.

Duty281 wrote:The simple fact is:

DRS is better than no DRS.

Of course DRS is not 100%, but then it never will be, but it always will be better than not utilising the technology at the ICC's disposal. DRS has done more good than bad in this series. It's human nature I suppose, to only concentrate on the bad and not the good. Lest we forget, without DRS, Australia would have probably won the first Test.

DRS sukks and that's why it's dead in it's current form.

evidence:

ICC already offered a number of changes to India in the CI link posted in this thread.....
means that ICC has acknowldeged that it's untenable in it's current form

What a convincing argument.

 

Long live DRS!

dummy_half wrote:
I think most of us would agree with the following:
1 - Hawkeye technology has worked very well as part of the DRS.
2 - There are discussions to be had regarding the judgement of 'umpires call' on LBW decisions, both with regard to the amount of ball that has to be hitting the stumps and what happens to any reviews in such circumstances (personally, I'd keep 'Umpire's call', but reduced to those calls where the ball is really only shaving the wickets - half the ball diameter is too much, and make it not a lost review).
3 - Hotspot is less successful as a technology to determine whether there was an edge.
4 - Camera images and sound will never allow for perfect decision making, as these are subject to human interpretation. While these are often useful (although not always conclusive) at judging edges, they are next to useless at judging whether a catch carried.

1 - Hawk-eye has certainly worked better than its Aussie counterpart Eagle-eye. I have seen some truly strange (and IMO plain wrong) projections from the latter, most famously Hughes given out LBW to Dilshan in Sri Lanka when according to the ball tracking technology the ball didn't turn and would have hit leg-stump, whereas it's obvious on watching the replay it was spinning way past off-stump. I think even the makers came out and admitted it had ballsed-up on this occasion.

Of course part of this comes down to consistency. You can't have one ball-tracking algorithm in one country, and another in another. That is manifestly not right. The ICC must invest in what they believe to be the best technology (which IMO is Hawkeye) and impose that across the board.

It should be said that there was a rumour a while ago that the Indians were developing their own technology, and part of the reason for the reticence on their part to use DRS was that they wanted to wait for their technology to be up and running, and then impose it on the rest of the world ($). In fairness this rumour seems to have gone very quiet recently.

2 - I agree that half the ball is too much on some occasions, especially when the batsman is on the back fott, but also too little actually on others (e.g. when Pietersen is 3m down the wicket). It stems from a misguided idea of clarity, where the ICC want a uniform margin across the board, rather than use the margins actually claimed by the technological experts. As a result what you get is unfair, because I don't think anybody who has watched the replays can seriously believe the Smith LBW shout was missing leg.

3 - it is a brilliant piece of technology, but doesn't work all the time. People need to understand this and stop believing that absence of hotspot is proof of anything. Saying that is rather like arriving at a crime scene, not finding any fingerprints and deducing that no crime has been committed. As an aide, hotspot has proven on occasions invaluable.

4 - quite.

dummy_half wrote:I'm with Mike's comment that DRS as currently implemented is better than nothing, but that there is still room for significant improvement. The issues to improve though are more to do with system than with technology (although in the medium term something more reliable than Hotspot is needed) - it is the human elements both of deciding what decisions get reviewed (need for more referrals?) and in the video umpire's confidence in overturning a decision that have led to question marks being raised..

I don't think more referrals, but I like the idea of one referral where you get to keep it if the evidence is inconclusive, so teams don't lose it for a perfectly reasonable referral like the Smith or the Trott one in this game - I think if you allow more referrals, or keep it at 2 but you keep it if umpire's call, then you will slow the game down further, and then we may as well give up on all notions of 90 overs in a day.

Others are obviously in favour of more or less doing away with the on-field umpires and simply getting the 3rd umpire to adjudicate (so you get rid of "umpire's call" and "inconclusive" means not out). How this would happen within the current referral system is unclear, but I'm sure it could be worked.

