We had a league match this weekend, we needed 3 wickets off the final 8 over’s, they needed 38 runs.
We had around 30 people turn up and watch (OK, not that many, but about the same attendance as a test match in the sub-continent though).
Anyway, we didn’t get all 3 wickets, however, the second wicket came with 3 over’s to go. The ball pitched just outside off, and came in. The Batsman played a half-hearted shot, and was struck on his front pad.
The Keeper, bowler and slips made a loud appeal, it took a few seconds, but the umpires finger slowly went up. All the fielders came running in to congratulate the bowler, lots of shouting and we were pumped up, hunting for the final wicket.
That adrenaline..disappears once DRS comes into play
The 49th Over, our spinner bowled, and everyone heard a nick as the ball past the bat. Again we all went up..HUGE appeal..the umpire looked, then shook his head. There were a few arms waving, but the decision stood..and we continued.
The feeling when the umpire’s finger is raised..the instant buzz, . When it’s given, the joy and celebrations are now-where near the same. when DRS comes into play.
I agree DRS brings something to the game…however, I also feel it takes something away.
I’m not sure how many of you play the game, but I’m hoping some of you understand what I mean.
DRS
posted on 22/7/13
anyway, back to teh topic, If I bowed and got a wicket, with the celebrations going with it, only for it to be deemed "not out" 5 minute later..we'll it kinds of destroys a big part of cricket for me.
I can see you're point but put the shoe on the other foot and you were batting and you were given out which meant you lost the match, this is here to help, but maybe to make it more intresting and fair they cut the time the other team have to use the system ?
Its a tricky one but if I am honest mate I like it
posted on 22/7/13
I can understand both sides of the argument.
Sometimes a batsman is not given out, when he is. Swings and roundabouts.
its nice to have that element of subjectivity in a game...yes it can be decisive, but thats the buzz, the talking point for the fans, the banter at the pub.
In a bar, when a batsmans given, you have a chat, sometimes a heated discussion, saying if the batsman is out or not...with DRS and TV replays, it just kills that part of the conversation (Barr decisions ikes Trotts, in the 1st test).
Does DRS really imporve the entertainment of the game?
posted on 22/7/13
I know what you mean lefty. There wasn't quite the ecstrasy of getting the Haddin wicket at Trent Bridge because we had to wait until the decision was reviewed. Compare that to say, the Edgbaston test of 2005; the umpire's finger went straight up when Kaspowitz was given out which meant there was no deliberation, n waiting, the wicket was given.
That said, I do like some parts of the DRS. When an LBW is reviewed, and it shows the ball in line, going on to hit etc, it really does get the crowd going if its Eng bowling to an opposition batsman.
Overall it gets more right than wrong and I believe that is a good thing.
posted on 22/7/13
I agree DRS brings something to the game…however, I also feel it takes something away.
________________________________________
Yeah it brings something to the game - 99% correct decisions. Yes, it takes something away too - % of bad decisions and howlers.
Would you rather forsake holding of your "celebrations" for a few seconds more for the correct decision? Also, you're matching apples with oranges when it comes to pub cricket vs international cricket - there is a hell ofa lot at stake and umpires, organisers, fans, players, coachs, staff and management want the correct decisions.
posted on 22/7/13
Yes Afridi - That is one side of it
posted on 22/7/13
One side = correct decisions increased
other side = incorrect decisions minimised
How many sides is there? are we talking Triangle, Hexagon or Octagon here
posted on 22/7/13
Read Article
Im happy a few understood.
Never mind
posted on 22/7/13
I've never played the game to any decent standard but love watching test cricket.
I think that DRS is here and the game is all the better for it. Nothing worse that a decision not given, for play to resume only for tv replays to show that the decision should have been given in the first place.
It's also another stick to beat the Aussies with.
posted on 23/7/13
Gilchrist made some very salient points about DRS during the test and I find myself agreeing with him a little.
I like the idea of "getting rid of the howler" but the teams are not using it for that because - lets be honest how many "howlers" are there.
What DRS IS showing in its use around the world is actually almost a disservice to itself - it is showing that umpires actually get over 90% of the decisions correct without having to resort to it.
So do we actually NEED DRS? If the umpires are getting 90 out of 100 decisions correct - and on average make 50-60 decisions a game (one of the bbc articles stated that in the first test the umpires made 79 decisions which was more than average). then the average number of "incorrect" decisions per game is around 5.
That is roughly 1 per innings... which to be honest if we want the game to be "viewer friendly" is what adds to the conversations.
The last hour or so of play in test 2 when neither side had a review actually made the game tenser - due to the fact it was PURELY on the umpire.
posted on 25/7/13
Just read the text of Simon Taufel's recent lecture.
Although he did not propose clear solutions, I agree with the main theme of his lecture that technology is here to stay, but we need to use it properly.
Umpires are so easily made to look like villains today. I especially do not like the instant caustic comments by the armchair critics, who should show some decency and restraint.
Umpiring today is not as easy a task as during the days of Dickies and Birds.