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

Mike Selig wrote: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.

Mike it was umpire Erasmus with the Bresnan call.

alfie wrote: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.

Consistency is most important when it comes to the credibility of the system. And I believe giving benefit of doubt to the umpire on what is called umpire's call isn't really helping the system with the consistency aspect. Even on the Khawaja decision, I have a feeling if Kumar Dharmasena had a mandate to take call only on the basis of what he sw rather than in relation with the onfield call, he might have got it right.

alfie wrote: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.

Hi again Alfie - I obviously agree with you about consistency.

I do feel a big aspect which you highlight is that we now have ''wall to wall TV slow motion laser guided replays'' or similar. Whilst I might naively hope that would clearly settle any particular matter once and for all, it too often appears to introduce uncertainties into the mix and leads to further probing as to what the technology can show us. I'm not sure that actually helps with consistency, particularly when (as I flagged on an earlier post here) the third umpire has to operate within far more restrictive time limits than professional cricket analysts and some posters.

Tricky. I do though go back to your point that a very decent next step would be for key international people (umpires, captains, coaches) to meet round a table and start off along the lines, ''Things are a damn sight better than they were, how do we get them better still?''.

They dont have a time limit Guildford..sometimes they take 5 mins to review it- and you dont even need that long- you can look at it from all views 30 times over in that time

And by the way sorry oif this sounds a bit ott- but i think its clear umpires/elite panel allready have meetings and discussions and email chains all the time..

I think its abit more relevant to discuss what they should be talking about and how we would change the system for the better

mystiroakey wrote:They dont have a time limit Guildford..sometimes they take 5 mins to review it- and you dont even need that long- you can look at it from all views 30 times over in that time

Mystir - there may not be any time limit set down in the regulations but a practical element cmes into this. I would say ''5 minutes tops'' for a third umpire decision. Some analysts and posters have spent hours pouring over individual decisions in this series.

There is no time limit though- and 5 mins is enough..

anaylists and individuals may spend hours on a decison but when you do that you are speculating(re the agar decision)- it is very easy to work out if it is 100% out- if there isnt conclusive proof then the batter should be in!

Batters should allways git the benefit of the doubt of it cant be prooved!

I just go back to Alfie's posts and leave it at that.

First of all, apologies for having several times referred to Erasmus as Howell. I plead lingering jetlag and move on.

Alfie's post has a lot to be recommended for it: it is a sensible appraisal of where we are ("better but not perfect") and asks the equally sensible question as to how we can further improve the system.

I find the plea to "consider the cost" an interesting one - surely the only thing that matters is reducing the number of errors to as little as possible, and if some umpires' egos get in the way of that, or it means losing some of the ethos of the game, then who cares?

Well actually I do. In spite of my usually fierce modernising credentials, I am going to show myself up as a bit of a traditionalist on this one. Cricket is as far as I know unique as a sport (certainly of those I follow) to have the spirit of the game enscribed in its laws. A huge chunk of the spirit of the game is respect: respect your team-mates, respect your opponents, respect the umpires and respect the game. As a coach of young players, it is something I drum into my players: we play hard, but we play fair, and when we're off the field we're friendly.

So yes, when we do turn our attention to how to improve DRS it is of vital importance that we do consider the impact any improvement will have on the ethos of the game. For that reason I am quite fond of the umpire's call function (which anybody with a bit of intelligence should be capable of understanding) because I don't want to see the umpire's role and authority further eroded by giving the final say completely to technology. Similarly increasing the number of reviews to effectively infinity, or giving the power to review decisions to the umpires will IMO lead to far too many reviews which will slow the game down beyond acceptability.

On the other hand I am not keen on the tactical aspects of DRS. If we accept that the primary focus is to improve decision making, it seems to me incongruous that its effectiveness depends to some extent on what the game situation is, and how clever the players are. To quote 2 perfect examples from today's game, Bresnan's non review and Pietersen's review were both situation driven. Had England been 200-2 Pietersen would IMO have walked, and had Bresnan been a top order player he would have reviewed. That seems to me inequitable and against the spirit of DRS (and indeed the spirit of the game to some extent).

