4th ODI: Australia v Sri Lanka at Sydney Jan 20, 2013

[attila_the_gorilla]

There's a reason why there's a limit on the number of available reviews. That is to prevent too many delays.
I won't mind a constant video umpire if it doesn't cause substantially more delays overall than the current system.

 

[Desert Qlder]

Ahh the days when a bower takes a wicket and then coolly walks back to his mark.

 

[hineyrulz]

There's a reason why there's a limit on the number of available reviews. That is to prevent too many delays.
I won't mind a constant video umpire if it doesn't cause substantially more delays overall than the current system.

But they have a review for a no ball just about every wicket.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

The reason why you keep it out of the players hands is because these decisions should be the sole responsibility of the umpires and match referee. What it does is accept that umpires are crap by saying oh well you can review. Accountability should lie with the umps not the players.

You mean just on-field umpires? Then we'll go back full cirle to the old times of howlers. They make mistakes, and always will.
Players are not accountable, nobody says they are. But if they play their cards right, then every single howler can be eliminated with the current system.

 

[Horrie Is God]

Loving this old footage in HD on GEM..

 

[typicalfan]

You mean just on-field umpires? Then we'll go back full cirle to the old times of howlers. They make mistakes, and always will.
Players are not accountable, nobody says they are. But if they play their cards right, then every single howler can be eliminated with the current system.

I know what you are saying but it does take the heat off the umpires onto the players. For example all the people saying that it was Clarke's fault that Warner and Henriques got out...that is accountability. Clarke cannot predict the future except that he knows if he uses his review then that is it but he also knows he is clearly the best batsman in his team so his mind is already biased toward himself like any batsman is so he is not in the best position to make the decision.

In reality it is the umpires fault that Warner and Henriques were given out and they should be the ones that get the blowtorch applied. I think the decision to review needs to be made by someone not on the field like the match referee or third umpire but then they will start referring everything. No easy answer.

 

[Horrie Is God]

You mean just on-field umpires? Then we'll go back full cirle to the old times of howlers. They make mistakes, and always will.
Players are not accountable, nobody says they are. But if they play their cards right, then every single howler can be eliminated with the current system.

Mate you are relying on people who want to win at all costs to "play there cards right"..

It's a utopian idea..

Players will always gamble on 50/50 decisions..They wouldn't make it to the top level unless they did..

The umpires should be the sole arbiters of the game..

The players should play..

The current DRS doesn't reflect this..

 

[hineyrulz]

Was this the tied game????

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Was this the tied game????

Yep

 

[TheParraboy]

There's nothing wrong with the current review system, as long as players understand what it's for. It's not for 50/50 decisions, it's for eliminating obvious howlers. If they only use it for such howlers, they won't lose their review.
Clarke's review was a stupid gamble, I'm sure he'll learn from his mistake.

Problem is, we dont know when the howlers will come, if at all.

As you said 50/50 , might as well take the chance, rather than hold back just in case of a "howler", particularly in the shorter form of the game. Dont blame clarke at all

Obvious holwers like the Warner dismisal, the 3rd umpire should send a signal straight down to the field umpire to call him back (would take under 10 seconds to do so?). Its a blatant error, wether you have referals left or not

 

[hineyrulz]

Big useless Mocca gets runout of the last ball :lol:

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

I know what you are saying but it does take the heat off the umpires onto the players. For example all the people saying that it was Clarke's fault that Warner and Henriques got out...that is accountability. Clarke cannot predict the future except that he knows if he uses his review then that is it but he also knows he is clearly the best batsman in his team so his mind is already biased toward himself like any batsman is so he is not in the best position to make the decision.

In reality it is the umpires fault that Warner and Henriques were given out and they should be the ones that get the blowtorch applied. I think the decision to review needs to be made by someone not on the field like the match referee or third umpire but then they will start referring everything. No easy answer.

Just because there is a review system, the umpires are still trying to make the right calls. Or do you hink it affects their decisions?

Pretty sure Clarke will not review in a similar situation next time. Even if he's given out in a 50/50 decision, he'll know to leave it alone and only worry about howlers like when you know you've hit the ball first. It's a relatively new system, one review only, and they'll get much better at it with experience.

I agree otherwise that 50/50 or marginal decisions should be left with the umpires. And that's exactly how this system is designed to work.

 

[Horrie Is God]

Lol@Bill getting the result wrong in his excitement..

 

[Xfactor1979]

Ahh the days when a bower takes a wicket and then coolly walks back to his mark.

even by then john inveriarity had retired

 

[IanG]

LOL A disco going on Wouldn't surprise me if there's a few people dressed in John Travolta suits

 

[AlwaysGreen]

This rain is f**ked.

 

[hineyrulz]

Lol@Bill getting the result wrong in his excitement..

:lol: He nearly blew his load when they snuck through for the tieing run. This was the series when the Windies thought they had already won the series and the ACB made them play the 3rd so Viv and Lloyd spat it and didn't play and they still whooped us :lol:

 

[typicalfan]

Just because there is a review system, the umpires are still trying to make the right calls. Or do you hink it affects their decisions?

Pretty sure Clarke will not review in a similar situation next time. Even if he's given out in a 50/50 decision, he'll know to leave it alone and only worry about howlers like when you know you've hit the ball first. It's a relatively new system, one review only, and they'll get much better at it with experience.

I agree otherwise that 50/50 or marginal decisions should be left with the umpires. And that's exactly how this system is designed to work.

I think the first question that needs to be asked with DRS is who is the best person to make a decision in the case of a howler of a decision. My answer is the third umpire but other people might be different so that is who imo it should rest with. I am not sure Clarke will change his decision, regardless of his decision he is still the teams best batsman and he would sacrifice a howler to Henriques in order to save himself no doubt in the world as would any top order batsman. That is tactical, it wasn't like Clarke was plumb either, it only just hit him in line and was nearly going over and who knows Warner down the other end might have suggested it looked high. I would love to see the percentage on referrals that get overturned that would be another measure of their efficiency.

 

[IanG]

Gone back into the vaults again. Australia v England 1986-87

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Amazing to see batsmen without helmets. And Dirk with the specs. :lol: