Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23rd February 2015, 02:56   #521
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
If you really want to get into a ponit by point refutation, then we can.
So this was just a summary? God help us...lol. I was wondering if my reply to this should be in installments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
My apologies to those who - like me - find these tedious and petty; and I suggest you just skip over this post.
If you really don't like "tedious and petty", you do a great impersonation!

I have doubts an otherwise intelligent forum might require your instruction as to what they read/don't read. Seems a bit "out there". Or give a rat's @rse enough to require a feigned apology.Then again, who knows?

Either way it would be a general courtesy not to begin posts with rhetorical pleas (stunts) to imagined audiences this way. It might be better to put such assumptions in separate posts where they might be relevant to discussion with such imagined people. Not sure how that would work but, not only is it irrelevant to the points being discussed here, it has the obvious intention of a put down re what you are replying to, a priori. More common to politicians and salesman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
No, it isn't. It is quite definitive, both in theory and in practice. There is no grey about this incident, the umpires got it wrong, and the ICC has directly stated it as such. Just because an umpire doesn't know a clearly stated playing condition doesn't make it a grey area.
And directly answered:
As to what you did try to answer, it somewhat overlooks the fact that three highly trained, world class officials did get a drs complicated decision quite wrong and with a refusal (so far) to look to understand why that might have been. It seems unlikely they didn't know the rules per se, as much as how they pertain to drs. Was quite the grey area for them, it seems...

You might have missed the other drs "cock up" that happened at the same time as the "incident", though in a different match. Also the wild brawl that ensued between opposing supporters.

You also seem unable to submit to any possibility that the regular failures of this system suggest it can be better implemented than it now is (apart from the questionable accuracy of it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Again, directly answered:

No deflection there. And no recipe for failure, as the word "allowing" clearly implies codification in the laws/playing conditions.
"Allowing" doesn't necessarily equate to "successfully allowing". Allowing a ball to be replayed doesn't negate, nor necessarily redress the fact that a team missed 4 runs that they fairly scored, winning them the WC. It only gives them the opportunity to do it again (in effect, needing 8 runs off two deliveries). At this stage the rules don't even allow for that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
As an elaboration, I'm a firm believer that it is impossible and pointless to provide rules to all the possible corner and pathological cases, and attempts to do so inevitably throw up more problems than they solve.
That's nice. Good for you. People believe all sorts of things that don't coincide with reality. I find your beliefs less relevant than you do, especially when facts are available to conclude the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Providing the authority for the umpires to rule based on all the nuances and subtleties at the time is far more likely to restore equity (for example, if the no-ball rule had included "any delivery felt by the umpire at the time to be contrary to the spirit of the game" then the underarm incident would have been easily dealt with at the time - the ball would have been bowled underarm, the umpire would have called "no-ball", and just about everyone except some of the Australian team (honourable mention here to Rod Marsh for his stance against this despicable act) and some of their more one-eyed followers would have supported his call.
You might try recovering from your moral outrage and moving on. Or not.

I have about as much problem with the underarm incident as I did with the Broad non walking incident (found both humorous tbh). I find the past, flagrant disregard for the rules re rotating bowlers on and off the field, worse. This is because, unlike the first two, it was clearly against the rules, it was actually calculated and systematic cheating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Tennis has had a similar system for years - when an "out" call is changed to an "in" call, the umpire decides if it would have won the point, or whether the opponent had a viable possibility of remaining in the point had it not been called out, and if so, the point is replayed.
Then he's an idiot. The intent of the DRS is to correct clear errors, and if it isn't a clear mistake, he should have been chasing the ball.
Not so much a deflection as a strawman.

You overlook the point. How can you be chasing the ball and discussing a review at the same time? We refer Breacon rules of cricket section 1, subsection C..."He's an idiot"?

