***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Yeah, you must have watched a different Ashes then, The one I watched had the Aussie Captain did a lot of song and dance.

Which had nothing to do with the system and everything to do with Ponting being an idiot who didn't understand why Pietersen wasn't out.

[Shri]

If a hawk eye representation can be made ready for an instant replay of a lbw, it is clear that it doesn't take much time. Why doesn't the ICC adopt a system where every lbw decision right or wrong is rechecked by the 3rd umpire?

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by andyc

It kind of feels like you've seen the point and then deliberately went the other way here. Ponting acted like a tool, but that's nothing unusual. Check the fallout when there were bad decisions made from the previous Ashes series, on CW, the media and from the players. That isolated Ponting incident aside, which is more related to him being a tool than an issue with the system, there was pretty much nothing from either side because there was a system in place to reverse bad decisions.

Which one was a better series ? I resent the sentiment that Cricket is impossible to watch without UDRS and then the Ashes series is being brought up as some sort of model, which it clearly wasn't. No one is defending Ponting's behavior but on that day the technology could not and did not give a definitive answer.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Which one was a better series ? I resent the sentiment that Cricket is impossible to watch without UDRS and then the Ashes series is being brought up as some sort of model, which it clearly wasn't. No one is defending Ponting's behavior but on that day the technology could not and did not give a definitive answer.

It gave a pretty definitive not out.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Which had nothing to do with the system and everything to do with Ponting being an idiot who didn't understand why Pietersen wasn't out.

There is no need to make one understand, the technology should make the decision, out or not out. The fact that the umpires needed to explain the decision was proof enough that technology failed to convince.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

It gave a pretty definitive not out.

I disagree, there was plenty of doubt. If some umpire had given out, there was no way technology would have reverted that decision.

[Sanz]

How are UDRS or all these technologies designed to work in the Indian conditions ? Can someone explain ?

[marc71178]

No, it was proof that Chimpy is a bad loser who couldn't interpret a clear replay.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sanz

How are UDRS or all these technologies designed to work in the Indian conditions ? Can someone explain ?

Do Indian conditions affect HawkEye now?

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Which one was a better series ? I resent the sentiment that Cricket is impossible to watch without UDRS and then the Ashes series is being brought up as some sort of model, which it clearly wasn't. No one is defending Ponting's behavior but on that day the technology could not and did not give a definitive answer.

Was pretty clearly not out.

And HawkEye doesn't need to be adjusted for different conditions. I'm pretty sure it just tracks how the ball is bouncing and maps out it's future path, just as our eyes do. Except much better (hence the name).

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sanz

I disagree, there was plenty of doubt. If some umpire had given out, there was no way technology would have reverted that decision.

You're right, apart from there being no mark on hotspot where the ball passed the bat, no noise, no deviation of the seam when looked at in ultramotion and no noise on snicko, there was plenty of doubt whether or not Pietersen had hit it.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Which one was a better series ? I resent the sentiment that Cricket is impossible to watch without UDRS and then the Ashes series is being brought up as some sort of model, which it clearly wasn't. No one is defending Ponting's behavior but on that day the technology could not and did not give a definitive answer.

I'm not saying it's impossible to watch without UDRS, just that it's a much better game when obvious instances of umpiring error (such as the decisions to give Cook out caught off his shoulder at Adelaide, or Watson out off his arse at Perth I think) are able to be overturned and not potentially affect the outcome of the game.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Do Indian conditions affect HawkEye now?

If you want people to accept technology, it is your job to convince them. Your behavior in explaining this less than satisfactory in fact it is rather condescending. If you took same attitude to implement technology in a real life business scenario , people will throw you out of their offices in no time.

The bounce and turn on Indian pitches is different. How do I know if the LBW decisions given by Hawk-eye are correct. What is the technology, its body of work, proof of concept etc ? Have they implemented it in domestic cricket ?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Have they implemented it in domestic cricket ?

That's up to the BCCI. Good luck convincing them. They just barely started putting a TV camera at the domestic games.

Hawke-Eye indeed.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by andyc

Was pretty clearly not out.

You must have watched a different match then, to me it was not that clear and could have gone either way.

And HawkEye doesn't need to be adjusted for different conditions. I'm pretty sure it just tracks how the ball is bouncing and maps out it's future path, just as our eyes do. Except much better (hence the name).

Do they have data to back it up ? If it is that easy, I am sure it easy to produce the data.