***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Cevno]

Eh?

They have been highlighted umpteen times for anyone to comprehend tbh. Don't know on what basis you can dispute that.

To add to that this is in relation to only one player, Dravid in one tour only -

Oh forgot!! about that. Further illustrates my point actually. He was given out on that occasion but did not review it as he was not sure.

There was one incident of the Stump Mic on which Snicko is reliant picking up some sound before that too in the 2nd test.

Found initial posts on it from the time -

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2618377-post1353.html

Then there was the whole incident where we were told by the Broadcasters in the last test,that the Snicko can't be relied upon due to background noise and involving Dravid again(Though he said at the end that going with his instinct he thought it was out) -

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2635161-post854.html


Also then there was the incident involving Laxman and the Vaselinegate where there was apparently some sort of sound, but no deviation or Hotspot and it wasn't overturned.


Clearly Snicko/Stump Mics and Hawkeye are both far from reliable and Dravid has been in the wars in the whole series with them.
Also the implementation and the decision reached based on the technology by the third umpire on each occasion has been different and inconsistent. Sometimes going by the directive and sometimes not. And if i add previous and other current series it is more inconsistent.

If you compare it with some decisions taken elsewhere including Srilanka,there are big and clear inconsistencies.
Though there are many of that in all of those decisions itself too.

 

[ankitj]

The BCCI decides to oppose the BCCI

 

[weldone]

The whole matter of DRS is pretty much at the evolving stage. The technologies are less than reliable, and much much MUCH more importantly the system operators and the third umpires have abused it proving their clear inefficiency in tackling the technology. The problem is more with the interpretation and abuse of technology than of the technology itself. I support BCCI's opposition to DRS completely as long as we don't get very efficient third umpires and system operators consistently. I agree that given the efficiency of those people are close to 99% and all the DRS rules are thoughtfully worded, it can be a good weapon to be used consistently to overrule ground umpires' decisions. But there's way to go before that. If we don't agree to that, we are living in a fool's paradise.

I didn't like BCCI's decision to use Hot Spot in the England series; so if they decide against using it I'll be happy. I should congratulate them for rectifying the mistake. There's no shame in accepting that you were wrong (regardless of how many people make fun of it).

 

[weldone]

Great idea.

Agreed.

I'm all for DRS if we get efficient people like Dar and Taufel as third umpires and system operators consistently, and every single umpiring decision is taken by the third umpire close to real-time.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Sanjay Manjrekar on why decisions unaided by DRS aren't always a bad thing | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Is this the best anyone against UDRS can come up with? He doesn't justify anything, it's just I think this... I think that...

Is he another random with links to the BCCI or is he just an independent idiot?

 

[honestbharani]

Sanjay Manjrekar on why decisions unaided by DRS aren't always a bad thing | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Is this the best anyone against UDRS can come up with? He doesn't justify anything, it's just I think this... I think that...

Is he another random with links to the BCCI or is he just an independent idiot?

He makes pretty good points and I mentioned about this in this post.



I don't agree completely with what he says and the couple of LBWs turned down against Sachin and Dravid today illustrate why we are better off with DRS than without it, but I think he makes an excellent point about how less contention there is around decisions when the hawk eye and hot spot replays are not shown. So obviously, in most cases, what the umpires say is something the casual fan agrees with, based on just the normal replays.

 

[Scaly piscine]

He makes pretty good points and I mentioned about this in this post.



I don't agree completely with what he says and the couple of LBWs turned down against Sachin and Dravid today illustrate why we are better off with DRS than without it, but I think he makes an excellent point about how less contention there is around decisions when the hawk eye and hot spot replays are not shown. So obviously, in most cases, what the umpires say is something the casual fan agrees with, based on just the normal replays.

There's less contention if there's a proper replay and it shows the umpire was right.

The howlers you'll pick-up with or without technology generally and contention in itself is not necessarily bad for cricket. What's bad for cricket is if you get horrible decisions made and you reduce the quality of the coverage because of the B*CI.

 

[honestbharani]

There's less contention if there's a proper replay and it shows the umpire was right.

The howlers you'll pick-up with or without technology generally and contention in itself is not necessarily bad for cricket. What's bad for cricket is if you get horrible decisions made and you reduce the quality of the coverage because of the B*CI.

well, the point is that if it is really a howler, you don't need the hawkeye and hotspot to tell you that.

 

[Furball]

well, the point is that if it is really a howler, you don't need the hawkeye and hotspot to tell you that.

It's not about eliminating howlers, it's about reducing wrong decisions.

And unless you've been blessed with a pair of eyes that allows you to project the flight path of an object travelling through the air, I don't know how you can argue that we don't need Hawkeye.