Tennis uses far less technology and applies it differently to begin with. It has reasonably effective replay technology, different rules, less players, a small area, not to mention clear and different requirements regarding challenges. It is a very different bucket of fish.The only correlation would be that they require Umpire decisions. The relevance would be largely imaginary. There are no end of sports requiring subjective decisions from Officials, they aren't particularly relevant here either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
I'll agree I didn't address this point, but I didn't think it particularly significant or useful to do so, as nobody should be expect to get any compensation for any consequences of incorrectly challenging the umpire's decision.
See above - umpires having the ability to have the ball replayed if they felt the incorrect decision deprived the batsmen of a run-scoring opportunity (and equally not to require the fielding side to give the batsmen an additional delivery if they didn't look like scoring from the one in question). Seems to address the specific issues of the ODI having limited deliveries from which to score runs.
There is no "depriving a batsman of a scoring opportunity" in my hypothetical. It is depriving the batsmen of the runs that were scored fairly and won the World Cup. Giving them another opportunity doesn't redress that, it only an opportunity to do it twice. Again, the rules don't even allow for this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
And on to the later post...
Bizarre. Since you have such strong views, I'd assumed that you'd made the effort to view and/or research the issue.
Yes, I can see where you would be completely shocked...

That someone would not bother watching England capitulate...therefore not know about said "incident" straight away...or know the rule...(despite the fact that no one else seemed to have foreknowledge of it)...and dare to ask for clarification (on a cricket forum)...Yet still have an opinion on drs! tsk tsk. What next..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Disagree - they are relevant as an example of subjective calls already made by umpires which require an additional delivery to be bowled; and thus a concept which can be applied following a successful DRS challenge.
Yet, apart from "black and white" instances (such as a leg side delivery in ODI) there seems as many interpretations of a "wide", as there are Umpires. Some are strict, some lenient. The worst it usually results in is a bemused look from players or a bit of wry commentary. What about players congratulating each other after a clear nick/deflection to the keeper, yet silenced, because despite this the Umpire still thought it should be called wide (has happened, seemed to think the player was out unfairly, from swooshing at a wide one).

So good luck with that, your argument this way simply seems self defeating (despite not being all that relevant anyway).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Far from it - any remedies from consequences of the DRS need to consider all likely scenarios - corner cases or otherwise. Which is why I firmly believe that giving the umpire the ability to require the delivery to be repeated if they believe the batting side has been deprived of the likelihood of runs is the most pragmatic.
You're not listening. There is a better option (IMO) .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
I assume that you're talking about the last wicket incorrect lbw with no referrals here.
No, I'm not. Did you even bother reading it?

The rest is just repetition of the mantra "let the Umpire decide" (which is also what anti drs proponents want, strangely enough) with a religious type of fervor, to cover the failings of the drs system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
So obvious you declined to elaborate?
Thought you'd never ask (well, I know you're not really asking).

I'll put this in a subsequent post.

Last edited by thedon : 23rd February 2015 at 04:48.
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th February 2015, 23:21   #522
square leg umpire
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 7,630
Another query about DRS today. Gayle was given not out but looked plumb on the replay. the DRS said the ball was clipping the top of the stumps but it seemed to hit him halfway up. The decision stunned everybody but little was said afterwards. Maybe India have a point.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2015, 08:49   #523
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,231
India only have a point if we have reason to distrust the technology used. I don't think we do and that India have other reasons for their opposition to DRS.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2015, 08:25   #524
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,293
More drs oddness. SL review a caught behind but lose because snicko was not available. I dislike how they often crowd the umpire when they don't get a decision their way but I feel some sympathy for them over this. If the tech isn't working they should get the review back
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2015, 08:49   #525
ConfusedMale
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bangalore
Team(s): India
Posts: 2,963
Any idea how many successful and how many unsuccessful reviews have been there so far? What has been the success/failure percentage of the on-field umpires?
__________________
A quote is quotable depending on who you are and not what you say
ConfusedMale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2015, 08:59   #526
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,293
Been very few mistakes overturned I think. On field umpiring seems to be pretty good so far
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2015, 09:16   #527
ConfusedMale
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bangalore
Team(s): India
Posts: 2,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Been very few mistakes overturned I think. On field umpiring seems to be pretty good so far
Thanks Ali. Even I thought so, but just wanted to confirm if my feeling was right on that.
__________________
A quote is quotable depending on who you are and not what you say
ConfusedMale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2015, 10:02   #528
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,312
Sri Lanka's review at the weekend was pure comedy gold. Commentators love the phrase "it wouldn't have hit a second set" whilst is almost always utter, utter drivel. However, not in this instance!
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2015, 10:14   #529
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
Sri Lanka's review at the weekend was pure comedy gold. Commentators love the phrase "it wouldn't have hit a second set" whilst is almost always utter, utter drivel. However, not in this instance!
That's unfair. It might well have been unpire's call on the leg stump of second set. Maybe. It was incredible and showed how desperate they were. I still can't believe how defensive we were and how many short balls. Awful.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2015, 10:20   #530
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
That's unfair. It might well have been unpire's call on the leg stump of second set. Maybe. It was incredible and showed how desperate they were. I still can't believe how defensive we were and how many short balls. Awful.
Doing what the computer said. Stuart Broad has turned into a cyborg if we judge his recent interviews about doing what the stats say*.

