CA and BCCI, explain yourselves

[Daemon]

There's nothing wrong with UDRS as it is; umpires get the vast majority of on-field decisions correct. UDRS is there to help the umpires with the 2-3% of decisions that they're getting wrong.

2-3%? You must be joking..We see multiple wrong decisions in a single test, forget 2-3 per 100 decisions.

 

[Furball]

2-3%? You must be joking..We see multiple wrong decisions in a single test, forget 2-3 per 100 decisions.

No you don't.

 

[Daemon]

No you don't.

2-3 wrong decisions per 100 decisions. not per 100 wickets. It has definitely got to be higher than that mate..

we even saw a wrong decision by a third umpire yesterday for gods sake

 

[tooextracool]

It does not matter how they used it. UDRS should not be implemented in its present form so that it can be used as a strategic tool by captains.

It should be used to help umpires getting right deicions, Either you use technology for every single decision or you don't.

This makes no sense. Players are going to have every single lbw/caught behind decision referred to the umpire in such a scenario which will cut the number of overs bowled in one day by half.

Don't see any problem with the way it works at the moment. Its implemented in tennis in exactly the same way and its worked quite well there too.

 

[tooextracool]

2-3 wrong decisions per 100 decisions. not per 100 wickets. It has definitely got to be higher than that mate..

we even saw a wrong decision by a third umpire yesterday for gods sake

2-3 wrong decisions per 100 is still a pretty large number per test when you consider how many decisions an umpire is making. Umpire makes a decision every ball, starting with the overstepping rule.

 

[G.I.Joe]

There's nothing wrong with UDRS as it is; umpires get the vast majority of on-field decisions correct. UDRS is there to help the umpires with the 2-3% of decisions that they're getting wrong.

That only holds true if the 2-3% of decisions they get wrong coincide exactly with the limited number of appeals the team gets. The fact that the players often need to second guess the decision before referring them makes it a lottery. That's before even going into the reliability issues with hawkeye.

 

[Daemon]

2-3 wrong decisions per 100 is still a pretty large number per test when you consider how many decisions an umpire is making. Umpire makes a decision every ball, starting with the overstepping rule.

Only referring to wickets in that post. Anyways, if you go with 2-3%, you have about one wrong decision per test. If 25 lbws/caught behinds are taken per game where 40 wickets are taken, umpires are bound to make more than one mistake.

As for the overstepping rule, no one is checking whether the umpire is making a mistake on that every single ball, the only time we bother is when a wicket falls. So we wouldn't have an idea as to how many times an umpire makes a mistake if you take that into account.

 

[Sanz]

There's nothing wrong with UDRS as it is; umpires get the vast majority of on-field decisions correct. UDRS is there to help the umpires with the 2-3% of decisions that they're getting wrong.

That is you opinion. I am sure many players don't agree with that and that's why there is a reluctance to use it. UDRS is there to help the umpires with the 2-3 % of the wrong decisions, but how will it help if a team runs out of challenges ?

 

[Sanz]

This makes no sense. Players are going to have every single lbw/caught behind decision referred to the umpire in such a scenario which will cut the number of overs bowled in one day by half.

Don't see any problem with the way it works at the moment. Its implemented in tennis in exactly the same way and its worked quite well there too.

As far as I am concerned, the decisions have to be right. It does not matter if it takes one extra day or one extra month. If you want to implement technology to 2-3 % of the incorrect decision, make sure that you get them right.

Oh and SS please don't give me NFL example. A 60 minute NFL game takes 4 hours to finish and they still don't get all the decisions right.

 

[tooextracool]

As far as I am concerned, the decisions have to be right. It does not matter if it takes one extra day or one extra month. If you want to implement technology to 2-3 % of the incorrect decision, make sure that you get them right.

Oh and SS please don't give me NFL example. A 60 minute NFL game takes 4 hours to finish and they still don't get all the decisions right.

Don't think I can possibly agree to this. At the end of the day cricket isnt about the players, the umpires or the commentators. Its about the people who come watch it, thats what makes the game. Quite frankly no one is going to want to watch a game where every ball is referred to the third umpire.

