***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Sanz]

If we started the poll today, 1 billion would be against UDRS.

[Blaze 18]

Not having it wouldn't have changed the decision though. Bowden must have been blind to give that not-out. It was hitting middle of middle for Christ's sake! I'd blame him more than the third umpire.

[KiWiNiNjA]

lolz

If only there was no UDRS, things would go our way!

[jeevan]

After today's incident I would like to change my vote from 'in favor of' to 'opposed' to UDRS they way it is proposed.

What I continue to be in favor of is in technology as an aid to umpiring. But the negative about UDRS as it seems to be deployed is that the accountability becomes very diffused, which is counter-productive.

There seem to be three entities involved in UDRS:
(a) on field umpire
(b) TV umpire
(c) the technology aids

And what seemed to have happened today with the Bell LBW is : (a) made a mistake, (b) saw that with the help of (c) , but there appears to be a rule that (b) pass on a disclaimer about (c) to (a). Once (a) hears disclaimer, the disclaimer itself ends up being grounds for reasonable doubt - never mind the disclaimer being irrelevant to the case today. After all (a) didn't have access to (c).

I'd hand an iPAD or like device to (a) and let them access (c) from the field and do the review themselves. Drive in a technology cart if you need to.

In Sydney, we correctly cussed Bucknor as we found him to be blind as a bat.
In the future, we ought to be able to cuss out umpire XYZ for being blind _and_ stupid if they make mistakes after using technology aids.

[marc71178]

So even though the margin of error is such that the 3rd umpire had to stick with the onfield umpire decision it's still the fault of the 3rd umpire?

It wouldn't matter who saw the pictures today, under the rules in place it had to be given not out.

If URDS weren't in place then there'd have been no change to the outcome.

[Dasa]

So even though the margin of error is such that the 3rd umpire had to stick with the onfield umpire decision it's still the fault of the 3rd umpire?

"The ICC playing conditions relating to this part of the system come under Process of Consultation No. 3.3 (i). It states that if a 'not out' decision is being reviewed and the distance from impact to the stumps is greater than 2.5m then the third umpire passes this information to the on-field official along with: the distance from the wickets of the point of impact with the batsman, the approximate distance from the point of pitching to the point of impact, and whether the ball is predicted to the hit the stumps.

The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision.""

Nothing about having to stick with the onfield decision, so it'd be nice if people didn't keep stating that as if it's gospel.

[Cruxdude]

Pretty daft decision by Billy.

[Sanz]

Poor implementation of a system doesn't make it a poor system.

If the implementation is poor, it does not matter how good the system is on paper.

[Sanz]

If URDS weren't in place then there'd have been no change to the outcome.

The point is not if the absence of UDRS would have made a difference to the outcome, I think the fans are okay with the outcome of the game and it is really ridiculous to continuously bring that point.

The point is that UDRS was available and there was an opportunity to convince those doubt the implementation of it. That opportunity was lost and the doubters have been justified once again in their stance.

[jeevan]

Actually, the point is that a flaw in the UDRS system was uncovered today. Some people who previously were not doubters, now are. Saying we were no worse off than before is a cop-out. Why not fix the basic flaw in it?

This isn't a perfect being the enemy of good enough argument, before someone brings up that cliche. On field human umpires are good enough for the most part to begin with, despite the occasional blip.

And this isn't a Luddite 'no to technology' rant either. Actually, almost the opposite was the case in today's instance. Bowden being able to see a replay might have been enough, the extrapolation or the accuracy of the extrapolation were almost not necessary.

It is a gripe about the poor implementation (UDRS) of a good idea (use technology to make the umpire's job easier).

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but you saying fix it is different to the BCCI's position which is to not use it at all until it's flawless.

A lot of the flaws in a system like this don't actually become apparent until it's used and there will be more to fix which we can't see now. That's why the BCCI's stance is pretty backward.

[smalishah84]

Not having it wouldn't have changed the decision though. Bowden must have been blind to give that not-out. It was hitting middle of middle for Christ's sake! I'd blame him more than the third umpire.

This

Yeah but you saying fix it is different to the BCCI's position which is to not use it at all until it's flawless.

A lot of the flaws in a system like this don't actually become apparent until it's used and there will be more to fix which we can't see now. That's why the BCCI's stance is pretty backward.

and this

[KiWiNiNjA]

Nobody said it was perfect yet, but it is better than the alternative i.e. nothing.

Referrals have come a long way since they first were brought in. Then we had the 3rd umpire making the decisions, with lots of mistakes and inconsistent decisions. And improvements were made by using technology and putting a whole lot of rules in place regarding its usage. Such strict are necessary, as otherwise the 3rd umpire would have too much say and in steps human error and inconsistency again. It may have been the wrong decision in the end, but at least it's the same for all teams. Never mind the fact that with no UDRS the wrong decision still would have stood.

There's no reason why improvements to the UDRS can't continue, but if you refuse to use it then how is it going to get any better? Yeah, you could say that it could be used in first class matches until it's perfect, but it will never be 100% perfect, so at what point do you decide on implementing it? 99%? 99.5%? 99.99999%? Heck, its probably 95%+ at the moment.

At the end of the day, it's best to use it while it's slowly improving than not using it at all.
Captains just need to get better at using their given referrals, and accept the few limitations to an improving system. Captains shouldn't be throwing their toys out of their cot.

[Sanz]

Yeah but you saying fix it is different to the BCCI's position which is to not use it at all until it's flawless.

A lot of the flaws in a system like this don't actually become apparent until it's used and there will be more to fix which we can't see now. That's why the BCCI's stance is pretty backward.

The point is that the UDRS system implementation has not been able to offer a solution the most basic issues despite being in the use for a while now. I am not sure how BCCI comes into the picture here, because whether they like it or not, the system is in use and the issues have not resolved. BCCI may be backward but their stance was justified again.

A half baked implementation of technology is just money and time wasted.

[Sanz]

Nobody said it was perfect yet, but it is better than the alternative i.e. nothing.

Referrals have come a long way since they first were brought in. Then we had the 3rd umpire making the decisions, with lots of mistakes and inconsistent decisions. And improvements were made by using technology and putting a whole lot of rules in place regarding its usage. Such strict are necessary, as otherwise the 3rd umpire would have too much say and in steps human error and inconsistency again. It may have been the wrong decision in the end, but at least it's the same for all teams. Never mind the fact that with no UDRS the wrong decision still would have stood.

There's no reason why improvements to the UDRS can't continue, but if you refuse to use it then how is it going to get any better? Yeah, you could say that it could be used in first class matches until it's perfect, but it will never be 100% perfect, so at what point do you decide on implementing it? 99%? 99.5%? 99.99999%? Heck, its probably 95%+ at the moment.

At the end of the day, it's best to use it while it's slowly improving than not using it at all.
Captains just need to get better at using their given referrals, and accept the few limitations to an improving system. Captains shouldn't be throwing their toys out of their cot.

The current implementation of UDRS is not better than the alternative. It is like buying a lottery ticket is better than not buying one.