September 18, 2013
Two reviews for an entire innings is too few.
This will only encourage tactical use of DRS, which was never the point of the system.
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
September 18, 2013, 14:04 GMT
This idea even though doesn't resolve the current issues completely, at least tries to make the situation better. There will always be some players in the team who will take the review without much thought behind it (e.g. Watson, Sehwag, etc) and teams lose the 2 reviews because of them. Now at least that can be resolved and a situation like Broad's case will probably not appear that often. Also by resetting the reviews, we are reaching towards eradicating the pure howlers. If you have a review in hand, you can get rid of the howler. Without the review in hand, all improvement in technology means nothing.
September 25, 2013, 11:28 GMT
Now Warner can use 2 in the morning session and haddin can use 2 evening session
September 20, 2013, 10:14 GMT
The idea behind DRS is to improve the Quality of umpiring decisions and for me there should not be any limitations to the correct decision made. To be clear, there should not be any limit to the number of times you can review. For example, If a batsman, given out LBW, knows that the ball has hit his bat first, he has full right to appeal. Thus its a good decision by ICC.
But, before implementing any such change, DRS in itself has to be improved. We have all the tools we need, the idea is just to use them properly. Hotspot, Snicko, Sound, Magnified view, Replays, Hawk eye etc. may not be 100% efficient, but when used together, they can be very accurate.
Also what is required is proper training to the Umpires. We had a few disastrous decisions being made in the recently concluded Ashes series and I will say that it was not the technology, but what umpire saw or thought, which made the error.
DRS is a boon subjected to the fact how it is used.
September 20, 2013, 2:54 GMT
It's better then only two per innings BUT think it's the concept which needs to be worked upon. Instead of the bowling and batting sides captains deciding on whether to take a review or not it should be the duty of the 3rd umpire to review each and every dubious decision by the on-field umpire's and take the corrective measures as appropriate to eliminate or REDUCE to a bare minimum chance of incorrect decisions on the cricket grounds.
October 3, 2013, 14:54 GMT
It is a case of, Late than Never.Looking at the question from a larger perspective, the umpires and DRS are in the game of cricket not to please or annoy any one in particular. If it is the case and which I think ,should be, then it is The Rules of Cricket which are meant to be implemented in their true spirit.
So the discussion becomes healthy. What if the rule being implemented is having inherent conflicts. I am afraid then we can keep quarreling between the umpires and the DRS. More importantly it is the Rule to be looked at by ICC which is being contested.
As far as the choice of 2/80 overs is concerned,the Yes review should keep 2/80
still in tact. A No review can be taken down to 1/80.
September 22, 2013, 8:52 GMT
Why ICC making it too complicated for this review system (DRS).. Instead the players should be given the full rights to use it whenever they want if they feel that the umpire has had a mistake or a blunder.
If the review goes against the player reviewing he should be given 2-3 match suspension or given the red card so that he won't be able to participate in the game at all. This will reduce the player going for the review for doubtful or 50-50 decisions and respect the on-field umpires. SO please get out of the number game in DRS atleast.....
September 21, 2013, 2:42 GMT
The third umpire should "review" every ball for no-balls, it may take him, 10 seconds!? Making every ball "legal" is the least technology could do!! This, I am certain, is possible for the technology to get 100% right!
September 21, 2013, 2:20 GMT
No! Give each team 1 review total per Innings! If they get the review right or wrong it doesnt matter!!(I used to think 2 per Inn's). U know what will happen ? Each team will always have a review spare for when a "Howler" comes along!! It may even bring back some Umpire respect!
This is the only solution, unless, U review every decision!!
September 20, 2013, 14:34 GMT
The big issue for me at the moment is that we are struggling to get 90 overs in across 6 hours. This decision will not help that. Also I think there has to be a time limit on the decision as well. If it takes 25 replays to decide something, then clearly it is not a howler, and the decision should stay with the onfield umpire.
September 20, 2013, 9:27 GMT
I feel sorry for the umpires. Umpire's decision is a part of sport and should be taken in sporting manner. If this continues this way I am sure there will be a day very soon when umpires would be needed just to signal wides and no balls as everything else will be in third umpire's hands. 2 reviews are sufficient for any whims and fancies of either teams.
Should Ben Stokes have been given out obstructing the field?
Should South Africa have lost points for drawing a rain-marred series?
Do you agree with ICC's move to scrap the ODI batting Powerplay?