*MF any comment on interview technique in this instance?
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2015, 13:08   #531
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 774 Wagner 118 TCurran 5 SCurran 0 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19,999
http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-n...ses-drs/189393

The think-tank was also impressed by a report from Simon Taufel, the former umpire, on technology designed to allow the third umpire to monitor no-balls. A fast, automated system for the calling of front-foot no-balls would be a welcome enhancement to the game, the committee said.

After all this time the third umpire might finally have something to do.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2015, 07:32   #532
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Much condemnation of the DRS system following a non-overturn by Nigel Llong at the Adelaide test. For those who haven't seen it, Hotspot showed a clear edge, but the absence of sound on Real Time Snicko led the third umpire to decide not to overturn the onfield "not out". That's making a lot of assumptions about the accuracy, sensitivity and synchronisation of RTS in order to discount clear evidence from Hotspot. Some also claim there is a visually discernable deflection of the ball.

Condemning the system is missing the point - no system is proof against mistakes from those using it. Most objective consensus is that it was Llong's interpretation of the data readily available to him was obviously flawed, rather than system itself.

Perhaps better training of the third umpires in the use of the system is in order here.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2015, 14:39   #533
square leg umpire
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 7,630
DRS is only as good as the person operating it.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2015, 14:36   #534
square leg umpire
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 7,630
More controversy with DRS this game with the third umpire overturning an on field decision on dubious grounds. English umpires seem to making a mess of it.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2015, 15:17   #535
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,256
Was a bit of an odd one: brief flash of white on hot spot as ball passed glove but nothing on snicko. I don't think there was enough to overturn but not clear cut either way. The third umpire apparently thought he saw a deflection too but a review of three simultaneous feeds shows the ball hadn't actually got to the glove by then.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2016, 10:26   #536
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,293
Discussion about DRS on CWOTV shows that one of the biggest issue with the system is the lack of technical literacy among those commenting on it.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2016, 21:32   #537
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Discussion about DRS on CWOTV shows that one of the biggest issue with the system is the lack of technical literacy among those commenting on it.
Didn't see it but not a bit surprised: you actually have to pay a modicum of attention to understand the tech.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2016, 22:23   #538
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,309
I've heard the discussion, and it wasn't the worst - just the usual 'it was brought in to get rid of the howlers' talk.

Lawrence Booth redeemed himself in a later TMS discussion, where he talked sense about two-division Test cricket and the Associates, against Derek 'Luddite' Pringle.
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2016, 23:34   #539
square leg umpire
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 7,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rey View Post
I've heard the discussion, and it wasn't the worst - just the usual 'it was brought in to get rid of the howlers' talk.

Lawrence Booth redeemed himself in a later TMS discussion, where he talked sense about two-division Test cricket and the Associates, against Derek 'Luddite' Pringle.
it was Lawrence Booth who did the howlers thing. The other guy was a lot better.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th June 2016, 07:30   #540
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rey View Post
I've heard the discussion, and it wasn't the worst - just the usual 'it was brought in to get rid of the howlers' talk.
Seeing so many of them that look like the review was justified but have "umpire's call" reject them is so annoying though.

Tidying up a few howlers might have been the intended use, but what (small) percentage do they actually clear up? And the way it is applied means teams are almost "gambling" when using them so often don't use it when they should, and vice versa.

For me that's as bad as just relying on the umpires.

And the bowled off a no ball delivery, I'm not sure why just because the umpire called it a no ball that is irreversible, but do wonder if the bowling side had reviewed it would the no ball have been reversed then........??!?


Obviously you don't want players reviewing every over, or batsmen reviewing every out decision, although I'd argue why not simply review all dismissals like they check for no balls and refine how it is applied to not outs for the fielding side................. ie review all "out" decisions anyway, and just use it when the decision is "not out".

Or better still scrap it, and let umpire's use it when they're not sure with the 3rd umpire keeping an eye on all decisions and giving them a nudge whilst the bowler is walking back if they think it is a "howler" (with benefit of replay/technology)
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:10.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org