Right now, there is a lot of post-processing involved in terms of ball trajectory (making sure the system picks up the ball at the right times, etc). There is a technician present who makes sure everything is going right and it takes a bit of time.
If you can get rid of it, you may want to work on it and offer to sell it to the ICC .
The margin of error is not decided by the third umpire...it's decided by hawkeye and if the decision is within its margin of error, than the original call stands..
Analogy I'd use the the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof in criminal courts. If technology can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. within its accepted margins of error) the on field umpire was wrong the original shout is overturned, if not we go with the chap in the middle.
I just don't see an argument against having some kind of UDRS and we can argue the toss about the specifics to our hearts content. I'd personally like 3 challenges instead of two, but meh.
- As featured in The Independent.
"Even when England lost 5-0 in 2006-07 I don't remember them folding like this. This is as bad as I have seen from an England side."
- Mick Vaughan on the 2013/14 tourists' efforts
I'm baffled by the minority here.
For me that the main aim of UDRS is to avoid as many shockers as possible but the current way is not the right one.
The 3rd umpire should be allowed to overturn an on-field decision in case of a obvious error on the part of the on-field umpire, its would save time and would also help avoiding a situation where the players are constantly challenging an umpire's decision, which is something which barely happens in any other sport and it certainly shouldn't be happening in the ''gentleman's'' game....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)