The solution I like more and more is to decrease the number of reviews to 1, but the team keeps their review if the evidence is inconclusive ("umpire's call" if you like). Thus Khawaja's decision would have still left Australia with a review, as would both of England's 2 reviews on the 1st day. Warner's review would have been final, as would Pietersen's today. I believe this would stop people reviewing on hope rather than anything else, but also mean that you wouldn't not review for fear of getting it marginally wrong and thus completely hampering your side.

One of my previous posts on the issue has given further ideas to improve the system. I don't however believe in the Aggers/India line of "if it's not perfect, we shouldn't bother". By that measure you wouldn't often get much done.

Finally, I have a massive problem with Mysti's appraisal of the umpires as "rubbish". By those standards it was a pretty rubbish innings from KP today (he made far more errors in it than any umpire has made so far in this test).

guildfordbat wrote:I just go back to Alfie's posts and leave it at that.

 

"Finally, I have a massive problem with Mysti's appraisal of the umpires as "rubbish". By those standards it was a pretty rubbish innings from KP today (he made far more errors in it than any umpire has made so far in this test)."


and yet that wasnt my appraisal. Nice out of context pull there Mike!!

yesterday Bresnan didn't review inspite of being 6 inches away from the ball..for the lack of trust " god knows what the DRS will show or not show and who knows what button umpire might press"

and today KP reviewed very well knowing he was a goner thinking
" god knows what the DRS will show or not show and who knows what button umpire might press"...let's take a chance and see if I get a lucky break


the joke continues to be on DRS

Sorry Mysti but your exact words were "the umpires are rubbish [and making DRS look bad]"

Regardless of context (as far as I understand it your context was that technology would get the correct decision more often than the umpires, which may be true, but see my point about the ethos of the game) that is a phrase which I have a problem with.

KP_fan wrote:yesterday Bresnan didn't review inspite of being 6 inches away from the ball..for the lack of trust " god knows what the DRS will show or not show and who knows what button umpire might press"

and today KP reviewed very well knowing he was a goner thinking
" god knows what the DRS will show or not show and who knows what button umpire might press"...let's take a chance and see if I get a lucky break


the joke continues to be on DRS

Your arguments are floundering somewhat KP_fan. Mind you, they were never any good in the first place.

"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.."

My english sucks sometimes Mike. But i did post up a counter view

You did and I never said you didn't, but I still don't like the phrase "the umpires are rubbish". In any context.

Ok mike sorry for offending you..

[laugh]

Basically point being.

Have the umpires been uncharacteristically bad in this test or are we only just noticing the toughness of umpiring and that the human eye in real time is just not good enough.

Both sides have had some poor decisions go against them and that includes by the 3rd Umpire. However mistakes are always made in sports officiating and they cancel out. I think DRS is a great tool but I get the impression umpires aren't properly trained with it and the rules regarding it are still a tad fluffy. And I agree with Boycott that either both hotspot and snicko must be used or if not the the audience shouldn't be shown them

But how can you use Snicko? Its completely unreliable. Moreso than Hotspot. Snicko picks up any sound in that vicinity... Could only definitively prove "Not out", but never "out"

Then don't show what it shows to the crowd. Simple. If it's irrelevant why let it cause controversy?

Think the umpiring has been below par in this series, but not bad. Certainly no worse than most of the playing standard which was the point I was making.

I agree with CJ that more training and clearer and more transparent guidelines would help.

As far as the cost line argument is concerned, I don't think traditionalism, while it has a place in the game, shouldn't come too much in the way of arriving at more correct decisions. By introducing a review system, you are anyways challenging an umpire's call. In such a situation, consistency and fairness would matter more.
So, rather than taking out the DRS altogether or reducing the reviews to 1, take out the umpire's call system, and introduce a more consistent system of evaluation with which the 3rd umpire has to go. Also make use of all the technology including audio, slomo, tracking and hotspot, and introduce instant snicko the moment it becomes usable in a proper match environment. The ICC should fund the DRS across all countries. And in case of a howler even after the teams are done with the review, empower the 3rd official to get involve and correct the wrong.
And on top of this, keep the elite status of the elite panel intact, and do further meaningful work on umpire training, as well as encourage further development of technology.

kingraf wrote:But how can you use Snicko? Its completely unreliable. Moreso than Hotspot. Snicko picks up any sound in that vicinity... Could only definitively prove "Not out", but never "out"

snicko is going to be used, its a good tool but not perfect.
If hot spot shows and snicko shows at the same time we are increasing our chances of making the correct call.



