***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[marc71178]

Say for Instance The kohli dismissal this test, would not have had any impact even with the DRS, because of the absence of the hot spot.

You mean the same hotspot that is in the DRS more often then not?

 

[Bun]

Decision Review System: Why there is a need to discuss DRS in its present form | Cricket Features | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

A nice article by Sid Monga.

There are other examples, too, and the doubts specifically revolve around the predictive element of the technology. Neither of the two common brands of tracking technology, Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye, is perfect or immune to human mistakes. Our leap of faith, however, is absolute - so absolute that commentators and spectators have stopped using their brains. Virtual Eye admits that entertainment and decision-making are horses of two different colours. It prefers to provide the umpires with facts until the ball strikes the batsman, and then leave the rest to the on-field umpire, who knows which way and how hard the wind is blowing and how the pitch is behaving, better than the system whose camera is not even placed right behind the stumps.


Hawk Eye is more optimistic about being able to replace the umpire, and is also keen to point out flaws with Virtual Eye. The BCCI remains unconvinced. Why the BCCI is not convinced is not clear, just like it is not clear how every now and then a projection looks improbable, or how it is perfect at 2.4 metres but unreliable at 2.5, how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full, or the bounce when a batsman is hit on a half-volley, or why we don't get to see simulations of some balls at all, or why - if it is used as an umpiring tool - it is not minded by the ICC and the ACSU, or why we have to blindly believe its accuracy and not assess it independently, or why the ICC doesn't say so if it has assessed it independently.

Interestingly not even the two competiting firms are unanimous in their view of the ball tracking technology.

All these doubts may seem like splitting hairs, complicating the game, but complicate is exactly what DRS in its current form does. The original purpose of the system wasn't to predict whether the ball would have clipped the leg bail. Its purpose was to spot edges (or their absence), balls pitched outside leg and balls hitting the batsman outside off when offering a shot for lbws. It was introduced for umpires who have trouble grasping basic umpiring rules, and for the odd big mistake made by the good officials. It wasn't meant to be a contest between Ian Gould reckoning that the offbreak would have hit leg stump and Hawk Eye's prediction that it would have missed it by centimetres. When the ICC meets in Hong Kong, it is pertinent that it establishes a distinction between entertainment and decision-making tools, and also reminds itself that the DRS' original purpose was to eliminate howlers.

I agree with the author here. We need hotspot and other allied technology to eliminate very obvious shockers from the game. Like a clear inside edge.

 

[Bun]

If there's an intelligent argument out there for something, we can always trust Bun to find it.

 

[silentstriker]

You fail to grasp the point. The question that is asked is whether DRS has moved far away from what it was originally designed to. Forget about the 92% and 97%.

Nope, because that's the point.

 

[gvenkat]

You mean the same hotspot that is in the DRS more often then not?

Huh?

 

[gvenkat]

The bottom line is the host boards don't give a hoot about getting decisions correct, Because all they care is $$. It's up to the ICC as protectors/custodians of the game to work out a deal so that the DRS is present.

 

[silentstriker]

The bottom line is the host boards don't give a hoot about getting decisions correct, Because all they care is $$. It's up to the ICC as protectors/custodians of the game to work out a deal so that the DRS is present.

No, the bottom line is every board except the BCCI does.

 

[GotSpin]

LEAVE THE BCCI ALONE

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE THE RICHEST BOARD.

 

[GotSpin]

You fail to grasp the point. The question that is asked is whether DRS has moved far away from what it was originally designed to. Forget about the 92% and 97%.

Say for Instance The kohli dismissal this test, would not have had any impact even with the DRS, because of the absence of the hot spot.

Ummmm. Usually hot spot is part of the DRS. Jesus

 

[gvenkat]

Ummmm. Usually hot spot is part of the DRS. Jesus

Not except in Aus and Eng.

 

[gvenkat]

No, the bottom line is every board except the BCCI does.

Ok fair enough. But do you think that ICC should be responsible and put the system in place? why should it be BCCI?

