Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mhsabir
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 65
  • Views Views 6,973
I dislike UDRS not because of the less reliability, but the fact that it is used more like a strategic weapon than an incorrect decision changer. If there is a wrong decision, you should have not to be having to use some of sort calculation and strategic planning to appeal against. Also close decisions result in number of challenges available to be removed, which is unfair as they were that close hence team was justified in appealing the decision & punishing them for that is ridiculous.UDRS gets a thumbs down for me for not what it is intended to do, but for how it is implemented.
 
Thumbs up to the article from me

ICC news: Tony Greig has yorked himself over DRS | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Now, we hear that further guessing is going on with different variations to the number of challenges for Tests and ODIs. What could possibly be the rationale of having two unsuccessful challenges per innings for Tests and one for ODIs?

One unsuccessful challenge would be enough to remove the howler, the bad mistake, the error that every umpire makes now and then and especially under tired duress. When this happens the players simply step in and say 'We'd better check that please'. The decision gets reversed and the challenge system carries on.

Last week the ICC said Ed Rosten, a Cambridge professor, had given ball-tracking technology the 100% tick. Yet Ian Taylor, the creator of Virtual ball tracking says it isn't 100%. Whom shall we believe? The inventor, of course, not the professor.
 
Harsha Bhogle: Is India a convenient bogeyman? | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

On the DRS itself, there is a deeper issue. If the objective is to ensure fairer decision-making, it should be allowed on every decision, not one or two. As it stands today, it doesn't eliminate the howler for No. 9 or 10 if the two reviews have been used up. The lesser batsmen effectively live in a non-DRS system. We have created a hierarchy - haves and have-nots.

Totally Agree
 
Australia v Sri Lanka, 1st Test, Hobart, 3rd day : 'SL unlucky with reviews' - Tillakaratne Dilshan | Cricket News | Australia v Sri Lanka | ESPN Cricinfo

The visitors had been unsuccessful in their only review while bowling in the first innings, before both Mahela Jayawardene and Angelo Mathews unsuccessfully challenged lbw decisions that were found to be hitting the top of the stumps. Rangana Herath was also given out lbw, but had inside edged the ball onto his pads, and was unable to review the decision because Sri Lanka's reviews had already been spent.

Late in the day, Nuwan Kulasekara trapped Ed Cowan in front with a ball that straightened off the seam, but despite having both reviews available, Sri Lanka opted not to refer the decision to the third umpire.

Precisely again why I am not a big fan of UDRS.

"Luck" should not be a factor in UDRS.
 
So, finally the thread updater is back, was wondering why the thread not updating today.Now coming back to the topic, i've a similar opinion.Ever since the UDRS has been introduced, the quality of umpiring has been contantly deteriorating.The umpires are making poor decisions quite regularly now because they know the so called technology will assist them if they get wrong so is the result in straightforward decisions which changes the course of a match.Many wouldn't agree with me but that's how it looks to me.
 
Aus 145/7 (38.1 ov, MS Wade 23*, SL Malinga 2/12) | Live Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

First,

Kulasekara to Clarke, OUT, Clarke's been given lbw and he's asked for a review too. Kulasekara hit the pad with a big inswinger, it moved sharply into Clarke off the seam. Clarke was pushing forward and was hit in line too. Replays indicate the ball would have clipped the top of middle. He's got to go.

It looked so easily out that the commentator(s) and even myself said its out even before umpire gave it. Unwanted review by Clarke here. He could have marginally survived had it been a BIT higher. But, in his position and even from the runner's perspective who would have been thinking of other things when the ball was bowled, it would have been tough to "skip" the review.

Then,

NLTC Perera to Warner, OUT, a huge appeal for lbw and the umpire raises the finger though I thought Warner had got a big inside edge on to his pad. Warner is dismayed as he sees the finger go up and he can't review it because Clarke had used up the only review available. And he had got a massive inside edge as he played from his crease at a good length ball that pitched around leg and middle

A shocker, but he cant review it because of the earlier Clarke request.

DRS in its current form, is stupid.
 
Its like the Onfield Umpires shud be Robos equipped with all the programming, and then exceptions can be raised to the 3rd Umpire who will be a human. But it wud be horrific even the imagine what the game wud become in that scenario!
 
What is the point in having DRS and limiting them to like 2 reviews or 3 reviews?

So that players don't keep on using for every decision made.
 

Top