***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Cevno]

Also, just using that stumping as an example. It is easy for the third umpire to have a view contrary to that of the general public with only slow-mo.

How will any of the technologies change that though?

The third umpire will still ultimately have to decide,will he not?

 

[Cevno]

A couple of close caught behinds not given for a team will only increase tensions.

That can happen even if all the technologies are used and there is inconclusive evidence as deemed by the third umpire too.

Besides Sydney was a exceptional circumstance caused by several factors primarily built up more than decade long anger against Bucknor,Proctor decision ,behaviour of Australian teams,so many umpiring errors on field etc... that it is unfair to use it as a barometer for everything.

 

[Cruxdude]

How will any of the technologies change that though?

The third umpire will still ultimately have to decide,will he not?

WTH. Wouldn't hotpot show something for nicks. When some technology is available use it. If with all the technology available you still can't decide then hard luck.

 

[Cevno]

WTH. Wouldn't hotpot show something for nicks. When some technology is available use it. If with all the technology available you still can't decide then hard luck.

You were talking about Stumpings as an example and specifically sydney?
It was a subjective decision which was given wrong with a slow motiong which no technology would change.

Hot spot at the end of the day may or may not show something conclusive for nicks too and will again come down to the third umpire to determine.

Don't know what you find wrong with just using the Slow motion part of the UDRS just for the shockers for the time being until the issues are sorted?
Atleast better to eliminate the shockers than nothing,imo.

 

[GIMH]

Gotta say, I don't really like the whole 'UDRS is only for shockers' thing

IMO, all mistakes should be avoided. A missed edge is a missed edge whether the batsman was a centimetre or metre away

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, let's us slow-mo replays that have to be interpreted by a 3rd umpire, who is just as fallible as the umpires making the decisions on the ground to making mistakes rather than using a piece of technology that is irrefutably more accurate than the human eye. Great idea. ****ing dolts.

AWTA. Could probably do without calling members "****ing dolts" but I agree with your sentiment.

Gotta say, I don't really like the whole 'UDRS is only for shockers' thing

IMO, all mistakes should be avoided. A missed edge is a missed edge whether the batsman was a centimetre or metre away

Yes! This! Yes!

If I hear the word "howlers" one more time, I'll shoot someone. If a decision is wrong, it's wrong. If we look at the evidence and it's clear then it should be over-turned, whether it was an understandable mistake or not.

 

[Prince EWS]

LOL I'm not playing any card to deliberately piss off someone, believe me. It's genuinely what I feel. OK I might have been wrong to say you are overreacting to Dhoni's comments. How you judge him on those comments is no business of mine, though I feel it may be a tad harsh.

But are you telling me that if I think that article is ridiculously over the top, I'm not allowed to say it?

You're over-reacting to Corrin's comments.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's not like the Hawkeye is 100% accurate on all calls as it has shown some weird things in the past like the ball bouncing over the stumps on a very low bouncing wickets.

HawkEye > Cevno watching on TV.

 

[Cruxdude]

gotta say, i don't really like the whole 'udrs is only for shockers' thing

imo, all mistakes should be avoided. A missed edge is a missed edge whether the batsman was a centimetre or metre away

awta

 

[vcs]

You're over-reacting to Corrin's comments.

Don't tell me how to react, you ****ing ****ing ****er ****. I never told you how to respond to someone, so don't ****ing tell me. You're playing with someone's ****ing sentiments here. **** **** ****!!!!

 

[Bun]

BCCI's argument against UDRS

Decision Review System: DRS technology expensive, unreliable - Niranjan Shah | India Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

"You have to look at the economics. Every board is not making money out of Test matches and ODIs. The system requires about $60,000 per match," Shah told DNA. "Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000. It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match.

That's an awfully big amount imho Certainly looking not matching the cost benefit principle imho.

Wonder whether the lesser boards can fund such an amount every match!

If ICC agrees to bear the cost of it, then all's fine with the world.

If not, it should be up to the home board to decide whether to adopt it or not. eg- If ECB wants to adopt it and is willing to pay for it, BCCI shouldn't have any issues. So this stance still doesn't justify BCCI's argument.

 

[BlazeDragon]

If the Indians don't wanna use it then don't use it. Let them not use it in their home series. But they have no right to stop other countries from using it especially when they are the ones hosting the series.

 

[Turbinator]

Don't tell me how to react, you ****ing ****ing ****er ****. I never told you how to respond to someone, so don't ****ing tell me. You're playing with someone's ****ing sentiments here. **** **** ****!!!!

!

 

[Bun]

Don't tell me how to react, you ****ing ****ing ****er ****. I never told you how to respond to someone, so don't ****ing tell me. You're playing with someone's ****ing sentiments here. **** **** ****!!!!

 

[Spark]

Yeah unless the BCCI is honestly trying to argue that it's doing ECB a favour by saving money (which it isn't anyway because all the technology will be already there for Sky), it's a completely irrelevancy in the case of the India-England series.

 

[vcs]

Lolworthy "reasoning" there by Shah, but isn't he saying it costs $60000 per day to run it? Seems it's not a one-time expense. Obviously BCCI are the last people who should be moaning about expense.

Just work out a solution and get it done with, ****s.

 

[centurymaker]

Don't tell me how to react, you ****ing ****ing ****er ****. I never told you how to respond to someone, so don't ****ing tell me. You're playing with someone's ****ing sentiments here. **** **** ****!!!!

winner!

 

[Top_Cat]

Not buying the costings one bit.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah, let's us slow-mo replays that have to be interpreted by a 3rd umpire, who is just as fallible as the umpires making the decisions on the ground to making mistakes rather than using a piece of technology that is irrefutably more accurate than the human eye. Great idea. ****ing dolts.

It was suggested as something that can be used for the time being while Hawk eye is still being debated over. I don't see whats wrong with that because it's certainly better than nothing. If it's a howler (sorry PEWS) then it will be overturned, if it's not then stick to the on field decision. Give me one good reason why that would be worse than having no review system in place at all. And tbf, you're the one who randomly came up with the argument that Cevno and I said slow mo > Hawk Eye.

Another thing, the third umpire is not as fallible as the umpires on field mainly due to the fact that he is seeing the whole damn thing take place in slow motion. If you're so sure of his incompetency that he can't call inside edges and nicks correctly on slow motion, then at least he can tell whether it pitched outside leg and hit outside the line of offstump for starters. Surely something is better than nothing, which fyi is the same argument that is being used for the UDRS.








****ing dolt.

 

[Spark]

There is also the point that the 3rd ump gets to see it as many times as he likes, unlike onfield umps who only get one chance at realtime speed.