***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[smash84]

No, I didn't. FFS that particular post explained exactly why it isn't true in this case

If we accept that 'Everything' > Something > Nothing, then in the absence of 'Everything', something is definitely better than nothing. But if 'Everything' is feasible to implement, it makes no sense to settle for 'something' instead, especially if that something is a crippled entity.

lol......you yourself set up the inequality

'Everything' > Something > Nothing

then in the absence of 'everything' you refuse to accept that something>nothing ...................

it is a given that 'everything' is not being implemented which might be a stupid thing in the first place. It would be the limit of stupidity though not to take something over nothing if everything is not being granted.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, but when you get told you can't have everything, and your choices are something or nothing, surely you'd take something.

What you're saying is basically akin to being offered $500,000 and saying "No thanks, I'd rather have $1,000,000, so I'll just stay broke."

While I completely agree with everything you said about using technology to an even fuller extent than what UDRS supplies currently, that is no argument for just going completely by the umpire's word, at all.

PEWS, take a good look at my avatar and then ask yourself if I'd ever get around to accepting the point of view you've put across. The fact that I consider continuous real time analysis feasible will always make the inferior option unacceptable to me, especially considering the lottery system it tags along with itself. The only situation I'd ever accept UDRS is if I can be convinced real time analyses of all deliveries isn't feasible as of now, and if the decision to refer was taken out of the hands of the players. As someone stated earlier, leaving the decision to refer in the hands of the players is simply a way of shifting the blame from the umpires to the players. This is a perverted and artificially crippled system.

 

[G.I.Joe]

lol......you yourself set up the inequality

'Everything' > Something > Nothing

then in the absence of 'everything' you refuse to accept that something>nothing ...................

it is a given that 'everything' is not being implemented which might be a stupid thing in the first place. It would be the limit of stupidity though not to take something over nothing if everything is not being granted.

Exactly, except that I'm not convinced that we do not currently have the means to make that everything possible in a time and cost effective manner. Which is why accepting the inferior something makes no sense.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hell, as things stand now and seeing how the ICC seems to get off on being withholding (AD reference!), just take the decision to refer out of the hands of the players, and I'd accept it with both hands. Thats as good a compromise as you're ever going to get out of me.

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS, take a good look at my avatar and then ask yourself if I'd ever get around to accepting the point of view you've put across. The fact that I consider continuous real time analysis feasible will always make the inferior option unacceptable to me

Yet the umpire's word is acceptable to you, for reasons I'm not yet to grasp at all.

Re: your avatar, again, it's not a choice between happiness and euphoria; it's a choice between happiness and sadness. Euphoria has not yet been presented as an option.

 

[smash84]

Yet the umpire's word is acceptable to you, for reasons I'm not yet to grasp at all.

Re: your avatar, again, it's not a choice between happiness and euphoria; it's a choice between happiness and sadness. Euphoria has not yet been presented as an option.

very well said both this and the one million dollar lottery example

 

[Furball]

Frankly I don't give a crap about UDRS. It could be implemented and I'd be fine, or we could continue without it and I wouldn't care either. I think the umpires do a fantastic job all things considered (the Pak-NZ series is a rare anomaly) and a bad decision or two rarely affects the pleasure I get out of watching a match (no matter which way it goes). While watching matches with UDRS, it's a bit annoying not knowing whether or not to celebrate LBW/caught behind decisions with the referrals and all, but I guess I could get used to it.

To sum up, I don't really care.

Having followed a team who have played their last 4 series with UDRS, I can't imagine Test cricket without it.

There were plenty of umpiring errors made in the Ashes. The reason there's been no song and dance about them is because there was a system in place to rectify those errors.

 

[Teja.]

See, The ICC is the father which makes the decision to buy a sundae, a double sundae or nothing at all. The father's kid is the BCCI which the father loves(The BCCI's money).

The father can easily afford to give him a double sundae(complete reviewing for all balls) but decides to give him only a sundae(The UDRS). The kid is refusing the sundae(Not accepting the inferior system) in the hope that if he cribs long enough his father will just get him a double sundae in the end and everyone can be happy.(Complete and best system for reviews)

Not that I agree with the above argument but it isn't as simplistic as something vs nothing tbh.

 

[Furball]

See, The ICC is the father which makes the decision to buy a sundae, a double sundae or nothing at all. The father's kid is the BCCI which the father loves(The BCCI's money).

The father can easily afford to give him a double sundae(complete reviewing for all balls) but decides to give him only a sundae(The UDRS). The kid is refusing the sundae(Not accepting the inferior system) in the hope that if he cribs long enough his father will just get him a double sundae in the end and everyone can be happy.(Complete and best system for reviews)

Not that I agree with the above argument but it isn't as simplistic as something vs nothing tbh.

In your analogy the kid isn't refusing the sundae because he wants the double sundae, he's refusing it because he's cutting his nose off to spite his face and is petulantly deciding that he doesn't like sundaes because daddy wouldn't buy him a sundae the last time they went on holiday to Australia, then when they went to Sri Lanka he didn't like the flavour of sundae he was given.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yet the umpire's word is acceptable to you, for reasons I'm not yet to grasp at all.

I'd prefer a lottery where the umpires are to blame to a lottery where the players are to blame. Because if someone is to be held responsible for an incorrect decision or referral, I'd prefer it to be the person who's job it actually is to make those decisions. I'm not about to go blaming my electrician for my leaking faucet.

Re: your avatar, again, it's not a choice between happiness and euphoria; it's a choice between happiness and sadness. Euphoria has not yet been presented as an option.

