***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Cevno]

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. **** **** ****!!!!

 

[Cevno]

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.

Exactly This.

Can't figure what people are having difficulty comprehending.

When it is said that technology is not fully accurate ,the argument being made is something is better than nothing.
But now when we suggested for the time being only the Slow motion part of the UDRS could be used as the other things are stalling it ,then something is not better than nothing?

Hypocritical hey?

 

[Cevno]

HawkEye > Cevno watching on TV.

How about commentators disagreeing too on the ground and players feeling surprised too?
In any way this wasn't about Hawkeye.

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



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.

Here we need to understand that only LBW calls are done by the Hawkeye not others.
And ultimately in any system it's the third umpires call.

So what is wrong with just using part of the system just with slow motion for the time being? It's not as if even if the UDRS is fully implemented you'll get robots to decide whether the evidence is conclusive to overturn or not?

 

[Cevno]

ICC news: PCB to support DRS, oppose end to rotation policy | Pakistan Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

Well PCB are supporting the UDRS.

And it is on the agenda and may be put on vote in the ICC annual conference that is going on -

ICC annual conference: DRS, World Cup 2015 format top of the agenda | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

Let's see each boards stand.

 

[Borges]

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

Not buying the costings one bit.

It has now gone beyond being just questions of: Is UDRS good? If it is, what is the best way to implement it? How much does it cost? Who will underwrite the cost of UDRS for the less affluent boards? What about the oligopoly that provides it?

The question before the current conference is: Will the will of the majority prevail? Or is cricket going back to the bad old days?

... may be put on vote in the ICC annual conference that is going on

May be put to vote? Must be put to a vote. Which is transparently free and fair.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

The trouble is that it isn't quite that cut and dried, is it?

UDRS has an inbuilt margin of error, so there are some calls that can conceivably have two different decisions applied with equal accuracy.

Unless we want to debate the semantic nuances of "howler", I think saying UDRS should only be used for them (or "obviously wrong decisions", "clear **** ups" or "Asokas" or whatever you want to call them) is fair enough.

Can't believe this thread has got to 200+ replies tho. Can we all just agree the BCCI is wrong on this and move on?

 

[Jarquis]

And tbf, you're the one who randomly came up with the argument that Cevno and I said slow mo > Hawk Eye.

Surely that's the implication if you're advocating a slow-mo system but defending India's stance on UDRS? If you're going to do something then do it as well as possible. Use UDRS. It's simple.

 

[fredfertang]

The suggestion that Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye will charge the ZCB the same fee for a series against Bangladesh as they will charge the ECB for a series against India is palpable nonsense - as is the idea that human judgment is as or more accurate

While there is a Future Tours Programme the ICC administer then they should buy in the technology as part of one bulk purchase - I wouldn't be totally surprised if the truth was that the real agenda is that the BCCI want to charge the companies a fee for allowing them to showcase their wares at their matches

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Saw the title, immediately thought this should be in the "Lame joke" thread tbh.

 

[Cevno]

Don't think it is possible to do one bulk purchase to be used all around the world as it still comes down to the host broadcaster to transport and implement it from one place to another.
All of the Broadcasters have slow motion Camera's in any case and have replays so the cost argument seems strange with regards to that. Not sure about Hawkeye and Hot spot etc.. though.

 

[Borges]

I wouldn't be totally surprised if the truth was that the real agenda is that the BCCI want to charge the companies a fee for allowing them to showcase their wares at their matches

Pay Tendulkar an indecent amount of money to persuade him to be the 'Correctness Ambassador' for Hawk-Eye; in addition to being the 'Happiness Ambassador' for aerated, coloured, flavoured, acidified and sweetened water?

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah. The cameras (being military equipment) and software for Hawkeye/etc. are all licensed, not bought.

 

[Bun]

Pay Tendulkar an indecent amount of money to persuade him to be the 'Correctness Ambassador' for Hawk-Eye; in addition to being the 'Happiness Ambassador' for aerated, coloured, flavoured, acidified and sweetened water?:p

Is it that difficult to spell cola?

 

[Bun]

Yeah. The cameras (being military equipment) and software for Hawkeye/etc. are all licensed, not bought.

Hmm... but will there be a licensing fee reduction then? I mean one tariff for Bangladesh and the like and another for developed nations?

60K (in fact even half of it) is way too exorbitant imho for a day of cricket if one juxtaposes it with the apparent benefit it offers (avg increases success rate from 92% to 97%)...

But then again, if BCCI does not want to bear the cost of it, it is free to do in home matches. But it has no bloody reason to tell off the countries who want it and actually are willing to pay for it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Is it that difficult to spell cola?

He doesn't want to become a happiness ambassador himself.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's quite rare so see such flagrant bull**** trotted out, so I almost admire the BCCI's brass neck. They really don't care what anyone else thinks, do they?

The fact that English tests have all the components for UDRS already in place which presumably will be shown on Sky's coverage of the same utterly punctures the whole "it's too expensive for der little 'uns, guv" arguments.

 

[GotSpin]

Ahh the BCCI is so patronising. Funny stuff

 

[silentstriker]

So the BCCI are opposing the UDRS in England because they don't want the ECB to spend money even if the ECB itself is willing? That financial powerhouse of Pakistan, and the filthy rich SLC also want to spend the money but obviously we are overlooking the selfless people of the BCCI who run the game on a shoe string budget out of purely the love of the game. Can we reasonably expect BCCI to be able to scrounge up money to match heavy hitters like Sri Lanka? Too often the little guys are forgotten in cricket. First the associates were left out of the world cup and now the BCCI is being driven to bankruptcy by the shortsighted bigwigs cricket. The other boards are too busy counting money in their palaces in Colombo or Wellington to bother about the little guys trying to make cricket work in India.

 

[Bun]

So the BCCI are opposing the UDRS in England because they don't want the ECB to spend money even if the ECB itself is willing? That financial powerhouse of Pakistan, and the filthy rich SLC also want to spend the money but obviously we are overlooking the selfless people of the BCCI who run the game on a shoe string budget out of purely the love of the game. Can we reasonably expect BCCI to be able to scrounge up money to match heavy hitters like Sri Lanka? Too often the little guys are forgotten in cricket. First the associates were left out of the world cup and now the BCCI is being driven to bankruptcy by the shortsighted bigwigs cricket. The other boards are too busy counting money in their palaces in Colombo or Wellington to bother about the little guys trying to make cricket work in India.

sarcasm aside, BCCI have every right to oppose implementing this out of their pocket for their home tests.

But no ****ing right to decide on behalf of other boards.

 

[BoyBrumby]

sarcasm aside, BCCI have every right to oppose implementing this out of their pocket for their home tests.

But no ****ing right to decide on behalf of other boards.

Really? Given India earns nearly 3/4 of the total revenues in cricket I don't think I'd go so far as to say they have a right to oppose it.

They saving up to be Scottish or something?