KP_fan wrote: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

T3
end of D5

One of the big talking points in this series has been the Decision Review System. The players have lost trust in Hot Spot. The umpires have, the crowd have, and so have we. So I would get rid of it. We are not seeing enough right decisions....Michael Vaughan in Telegraph

within last 5 days....one half of DRS has lost confidence and dead....as echoed by Vaughan.
So after this dead half is inevitably removed........the fallacies will ineviatbly start showing up in the other half too.....whihc will also eventually die in the current format

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/659815.html

Jagmohan Dalmiya, the BCCI's interim president, has said that the board will accept the Decision Review System (DRS) only when the technology used is "fool-proof". Dalmiya said that the DRS has created confusion in its current form and the BCCI would adopt the technology once the system was "100% correct".

The whole process is very complicated and confusing. And rather than solving the riddle, DRS creates more confusion in its present form."

"Before going to the ICC meeting I was a bit iffy as I was told by some quarters that India would be completely isolated on the DRS issue," Dalmiya said. "But after I was done with my presentation on that day, there was not a single voice of protest."

and KP's incident is being used to highlight DRS cheating ongoing......

Australia and England are reportedly under investigation by the ICC over allegations their batsmen are using silicone tape on their bats to beat the decision review system.

In the latest umpiring controversy this series, concerns were raised after Kevin Pietersen's dismissal in the final innings of the third Test where the batsman unsuccessfully tried to have a decision overturned by the video umpire.

The attempt failed despite the infrared Hot Spot technology not recording an edge, though sound detectors picked up a clear noise as the ball passed the bat.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/australia-and-england-face-claims-of-drs-cheating-20130807-2rgll.html#ixzz2bGsadBWb

andy flower crying sour grapes on DRS.......

Flower also raised questions about the technology and its use.

"I thought that DRS had worked pretty well in international cricket prior to this series but in this series it hasn't worked well at all," the England coach said. "I wouldn't necessarily blame technology – what we have at the moment is the best we've got – I might question whether we're using it as wisely as we can. I think we, the cricket community, can use it better.

"There is technology there to use and there are protocols that go with it. I think the people in charge of using the technology have to make very calm, clear decisions. I think we also know and understand that going back to using just the two umpires in the middle is not the answer because that isn't going to get us a greater percentage of correct decisions.

"[It is about] just being smart about how we use the technology – where the third umpire sits, who he sits with, is he sitting with experts in technology so that he sees the best pictures? And can he run forwards and backwards the various screens and the pertinent screens? Those are the things that the ICC need to get right."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/ashes-teams-bid--to-clear-up-confusion-over-drs-20130807-2re31.html#ixzz2bGuYbl4O

Nobody trusts DRS...Matt Prior:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/10226701/Ashes-2013-players-have-no-trust-in-Hot-Spot-says-England-wicketkeeper-Matt-Prior.html


The DRS has been at the centre of controversy. I still believe it is the way forward. But if you are going to use DRS, you have to make sure the correct decisions are made. Nobody criticises umpires for making mistakes on the field but once you call for a review the right decision has to be reached. From a player’s point of view it is frustrating when that does not happen.

I think it would help if there was more direct communication between the umpires on the pitch and the third umpire, perhaps adopting the system used in rugby. The umpire on the field has his ideas about why he has made a decision. It is important for him to explain what he has seen to the third umpire so there is a two-way communication process going on to make sure the right decision is reached.

The communication between the players and umpires on the field is pretty good. Ultimately we all want the right decisions to be made but I am not sure we trust Hot Spot anymore. There are so many edges it has missed: Steve Smith and David Warner in this last Test are just a couple of examples. From our point of view it makes it hard to decide what to review.

Sometimes you hear a noise, and I know by the feel of the ball hitting the glove if there has been an edge. Cooky and I look at each other and say he “hit it”. We have to review but then we worry if Hot Spot is going to show up a mark. It leaves you wondering what you review and what you do not review.