AFAIC If I had to choose between getting decisions right 90% and 95% of the time, Id always take the 95% route. Cricket doesn't need to be perfect and if you ask me the URDS system we have is at least fair. Teams that use their referrals injudiciously and waste them don't deserve to have more referrals.

 

[Sanz]

Don't think I can possibly agree to this. At the end of the day cricket isnt about the players, the umpires or the commentators. Its about the people who come watch it, thats what makes the game. Quite frankly no one is going to want to watch a game where every ball is referred to the third umpire.

Sport isn't only about what the fans want. If it was like that then let's convert every Test match in subcontinent into a ODI/T20. Fans, players, coaches are going to complain no matter what. They will complain even when the decisions are right.

AFAIC If I had to choose between getting decisions right 90% and 95% of the time, Id always take the 95% route. Cricket doesn't need to be perfect and if you ask me the URDS system we have is at least fair. Teams that use their referrals injudiciously and waste them don't deserve to have more referrals.

And I am not sure how the current referral system guarantees that. As far as I am concerned, The referral system is the most stupid one. If you really want the technology to work, give umpire the tools to use, train them about technology and how to use it efficiently. Take it out of players' control.

 

[andyc]

Agreeing so much with TEC here. The idea of giving the umpires the power of referrals doesn't wash with me either; it was trialled here in Aus a couple of summers ago and the umpires seemed pretty loathe to use it. The idea of the referral system is to remove the howler; when you know for sure that you've middled it on to your pad and been given lbw, or that the balls flicked your thigh pad and not the outside edge on the way through to the keeper. It's not there to prove that the ball struck the batsman half a centimetre outside the line of offstump. As long as batsmen don't use it as a Hail Mary - as we saw with the Windies where Chanderpaul and Gayle (IIRC) would use it pretty much whenever they got out - the system works fine.

 

[Sanz]

Well It didn't work for India or for England, Did it ? It is not a perfect system as it is made out to be. I am not against it but let's not pretend as if it is an integral part of game or those are not for it just don't get it.

In its current shape, It is a half baked system, not too many umpires know how to use it, neither do the captains, technology is not perfect either.

 

[G.I.Joe]

well it didn't work for india or for england, did it ? it is not a perfect system as it is made out to be. I am not against it but let's not pretend as if it is an integral part of game or those are not for it just don't get it.

in its current shape, it is a half baked system, not too many umpires know how to use it, neither do the captains, technology is not perfect either.

awta

 

[four_or_six]

It's not perfect but it's much better with it than without it. Plus, the only way to improve it more is to use it and learn, I think, and obviously due to costs that has to be at international level.

It actually seems very strange watching a test match when it's not available now. I hope they sort out getting it for the world cup.

 

[honestbharani]

Agreeing so much with TEC here. The idea of giving the umpires the power of referrals doesn't wash with me either; it was trialled here in Aus a couple of summers ago and the umpires seemed pretty loathe to use it. The idea of the referral system is to remove the howler; when you know for sure that you've middled it on to your pad and been given lbw, or that the balls flicked your thigh pad and not the outside edge on the way through to the keeper. It's not there to prove that the ball struck the batsman half a centimetre outside the line of offstump. As long as batsmen don't use it as a Hail Mary - as we saw with the Windies where Chanderpaul and Gayle (IIRC) would use it pretty much whenever they got out - the system works fine.

Umar Akmal ordering Azhar Ali not to use it even though it was obvious Azhar would win was one of THE sights of cricket, for me in the past year or so..

 

[honestbharani]

It's not perfect but it's much better with it than without it. Plus, the only way to improve it more is to use it and learn, I think, and obviously due to costs that has to be at international level.

It actually seems very strange watching a test match when it's not available now. I hope they sort out getting it for the world cup.

This.. Time to listen to F_o_S and SehWAG.

 

[Shri]

Should only use it if the referals are unlimited. Fine teams/ban players if it is obvious that they are abusing the system and are over using it.

 

[GotSpin]

Should only use it if the referals are unlimited. Fine teams/ban players if it is obvious that they are abusing the system and are over using it.

That'd ruin the system. How does one define abuse of such a system?

 

[Sanz]

Well if a system can be abused before it has been implemented, it is an indication that the system is not ready yet for a mass scale implementation.