New Feature : UDRS: To review or not to review

[gvenkat]

I lamented on the use of referrals and how ICC should prompt the use of technology to the fullest extent in cricket last year during the fourth test between West Indies and England at Bridgetown,Barbados.Daryl Harper, the TV umpire from Australia was at the hot seat for a period of play on the final session of the third day during that Test when he gave two absolute shockers which baffled one and all. As the year went by ICC had realized the importance of technology and to eradicate umpiring errors implemented the UDRS (Umpire Decision review system) from October 2009. When this announcement came out, I was elated that ICC had taken the step in the right direction to help the game, the players, the umpires and the fans.

Cricket Web - Features: UDRS: To review or not to review

 

[gvenkat]

Test

 

[gvenkat]

Can some one make this a sticky thread please?

 

[dikinee]

I lamented on the use of referrals and how ICC should prompt the use of technology to the fullest extent in cricket last year during the fourth test between West Indies and England at Bridgetown,Barbados.Daryl Harper, the TV umpire from Australia was at the hot seat for a period of play on the final session of the third day during that Test when he gave two absolute shockers which baffled one and all. As the year went by ICC had realized the importance of technology and to eradicate umpiring errors implemented the UDRS (Umpire Decision review system) from October 2009. When this announcement came out, I was elated that ICC had taken the step in the right direction to help the game, the players, the umpires and the fans.

Cricket Web - Features: UDRS: To review or not to review

I was appalled when they announced the introduction of thr UDRS in test cricket. With the game the way it is at the moment the last thing it needed was something else to slow it down. Now that it has been in place a while I have seen nothing that would make me change my mind. According to the ICCs own figures test umpires get 97% of all decisions correct without the use of this system. I think 3% is an acceptable tolerance.

The UDRS was introduced, supposedly, to eliminate the blatantly obvious bad decisions that do occur on rare occassions but is being abused by the players who use it to try to get reasonable decisions overturned. If they are going to continue with this system some serious changes need to be made to it. Firstly eliminate the player involvement and make it the responsibility of the third umpire to closely monitor all decisions and if they spot something that is suspect they can notify the onfield umpire to stop play while they have a look. Secondly this eliminates the onfield adudicator from the process as well. This will eradicate most of the pointless stoppages and keep the game flowing much more freely. Most of the time they would know if the umps call was right or wrong before the bowler gets back to his mark anyway.

I dont know if most people would agree with me as I seem to be part of a minority in this but the thing that really bugs me is the people who so strongly advocated for the introduction of this system. The greatest lobbiests for the UDRS were mainly former players. The same players who are largely employed as commentators by the television networks. The same networks that own the technology and are paid handsomely for its use. My personal opinion is that it was the greatest con job in sporting history.

If they seriously want to use technology to assist the umpires rather than the commentators there are a host of things they could utilise. The simplest of these would be laser lights indicating the line of the stumps, as with most laser levels outside, the beam is only visible through special sun glasses. The bowlers foot could also be monitored by lasers to assist in the detection of noballs. Throw in a couple of height ones as well for the square leg ump for such things as over waist full tosses, bouncers and such. But none of this would aid the broadcasters so are very unlikely to happen.

 

[silentstriker]

ICC's figures say 92% without and 97% with. Without the system, there is a very real possibility of me starting not to care if another Sydney happens. I don't see the point in following a sport if the administrators don't care about someone other than the players deciding the outcome of a game.

 

[Shri]

ICC news: ICC makes profit of $84.7 million | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

Don't understand why the ICC can't enforce it themselves when we read stuff like this.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The UDRS was introduced, supposedly, to eliminate the blatantly obvious bad decisions that do occur on rare occassions but is being abused by the players who use it to try to get reasonable decisions overturned. If they are going to continue with this system some serious changes need to be made to it. Firstly eliminate the player involvement and make it the responsibility of the third umpire to closely monitor all decisions and if they spot something that is suspect they can notify the onfield umpire to stop play while they have a look. Secondly this eliminates the onfield adudicator from the process as well. This will eradicate most of the pointless stoppages and keep the game flowing much more freely. Most of the time they would know if the umps call was right or wrong before the bowler gets back to his mark anyway.

Problem with that is quite often only the player knows whether the decision is right or not. Say for example a faint inside edge adjudged as lbw. It is not possible for the third umpire to detect that. That is why players are given the option to do that. Now with a system like this, yes there will be those players who will abuse the system..who will call for a review just because they cant accept the fact that they are out..in the end no system is perfect and you just have to measure the pros and cons. Personally, I have been burned too many times due to shoddy umpiring and I have absolutely no tolerance for it anymore.

If they seriously want to use technology to assist the umpires rather than the commentators there are a host of things they could utilise. The simplest of these would be laser lights indicating the line of the stumps, as with most laser levels outside, the beam is only visible through special sun glasses. The bowlers foot could also be monitored by lasers to assist in the detection of noballs. Throw in a couple of height ones as well for the square leg ump for such things as over waist full tosses, bouncers and such. But none of this would aid the broadcasters so are very unlikely to happen.

The major hindrance for UDRS today is the cost. Your suggestion to use laser lights is going to cost heaps too.

ICC news: ICC makes profit of $84.7 million | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

Don't understand why the ICC can't enforce it themselves when we read stuff like this.

You have to understand finance theory and the financing industry in general to understand that. Profit maximisation is the motto..how much is maximum? how much is enough? Its never enough.. If you make 84.7 million, you want to maximise it to 90 million. You want to avoid and minimise costs for as long as you can.

Money for Cricket or Cricket for Money..thats the issue here.

 

[Jezroy]

The UDRS was introduced, supposedly, to eliminate the blatantly obvious bad decisions that do occur on rare occassions but is being abused by the players who use it to try to get reasonable decisions overturned. If they are going to continue with this system some serious changes need to be made to it.

I agree with this - it was supposed to eliminate the bad calls - but now the players are taking a punt on if the umpire got it wrong.

Some things I would like to see put in place...

1. Benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman - on the field this is the case and for stuff like run outs this is the case. But with referrals, why does the benefit of the doubt go to the on field umpire (ie. his decision has to be proven wrong)? I think this would make it a lot simpler - if there is doubt from the replays, the batsman stays.

2. If they are going to use UDRS everywhere, ICC have to figure out how all broadcasters can use Hotspot. This is the most reliable form of checking for nicks and LBW's where bat is involved. But some countries cannot afford this technology and/or the host broadcaster doesn't seem to think it is that important.

I would like to see this process in place...

Check the ball was legitimate, then...

For edges - use Hotspot first, Snicko second
For LBW's - use Hotspot first (to make sure there is no bat involved), then Hawkeye second. Maybe also consider using Snicko to check for bat involvement if Hotspot is inconclusive.

If a decision cannot be made from these, then the Batsman gets the benefit of the doubt and stays.

There always seems to be confusion over which replay the umpire looks at first - if there was a more uniform process in place, then there would be 2 replays, and a decision would be made. If a decision cannot be made from these, then obviously there is doubt. The bad decisions are the ones that are obviously wrong. These are the ones they want to elimante. Simple.

Also, the 3rd umpires need to be more consistent with their LBW calls when Hawkeye predicts how much of he ball is hitting the stumps - so many balls clip the stumps in these decisions, yet some of them are given out and some of them aren't. I reckon if it looks like more than half the ball is hitting the stumps (and bails are included of course), then it's out. Less than half, and it's not out.