 

[honestbharani]

It's not about eliminating howlers, it's about reducing wrong decisions.

And unless you've been blessed with a pair of eyes that allows you to project the flight path of an object travelling through the air, I don't know how you can argue that we don't need Hawkeye.

I never said you don't need hawkeye. Heck, I am all for using it to judge where it pitched etc. It is the predictive path that is always in contention, isn't it?


The current BCCI replays only take out the predictive tracking, not the complete hawkeye. I feel it is reasonable enough.


On the whole, I do agree that having DRS is better than having no DRS but I am just saying that if there is going to be no DRS, taking out those replays makes the fans a lot less cribby.

 

[BoyBrumby]

On the whole, I do agree that having DRS is better than having no DRS but I am just saying that if there is going to be no DRS, taking out those replays makes the fans a lot less cribby.

I've been in favour of replays until now, but I think we can all agree that if their removal makes fans less like PEWS it's a price worth paying.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've been in favour of replays until now, but I think we can all agree that if their removal makes fans less like PEWS it's a price worth paying.

WAC.

 

[honestbharani]

I've been in favour of replays until now, but I think we can all agree that if their removal makes fans less like PEWS it's a price worth paying.

Hail BCCI.. The original Anti-Cribbs

 

[Cevno]

I've been in favour of replays until now, but I think we can all agree that if their removal makes fans less like PEWS it's a price worth paying.

!!

 

[GotSpin]

Personally, I'm glad that the quality of viewing on tv has been decreased in order to make the umpires looks better. Thanks BCCI

 

[honestbharani]

Personally, I'm glad that the quality of viewing on tv has been decreased in order to make the umpires looks better. Thanks BCCI

Personally I think it has shown up the fact that the viewers only complain when given evidence and if not, would have made the exact same decision the umpire did. But hey, some people just can't digest that a whinging opportunity has been taken away.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Personally I think it has shown up the fact that the viewers only complain when given evidence and if not, would have made the exact same decision the umpire did. But hey, some people just can't digest that a whinging opportunity has been taken away.

I'm sorry, but your logic here has serious flaws. People still complain and whine when a dodgy decision is made without technology to verify, technology just proves one side right more often than not. Its presence doesn't bring any kind of extra dispute.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm sorry, but your logic here has serious flaws. People still complain and whine when a dodgy decision is made without technology to verify, technology just proves one side right more often than not. Its presence doesn't bring any kind of extra dispute.

Nope.. Take an example of the Yuvraj dismissal. Without the predictive path tracking, no one has raised the issue in the tour thread yet. And yet, had there been that replay, a number of posts would have immediately gone in, outlining exactly why DRS was needed, why the so and so umpire is silly and why BCCI are stupid etc. etc. But without that aid of technology (which has its flaws, as has been proven), it is obvious none of us are any wiser after the normal replays than the umpires and things have just been a lot more quiet.


As I have said, it is one thing to use technology to show what has happened (pitch map, impact, hot spot and snicko) but a totally different game assuming the ball tracking is 100% correct, for the simple reason that there is no way we can compare it against anything. In essence, it is showing us something that never actually happened.

 

[abmk]

as i have said, it is one thing to use technology to show what has happened (pitch map, impact, hot spot and snicko) but a totally different game assuming the ball tracking is 100% correct, for the simple reason that there is no way we can compare it against anything. In essence, it is showing us something that never actually happened.

awta ....

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Nope.. Take an example of the Yuvraj dismissal. Without the predictive path tracking, no one has raised the issue in the tour thread yet. And yet, had there been that replay, a number of posts would have immediately gone in, outlining exactly why DRS was needed, why the so and so umpire is silly and why BCCI are stupid etc. etc. But without that aid of technology (which has its flaws, as has been proven), it is obvious none of us are any wiser after the normal replays than the umpires and things have just been a lot more quiet.


As I have said, it is one thing to use technology to show what has happened (pitch map, impact, hot spot and snicko) but a totally different game assuming the ball tracking is 100% correct, for the simple reason that there is no way we can compare it against anything. In essence, it is showing us something that never actually happened.

Do you mean the most recent one, LBW to Sammy?

Also, no-one is assuming that the technology is 100% correct. That's why the evidence has to be well past borderline to overturn the umpire's decision (more than half a ball hitting rule etc etc). The only thing which shows something that never happened is the Hawk-eye predicted path, up till then all it's showing is damn near exactly the ball's flight path, and as anyone with a basic grounding in physics and curved projectile paths will tell you, it's safe to assume that the final 2 metres (at furthest) of a ball's path won't be significantly different to the first 18.