Doesn't mean Euphoria doesn't exist, though. Merely that the ICC doesn't want to present it for reasons of conjecture. Show me why Hawkeye shouldn't plot the trajectory of a delivery in less than a few seconds, and I'll accept that Euphoria doesn't exist.

 

[smash84]

In your analogy the kid isn't refusing the sundae because he wants the double sundae, he's refusing it because he's cutting his nose off to spite his face and is petulantly deciding that he doesn't like sundaes because daddy wouldn't buy him a sundae the last time they went on holiday to Australia, then when they went to Sri Lanka he didn't like the flavour of sundae he was given.

 

[vcs]

I'd prefer a lottery where the umpires are to blame to a lottery where the players are to blame. Because if someone is to be held responsible for an incorrect decision or referral, I'd prefer it to be the person who's job it actually is to make those decisions.



Doesn't mean Euphoria doesn't exist, though. Merely that the ICC doesn't want to present it for reasons of conjecture. Show me why Hawkeye shouldn't plot the trajectory of a delivery in less than a few seconds, and I'll accept that Euphoria doesn't exist.

If you look at the Hawkeye system in tennis (PEWS is going to kill me for bringing tennis into this thread), that shouldn't be a problem technologically speaking. It's the other things (checking for faint edges, hotspot/snicko etc.) that seems to require human intervention and takes time to show up. Though I don't get why it should take 5 minutes to get a hotspot reading (I think I read that somewhere here).

 

[Teja.]

In your analogy the kid isn't refusing the sundae because he wants the double sundae, he's refusing it because he's cutting his nose off to spite his face and is petulantly deciding that he doesn't like sundaes because daddy wouldn't buy him a sundae the last time they went on holiday to Australia, then when they went to Sri Lanka he didn't like the flavour of sundae he was given.

Yes, The kid is a ****ing irrational ******, I won't deny it, but that's how the BCCI looks at it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

If you look at the Hawkeye system in tennis (PEWS is going to kill me for bringing tennis into this thread), that shouldn't be a problem technologically speaking. It's the other things (checking for faint edges, hotspot/snicko etc.) that seems to require human intervention and takes time to show up. Though I don't get why it should take 5 minutes to get a hotspot reading (I think I read that somewhere here).

Maybe they're waiting for the transistors to warm up.

At the least they could automate line calls and hawkeye interpretations. Why should snicko take long? Aren't they just co-relating the audio signals to the video?

 

[smash84]

I'd prefer a lottery where the umpires are to blame to a lottery where the players are to blame. Because if someone is to be held responsible for an incorrect decision or referral, I'd prefer it to be the person who's job it actually is to make those decisions. I'm not about to go blaming my electrician for my leaking faucet.



Doesn't mean Euphoria doesn't exist, though. Merely that the ICC doesn't want to present it for reasons of conjecture. Show me why Hawkeye shouldn't plot the trajectory of a delivery in less than a few seconds, and I'll accept that Euphoria doesn't exist.

but again you are coming back to the same point. That everything is available when it is not. When i say it is not available i mean to say that it has not been offered for each delivery.

To think of another analogy a kid is going around naked in the street. There are two sets of clothes in the closet. One is 3 piece suit and another is shorts and a vest.

The kid refuses to wear anything because the father does not allow him to wear a 3 piece suit although the kid would look his best in that suit. So the kid goes out naked rather than wear shorts and a vest.

 

[Furball]

If you look at the Hawkeye system in tennis (PEWS is going to kill me for bringing tennis into this thread), that shouldn't be a problem technologically speaking. It's the other things (checking for faint edges, hotspot/snicko etc.) that seems to require human intervention and takes time to show up. Though I don't get why it should take 5 minutes to get a hotspot reading (I think I read that somewhere here).

I don't know if this makes a difference, but HawkEye in tennis is used to track a known event. In cricket it tracks a known event up until the ball strikes the pad. It then has to extrapolate what it knows has happened and predict what would have happened had the ball not hit the pad. Whether that adds time, I don't know.

The above is a very messy paragraph, but hopefully you guys get what I'm talking about.

 

[smash84]

Yes, The kid is a ****ing irrational ******, I won't deny it, but that's how the BCCI looks at it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

but again you are coming back to the same point. That everything is available when it is not. When i say it is not available i mean to say that it has not been offered for each delivery.

To think of another analogy a kid is going around naked in the street. There are two sets of clothes in the closet. One is 3 piece suit and another is shorts and a vest.

The kid refuses to wear anything because the father does not allow him to wear a 3 piece suit although the kid would look his best in that suit. So the kid goes out naked rather than wear shorts and a vest.

The three piece adds nothing in terms of functionality over the shorts and vest. The analogy doesn't stand.

 

[Teja.]

but again you are coming back to the same point. That everything is available when it is not. When i say it is not available i mean to say that it has not been offered for each delivery.

To think of another analogy a kid is going around naked in the street. There are two sets of clothes in the closet. One is 3 piece suit and another is shorts and a vest.

The kid refuses to wear anything because the father does not allow him to wear a 3 piece suit although the kid would look his best in that suit. So the kid goes out naked rather than wear shorts and a vest.

Yes, but this ignores the fact that the BCCI is not just any kid, It is a stubborn, bull-headed, mean kid who doesn't care about the father's other kids as the father loves him more and hence is ready to run naked till the father gives in and gets him the three-piece.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Teja, you're missing the point in your eagerness to play to the gallery.