CJ - I have no problem showing it to the audience(I would rather it being used by the umpires though)- I dont like the fact the authorities have to try and hide possible evidence- we know the limitations as much as they do.

kingraf wrote:But how can you use Snicko? Its completely unreliable. Moreso than Hotspot. Snicko picks up any sound in that vicinity... Could only definitively prove "Not out", but never "out"

Not even: I have seen snicko fail to pick up edges which have shown on hotspot (and with the naked eye via ball revs).

People need to understand that the technology, whilst brilliant, is not perfect and is not the only parameter with which you can make a decision, and stop revering it as much as they currently do. Unfortunately the commentators don't seem to understand this, and their ignorance (possibly willful - after all the host broadcaster has invested heavily in the technology) feeds the ignorance of the general public.

Mike Selig wrote:Think the umpiring has been below par in this series, but not bad. Certainly no worse than most of the playing standard which was the point I was making.

I agree with CJ that more training and clearer and more transparent guidelines would help.

I have never understood your 'playing standard' stance as if they are anyway compariable!

Mike Selig wrote:Think the umpiring has been below par in this series, but not bad. Certainly no worse than most of the playing standard which was the point I was making.

I agree with CJ that more training and clearer and more transparent guidelines would help.

Umpiring is a hard and often thankless job. But attempting to justify poor umpiring in terms of poor standard of play in my view is not a very professional or sensible move. As someone associated with a lot of cricket played at a level that is said to be below that of the full members, I am sure Mike wouldn't say those sides deserve only 2nd grade umpiring.

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Think the umpiring has been below par in this series, but not bad. Certainly no worse than most of the playing standard which was the point I was making.

I agree with CJ that more training and clearer and more transparent guidelines would help.

I have never understood your 'playing standard' stance as if they are anyway compariable!

They are comparable: both the umpires and the players are human beings, doing a very difficult job which is an integral part of the game, who are very very good at it (else they would not have gotten that far) and occasionally get things wrong. In this context "occasionally" happens far more frequently for players than it does for umpires, even when the latter is having a perceived off-day, and I only think it is fair to remind ourselves of that.

The umpires dont need to be an intergral part of the game.

If there are intergral it means they have made mistakes. Which is going to be very unfair to the other team..

Umpires are just an end to a means. They need help to get better- There job is to hard.

A cricketers job isnt too hard- Its sport - they are just the best in the world- if there make mistakes- they arnt good enough not to. This is 100% integral to the game of cricket. They are not a means to an ends!

msp83 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Think the umpiring has been below par in this series, but not bad. Certainly no worse than most of the playing standard which was the point I was making.

I agree with CJ that more training and clearer and more transparent guidelines would help.

Umpiring is a hard and often thankless job. But attempting to justify poor umpiring in terms of poor standard of play in my view is not a very professional or sensible move. As someone associated with a lot of cricket played at a level that is said to be below that of the full members, I am sure Mike wouldn't say those sides deserve only 2nd grade umpiring.

Not trying to justify it, just putting it into context.

The umpiring at the standards I operate at is far beneath what you see on TV, and this seems to me fair enough TBH - you won't get test standard umpiring unless you are playing test standard cricket (the umpiring standards improve as you go up the levels, although associates are excluded from the Elite panel which strikes me as unfair although typical). Short of either training up an extraordinary number of test standard umpires, or randomly allocating umpires irrespective of how good they are, this seems to be the only sensible way.

In some instances the umpiring at the levels I operate at IMO is beneath the playing standards (this is particularly true of the top youth cricket) and that seems to me very unfair on the young kids.

mystiroakey wrote:The umpires dont need to be an intergral part of the game.

If there are intergral it means they have made mistakes. Which is going to be very unfair to the other team..

Umpires are just an end to a means. They need help to get better- There job is to hard.

A cricketers job isnt too hard- Its sport - they are just the best in the world- if there make mistakes- they arnt good enough not to. This is 100% integral to the game of cricket. They are not a means to an ends!

With which I disagree entirely. Part of what IMO makes cricket the sport it is and vastly superior to most other sports is the ethos of the game, and by claiming that the umpires are just a means to an end IMO you damage that ethos dramatically. I shall leave it there because it is clear we won't agree.