Can this not be merged with one of the other DRS threads?

VTR wrote:Can this not be merged with one of the other DRS threads?

that's a good Idea....but with which one.

Actually I would suggest the forum creates a sticky for DRS.....this is one topic that ain't dying soon and there will be a lot to post.

Not sure it needs a sticky. If people are suitably interested then it will keep getting bumped to the top.

My sense though is that people are getting a bit bored of the same points being made day after day.

Moderators, shouldn't this be merged with the other thread KP_fan did?

VTR wrote:Not sure it needs a sticky. If people are suitably interested then it will keep getting bumped to the top.

My sense though is that people are getting a bit bored of the same points being made day after day.

the cricketing pages on the web...are full of DRS.....every one is asking and everyone is talking about it.
BCCI, ICC, ECB CA...all are caught in making statements, defending accusing.

DRS quotes and stories are selling like hot cakes and is media mongers delight...so it is obvious that we will also discuss it.

4 tips to make DRS work:

1) It was intended for the howler, not tactical use, so 1 review per innings.
2) Get rid of HotSpot.
3) Keep the umpire's call for Hawk-Eye, as there is an element of doubt, and some power does need to be retained by the umpire.
4) Stop pussyfooting around a minor Test-cricket nation, and force India to use it. I don't see how that's difficult. The ICC run the game, get the BCCI in line.

Done. What's for lunch?

Don't think we can wish away the DRS debate despite it getting repeated mention. But I believe this can be merged with the other ongoing thread that KPF has created as it has generated considerable debate already.

Duty281 wrote:4 tips to make DRS work:

1) It was intended for the howler,

says who ?

Just a quick question. How many decisions in this series have been incorrectly reversed due to DRS during this series? I can think of one possible, the Trott LBW, where the third umpire reversed the on field umpire's decision without definitive proof that Trott hadn't hit it.
How many decisions have been correctly reversed due to DRS?

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:4 tips to make DRS work:

1) It was intended for the howler,

says who ?

That's what the stated use of DRS is; to avoid the howler.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Just a quick question. How many decisions in this series have been incorrectly reversed due to DRS during this series? I can think of one possible, the Trott LBW, where the third umpire reversed the on field umpire's decision without definitive proof that Trott hadn't hit it.
How many decisions have been correctly reversed due to DRS?

Hoggy, I think the scenario is a lot more complicated than that formulation above.
There is a growing perception not only among followers, but among players and administrators that there are some serious issues with DRS. Hotspot has lost all credibility, and following that, the players themselves are not too sure about using DRS. Besides that, there are significant issues with the implementation part of the system, particularly at the 3rd umpire's end. The DRS technology need serious improvement, particularly in the case of hotspot, and the rules need to be clear, fair and consistent for the system to go on.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:4 tips to make DRS work:

1) It was intended for the howler,

says who ?

That's what the stated use of DRS is; to avoid the howler.

How exactly to differentiate between a so called howler and a non-howler?
I think the howler argument is a redundant and rather meaningless one. The DRS is there to improve decision making process and make it as fair as possible. Perfection may be beyond reach, but constant improvement has to be the goal.

msp

I've no doubt that there are problems with both the technology and implementation of DRS, and that both could be improved. My point is, however, that despite these problems, and despite some terrible decisions by the third umpire when called on in this series, DRS still seems to have helped achieve more correct decisions than would have occurred without it.

Duty

If you only want the howler. Why are you bringing up hawk eye and umpires call..

Hawk eye and umpire calls is for marginal decisions not howlers.

msp83 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:4 tips to make DRS work:

1) It was intended for the howler,

says who ?

That's what the stated use of DRS is; to avoid the howler.

How exactly to differentiate between a so called howler and a non-howler?
I think the howler argument is a redundant and rather meaningless one. The DRS is there to improve decision making process and make it as fair as possible. Perfection may be beyond reach, but constant improvement has to be the goal.