 

[Burgey]

I am totally against using only slo-mo. It will only lead to incidents where the third umpire ****s up (like it happened in the Sydney test) and the whole thing blows up.

Also find BCCI talking about the welfare of smaller boards funny TSTL. ICC should pay up for the whole thing and BCCI should take the word of people who know better.

Also against using UDRS without Hotspot. It can potentially lead up to stand-offs when one team gets multiple calls turned down due to inadequate technology.

There was no **** up in that Sydney test against India.

Discuss.

 

[silentstriker]

Ok fair enough. But do you think that ICC should be responsible and put the system in place? why should it be BCCI?

The BCCI can be as dumb as they want and instead spend the money on subcommittee of funneling money to random private accounts. That has nothing to do with opposing it on their tours.

And for the record, the ICC doesn't have the money to do this, without impacting the money that goes to development of cricket in countries. If you don't think the ICC should spend money on development, that's fine but the ICC mandate as it stands means they can't really afford it without expanding ICC sponsored events (which the BCCI would also oppose since it means they wouldn't be the ones making the money).

 

[silentstriker]

That shouldn't be considered an actual Test, so you are completely right.

 

[biased indian]

for all the people who are after BCCI i would like to birng 2 points here..BCCI was defeated on two motions 1-10 and 1-9 in the past.the first one was whether there should be a world T20 championship or not and BCCi lost it as they opposed T20 at that time as it was some thing popularized y ECB at that time.

the second one was last year where it was defeated by 1-9 votes on a motion which said that if the home board wanted to use the UDRS they can.so with this ruling it was only the Home board which had to decide whether the UDRS should be used or not.But BCCI negotiated with SL,SA and WI boards to not use the technology using their power.

So as per the current rule if ECB want to use the UDRS they are well with in their rights to use it and does not have to get permission from BCCI.and i dont understand why they don't use the same now when they are free to use it with out approval from BCCI

Edit :i got this info from my news paper yesterday and may be GIMH or any one can confirm it with ECB in mean time i will try to get a link to same

 

[Spark]

All the replies from the ECB and the replies to the emails sent have been to the effect of "both sides have to agree" IIRC.

 

[GIMH]

Yep

 

[morgieb]

for all the people who are after BCCI i would like to birng 2 points here..BCCI was defeated on two motions 1-10 and 1-9 in the past.the first one was whether there should be a world T20 championship or not and BCCi lost it as they opposed T20 at that time as it was some thing popularized y ECB at that time.

the second one was last year where it was defeated by 1-9 votes on a motion which said that if the home board wanted to use the UDRS they can.so with this ruling it was only the Home board which had to decide whether the UDRS should be used or not.But BCCI negotiated with SL,SA and WI boards to not use the technology using their power.

So as per the current rule if ECB want to use the UDRS they are well with in their rights to use it and does not have to get permission from BCCI.and i dont understand why they don't use the same now when they are free to use it with out approval from BCCI

Edit :i got this info from my news paper yesterday and may be GIMH or any one can confirm it with ECB in mean time i will try to get a link to same

Actually from what the ECB is saying both boards have to approve. Which is a bit of a farce but there you go.

 

[biased indian]

All the replies from the ECB and the replies to the emails sent have been to the effect of "both sides have to agree" IIRC.

International Cricket Council - News

as per the above link

if BCCI is the host they can decide to not use it
if ECB is the host they have to consult BCCI on using it ...
so its a matter of mutal consent only if the home board feels it need to use the UDRS

any way i think BCCI is going to be deafetd on UDRS by 7-3 this week and i hope that is enough for the UDRS to come into effect..but the Ind-Eng test series still wont feature UDRS..as per reports this will be implemented in series starting from August on wards only

 

[morgieb]

Who are the 2 people voting with India? Sri Lanka and Pakistan iirc want it, and I'd imagine South Africa, West Indies, Australia, New Zealand and England want it? Are Zimbabwe and Bangladesh sucking up to the BCCI?