When Zimbabwe or Bangladesh play the big boys, they often get a larger share of poor decision. Their cricket may not always be at the level of the big boys, but I don't think its fair or good for the game to suggest that they get what they deserve and lets move on.

Fine by me..

I want the game to improve and be one of the fairest sports possible- you want it to remain as the gentlemanly sport it was in a by gone era. I get it. Point being you are going to have to face up to the fact cricket is going to improve , it is moving forward , crowds will boo, umpires are and will become less and less intergral at the high end..

Face it or get nostalgic i suppose!

msp83 wrote:When Zimbabwe or Bangladesh play the big boys, they often get a larger share of poor decision. Their cricket may not always be at the level of the big boys, but I don't think its fair or good for the game to suggest that they get what they deserve and lets move on.

That's true, but a lot of that is because they don't use DRS because they can't afford it; however I don't think there is anything cynical here - the better team always gets the rub of the green regarding umpiring decisions, even in a match between 2 big boys (e.g. in this test Australia have had the rub, whereas in the previous 2 England did).

However I've never said "let's move on" (have I?), I am simply arguing against statements of hyperbole. I would hope it's clear from my posts that I think DRS has to be improved upon and have suggested several ways of doing this. I am however unapologetically wary of impacting on the ethos of the game, but I believe DRS can almost certainly be improved (and possibly to an optimum level) within that framework. Better and more targeted training, specialist TV umpires, clearer and more transparent guidelines, technology standardised across the board (and paid for by the ICC, by the obvious way of getting someone to sponsor "DRS moments"), etc.

To reiterate I have said several times on this thread already that DRS as a system is not working well enough ATM, and that to hide behind "human error" is hiding your head in the sand. So I don't think I've ever said "umpires are human and will make mistakes, let's move on". Simply, I am trying to avoid the kind of hyperbole which qualifies umpires as rubbish, dreadful, a joke etc. I don't believe this to be the case.

To the points Mike has just mentioned, I think taking out umpire's call has to be added. In a scenario where there is a conflict between the ethos and traditions of the game and a question of consistency and through that the credibility of the review system among players and supporters, I think the priority has to go the latter. And in any case, even the traditions of the game suggests that benefit of doubt should go to the batsman rather than the umpire. To respect the umpire's call as final is a tradition, but to give the umpire the benefit of doubt in case of calls regarding impact is a DRS invention and it has to go, there is no real additional infringement involved here, all that it does is to make matters more confising for everyone involved, including the umpires themselves.

" just putting it into context. "

Really!!

Well, here is something interesting. The ICC and the BCCI are in discussions regarding the UDRS, and there is a chance that a compromise formula could be worked out where in a team won't lose a review on an umpire's call decision.
On another interesting note, the ICC seems to be realizing that keeping the likes of Billy Bowden out while average umpires like Tony Hill are allowed to be in the elite panel is an abomination and they might reinstate Bowden.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/658665.html

Mike Selig wrote:To reiterate I have said several times on this thread already that DRS as a system is not working well enough ATM, and that to hide behind "human error" is hiding your head in the sand. So I don't think I've ever said "umpires are human and will make mistakes, let's move on". Simply, I am trying to avoid the kind of hyperbole which qualifies umpires as rubbish, dreadful, a joke etc. I don't believe this to be the case.

Going to be honest I am starting to really find it hard to work out what you are jabbering about. Stop taking things out of context, Stop taking offence for virtually nothing and try and open your mind into where this game needs to be!!

I have no idea what you're on about. I haven't taken offence at anything.

You've missed the lengthy posts where I expand on how I see how to improve the system as it stands? Because for me that is opening my mind to try and improve the game.

msp83 wrote:Well, here is something interesting. The ICC and the BCCI are in discussions regarding the UDRS, and there is a chance that a compromise formula could be worked out where in a team won't lose a review on an umpire's call decision.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/658665.html

Boy oh boy if there is a compromise then K_P Fan will be suicidal if it is brought in.

Mike Selig wrote:I have no idea what you're on about. I haven't taken offence at anything.

You've missed the lengthy posts where I expand on how I see how to improve the system as it stands? Because for me that is opening my mind to try and improve the game.

I am in complete agreement . I have no idea what you are talking about. All you do is take offence on behalf of others. Miss the substance of a post and highlight one point- take it out of context and then rage about it!