Howler = Broad given not out after that huge edge.
Non-howler = Khawaja being given out in the last test.

mystiroakey wrote:Duty

If you only want the howler. Why are you bringing up hawk eye and umpires call..

Hawk eye and umpire calls is for marginal decisions not howlers.

Because some teams will still review LBW decisions they think are out/not out, but it may only be clipping the stumps. Just because it's there for the howler, and there's only 1 review to encourage only using it for the howler, doesn't mean teams will automatically use it for the howler. They may use it for marginal decisions.

Duty do you understand the irony of your stance mate..

If we want to fix howlers only. We have to get rid of all tech.. state that the third umpire will only overrule the onfield if its a clear howler. Therefore cricketers would only use a review in the broad scenario.. there would certainly be no hawkeye or percentage of the ball being key to the mariginal decisions.

If this was all about howlers we only need a tv replay
The tech to work out marginal decisions abd the rules do decide on them goes against the howler philosophy.

The idea of DRS is to fix howlers yes, but that doesn't mean the players will subscribe to that view. They will still probably review marginal decisions, although only having 1 review will discourage that.

One review would kill the system and would prove it less usefull. There would be so many arguments over fairness. The ICC couldnt use there ' it improves decision making by 5%' any more..

The howler argument is non existant.. if you want it for howlers only you use my above system..

The ICC may state howlers only just like others. But uts eithet an ignorant stance or smoke and mirrors.

We are trying to make the umpires job easier. Decision making easier and s fairer game..

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:4 tips to make DRS work:

1) It was intended for the howler,

says who ?

That's what the stated use of DRS is; to avoid the howler.

stated use according to Matt Prior

The DRS has been at the centre of controversy. I still believe it is the way forward. But if you are going to use DRS, you have to make sure the correct decisions are made. Nobody criticises umpires for making mistakes on the field but once you call for a review the right decision has to be reached. From a player’s point of view it is frustrating when that does not happen.

The stated use of DRS has nothing to do with Prior, it has everything to do with the ICC.

Ok imagine this- We create a system and change DRS that reduces reviews.. and we fix the howlers..

Will it be a success?

No it wont because if it doesn't improve upon the percentage of correct decisions(we have at present under this system of DRS) we have gone backwards!!

Where exactly has the ICC said that the DRS is there to deal with 'Howlers'? As far I remember, they are talking up the DRS in terms of improved percentage of correct decisions. And in my view, that is absolutely the correct approach. From an Australian point of view, both the Broad and Khawaja decisions might look as howlers, and you can stretch the argument to suggest that the Jonathan Trott decision wasn't a howler as had the edge not happened, he was dead plumb.

Fairly sure Dave Richardson has said on a few occasions that DRS is not there to help with marginal decisions; don't think he ever used the word "howler" but I do seem to remember "demonstrably incorrect" being used in an interview once, which is probably a better phrase except that it's open to interpretation: for example most sane people thought the Khawaja caught behind was demonstrably incorrect, in so much as you could see a gap between the bat and the ball; Dharharmasena not so, obviously.

Hoggy has made the sensible point that even in this series with all the controversies, DRS has done more good than harm looking at things purely statistically, because it has overturned more incorrect decisions than correct ones (1). I only emphasise this point because the sensible thing seems to me to improve the system, rather than scrap it or suspend its usage until it's sorted.

I thought it was a pretty standard Flower interview: calm, makes his point, doesn't hold back his punches.

Hotspot as I keep saying is useful as a guide, but it is not the be-all and end-all which you have to obey without thought - you have to accept it's not going to show up the very faint edges, and look at other things like sound, ball rotations, etc.. Hawkeye is not perfect either. Both are fantastic but imperfect pieces of technology.

The Broad decision and the Agar stumping are to me the only absolute howlers in this series so far. The Agar one of course has nothing to do with DRS.

There have been loads of thin snicks where you can look a hundred times and still not be sure.

If the Broad decision or arguably the Agar ones are the only absolute 'howlers' in this series, there is no point in saying the DRS should stay as it failed to avoid the 'howlers' on both occasions. There is no point in saying that with DRS we have had more correct decisions than we would have had in a situation without DRS, as avoiding the howler and not improving the level of correct decisions as such is the given mandate of DRS, a task in which it has completely failed.
That is the problem if we stick to the absolutely unworkable, difficult to be consistent 'howler' norm. More correct decisions has to be the mandate of the DRS, otherwise the system becomes a howler.

msp83 wrote:
More correct decisions has to be the mandate of the DRS, otherwise the system  becomes a howler.

But more correct decisions ARE being made due to DRS. It hasn't eradicated ALL incorrect decisions, but it has eradicated SOME. Surely improving the situation is better than not?

"But more correct decisions ARE being made due to DRS. It hasn't eradicated ALL incorrect decisions, but it has eradicated SOME. Surely improving the situation is better than not?"

That is exactly what he wants.. Point being- people need to stop banging the howler drum.

The system is making the game better by improving decision making and will hopefully get better and better. If the howler crowd want to just concentrate on that aspect by reducing potential reviews we will lose what we have gained!

mystiroakey wrote:"But more correct decisions ARE being made due to DRS. It hasn't eradicated ALL incorrect decisions, but it has eradicated SOME. Surely improving the situation is better than not?"

That is exactly what he wants.. Point being- people need to stop banging the howler drum.

The system is making the game better by improving decision making and will hopefully get better and better. If the howler crowd want to just concentrate on that aspect by reducing potential reviews we will lose what we have gained!

Sorry, mis-read the point.
Agree that the point should be to get more decisions correct 'howlers' or not.

Best thing is for the ICC to clarify the purpose of the DRS.

The howler thing is mentioned a lot and it probably was the original, noble purpose for the system. It was never going to be used in such a way though in a game of such fine margins.

Mike Selig wrote:Fairly sure Dave Richardson has said on a few occasions that DRS is not there to help with marginal decisions; don't think he ever used the word "howler"
.

Let ICC come out in open and clarify what the usage of DRS is......and clearly state it is for Howlers only?

it is a conveinent assumption used by many to excuse the mess-ups made by the DRS package.

and ICC has to note any of 3 component malfunction--- 1) Technology 2) 3rd umpire 3) inconsistency in rules
counts as a DRS failure

and the failure count stands at atleast 1 per inning in this series....whihc would be unacceptable to most people...and hence the furore over DRS

Using the "its only supposed to be used for howlers" seems to be used to divert the blame on to the players rather than the system or umpires.

However all the same- the rules are clear. If you use your reviews up "rolling the dice"(perfectly acceptable way to use it IMO) don't blame others because you haven't got a review left! You gambled- You know the risk!

Ironically if the players only used this system for true howlers the ICC wouldn't have the ammo to state how good this system is(because we wouldn't reverse 80% of the ones we are under the present system!!)

They love to use this 5% increased correct decisions when it suits. BUt that it should only be used for howlers when that suits(if the teams only used it for howlers it wouldn't even be a 1% increase)

Smoke and mirrors..

KP_fan wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Fairly sure Dave Richardson has said on a few occasions that DRS is not there to help with marginal decisions; don't think he ever used the word "howler"
.

Let ICC come out in open and clarify what the usage of DRS is......and clearly state it is for Howlers only?

it is a conveinent assumption used by many to excuse the mess-ups made by the DRS package.

and ICC has to note any of 3 component malfunction--- 1) Technology 2) 3rd umpire 3) inconsistency in rules
counts as a DRS failure

and the failure count stands at atleast 1 per inning in this series....whihc would be unacceptable to most people...and hence the furore over DRS

Can you back that up with any evidence?

There is an easy solution. Scrap it!