End of the day folks I think we all agree on this:-

The DRS has improved the amount of correct decisions given but still needs tweaking in areas. It is still better having it than going back to just the umpires having the final say with more wrong decisions. Therefore, it is fair to presume that DRS is here to stay but now we look to how to tweak and further improve the system. I believe this could be done in a number of ways such as:-

Better training and tougher guidelines for the third umpire to adhere to and if these guidelines aren't adhered to then they should be re-trained or removed. Competence rewarded and incompetence not.

Perhaps even have a third umpire assistant ie someone familiar with all the nuances of the software who can further advise and give input on what the software is saying.

Remove the rule where a review is lost if the review returns to umpire's call.

"Remove the rule where a review is lost if the review returns to umpire's call."

I like that situation. and its better than it is today.

But I along MSP believe the umpires call needs to just be taken away full stop..

The harsher punishment is losing the decision not the review..

Even if the tech isnt perfect- We need consitancy.

1. If we create a consitant in or out(based on a percentage of the ball hitting)- everyone knows where they stand and no one can argue.

2. It doesnt matter what umpire is on the field - the decision will allways remain the same.

3. It truely is pot luck if you are out or not at the moment.

4. However .We need to see hawkeyes stats and auditing systems. they need to be published from my pov. Because if they are not as described then yes I admit that we cant take umpires call away. But if they are as accurate as I think I read about a year ago(cant find anything anymore about it- the internet is a big place!!) (95% of the time they will be accurate to within 2% of the ball size) We have to go with that tech as it is more accurate than the on field umpire(basically more accurate than humans- so it doesnt matter that it isnt perfect - it matters that its more accurate)

msp83 wrote:Well, here is something interesting. The ICC and the BCCI are in discussions regarding the UDRS, and there is a chance that a compromise formula could be worked out where in a team won't lose a review on an umpire's call decision.
On another interesting note, the ICC seems to be realizing that keeping the likes of Billy Bowden out while average umpires like Tony Hill are allowed to be in the elite panel is an abomination and they might reinstate Bowden.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/658665.html

I really hope we don't get unlimited reviews. Would just be absolutely pointless, and anything and everything would be reviewed.

I am going to come back to this later. Too much cricket to watch right now...

But in the meantime can we all relax a bit and stop accusing each other of offensive intent etc ? This is just an exchange of ideas , surely , no "sides" involved...

OK ?

I actually respect Mike a lot , he has seen and been part of more cricket than I have had hot dinners. But in this case I dont buy what he is saying. Its a debate ffs.. He needs to stop getting offended.. And highlighting stuff out of context!

alfie wrote:I am going to come back to this later.  Too much cricket to watch right now...

But in the meantime can we all relax a bit and stop accusing each other of offensive intent etc ?  This is just an exchange of ideas , surely , no "sides" involved...

OK ?

So very correct alfie. No need at all to get hyper.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/658665.html

it appears India has asked for unlimited reviews to accept DRS
and ICC has offered a number of compromises..including not losing reviews on marginal calls.

India's opposition to DRS with a constructive and open mind can be an undisguised blessing.

Constructively India  can use their clout to guide the DRS ( means all 3 components--including technology, umpiring, laws)...towards a more consistently acceptable version.

the Chaos and Can of worms that it has been......India if acting constructively will get the support of most nations.

Dalmiya is a better diplomat...sophisticated and refined....who knows "Power is in knowing...and not showing"
unlike the crasss uncouth bully that Srinivasan comes across.

It will do Indian and world cricket a lot of good if Srinivasan does not get re-elected in the upcoming Septemer elections of BCCI. And it does appear highly unlikely that various politking factions would want to touch Srinivasan again in an executive role after all the accustaions and public opinion against him

I think tells of woe about the DRS are getting greatly over-played. I never knew anyone who thought it was going to make decision making perfect, it merely ensures that it's got a far better chance

mystiroakey wrote:I actually respect Mike a lot , he has seen and been part of more cricket than I have had hot dinners. But in this case  I dont buy what he is saying. Its a debate ffs.. He needs to stop getting offended.. And highlighting stuff out of context!

I too have the utmost respect for Mysti, and apologise if my behaviour has gotten out of hand. Let's agree that for now we won't agree on some of these issues, shake spiritual hands and move on. Life is far too short for 2 guys as passionate about cricket as we clearly are to fall out over things.