CA and BCCI, explain yourselves

[andyc]

But the way the system is in place atm, it can't be abused. That's the point.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah start mocking members when they disagree with you on the issue. If the system is in place, then why is it not in use in the current series ? And if you had cared to read you would have noticed that got_spin was responding to shri's post about unlimited referrals.

Anyways, Whatever makes you happy.

 

[Furball]

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.

It didn't work for India because Kumble used his referrals stupidly.

Sri Lanka used theirs for decisions like the one where Murali had Tendulkar sweeping, the ball bounced up and caught the back of his bat on the way through to Jayawardene at slip. Reasonable enough for the umpire to give Tendulkar the benefit of the doubt, but it was clear as day to the guys behind the wicket that Tendulkar had inadvertantly got bat on ball.

Worked fine in the England-Pakistan series btw.

 

[Furball]

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.

Such a stupid idea. Batsmen would be as well referring decisions everytime they're out, even clean bowled, on the off chance the umpire has missed a bowler over-stepping by a couple of millimetres.

 

[G.I.Joe]

But the way the system is in place atm, it can't be abused. That's the point.

No, the point is that the way it has been set up, it can be rendered pretty damn useless due to the lottery factor.

 

[Daemon]

I guess if captains aren't ready for this, then at least let the umpires have the right to refer decisions whenever they are in doubt. Just like run outs. It can't be abused and won't waste as much time as well.

It's been tried in Australia and the umpires didn't like it, but thats just because they were dicks. If they keep on refusing to use it in international games, the ICC can simply remove them from the panel.

 

[Debris]

No, the point is that the way it has been set up, it can be rendered pretty damn useless due to the lottery factor.

But the idea was to use it only when the umpire was obviously wrong. It was never meant to try and overturn marginal calls so if you want to start challenging marginal calls and lose all your referrals then you deserve everything you get.

 

[Furball]

No, the point is that the way it has been set up, it can be rendered pretty damn useless due to the lottery factor.

How's it a lottery?

If you middle the ball onto your pads and get sawn off, challenge it, decision is over-turned and you still have as many referrals as you did at the start of the innings. If a team only used their referrals to overturn obvious howlers, they'd never run out of referrals.

If you want to take risks challenging an lbw call where it's extremely marginal and debatable whether the ball has hit in line or is marginal in terms of height, and lose your referrals, then that's your own stupid fault.

 

[G.I.Joe]

How's it a lottery?

If you middle the ball onto your pads and get sawn off, challenge it, decision is over-turned and you still have as many referrals as you did at the start of the innings. If a team only used their referrals to overturn obvious howlers, they'd never run out of referrals.

If you want to take risks challenging an lbw call where it's extremely marginal and debatable whether the ball has hit in line or is marginal in terms of height, and lose your referrals, then that's your own stupid fault.

That is what makes it a lottery. Call it what you want.

 

[Furball]

That is what makes it a lottery. Call it what you want.

It's not a lottery. Reviews are there to overturn obvious bad decisions, not ones that might be wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

Im not sure I understand what the problem is with URDS the way it works currently. The point of URDS is to eliminate umpiring errors that are blatantly obvious. If a batsman edges the ball onto the pad and is given out lbw then clearly he would want to refer this to the third umpire. Similarly if a guy is caught plumb lbw in front and the umpire gives it not out then the bowler would want to refer it. Im not sure how anyone can call this a 'lottery'. Its there to be used when you can say with 100% certainty or close to 100% certainty that the umpire has made the wrong decision.

Now do captains misuse this technology at the moment? Yes they do. Should they? Might as well given that you have 3 incorrect referrals to waste and theres always the odd chance that the umpire might be incorrect or that it might be a no ball. The bottom line however is that the point of the URDS is not to be used in this manner and thus any captain/player who is stupid enough to use up referrals based on the slim possibility that his decision might be overturned does deserve to be penalized for it. Does URDS make cricket less fair at the moment than what it was before? No, in fact it improves the quality of the game by reducing umpire error.

 

[Sanz]

It didn't work for India because Kumble used his referrals stupidly.

It does not matter how Kumble used it, a Decision review system should have nothing to do with captain's intelligence or his poor luck with it.

I have a problem with UDRS if it becomes a strategic tool or another lucky charm.

Worked fine in the England-Pakistan series btw.

I was talking about this one :-

Harper cleared of UDRS blame | Cricket365 | Cricket News

 

[Jono]

At the end of the day, if the UDRS reduces the umpiring errors, then of course it should be used. Even if it isn't 100% perfect.

Complaints against it are pretty silly IMO. Why would you reject something that improves decision making?

Also Sehwag likes it, and Sehwag > you.

Edit: If you think all decisions should be referrable and not just 3, and you don't like the tennis system, fine. But given the options of no UDRS or a UDRS in its current state, why wouldn't you at least want some way for decisions to be referred?

 

[Sanz]

Such a stupid idea. Batsmen would be as well referring decisions everytime they're out, even clean bowled, on the off chance the umpire has missed a bowler over-stepping by a couple of millimetres.

Yeah stupid idea because it is different from yours which sounds inconsistent because you wouldn't want it used when a bowler oversteps.

 

[andyc]

He's just saying that you need something there to discourage players from appealing every decision made, otherwise it'd all get a bit silly. Yes, umpiring decisions could be made almost 100% accurate if we simply did away with umpires, and had people in the studio replaying of every delivery to check it wasn't a no ball, used Hawkeye every time the ball hit the pads, and went to Hotspot every time there was a halfhearted appeal for a caught behind. But that'd take forever and it'd be wildly impratical. The current system provides a good balance in terms of giving plenty of leewasy for teams overturn decisions while still discouraging them from using it willy-nilly.

 

[Sanz]

Edit: If you think all decisions should be referrable and not just 3, and you don't like the tennis system, fine. But given the options of no UDRS or a UDRS in its current state, why wouldn't you at least want some way for decisions to be referred?

Let me repeat. I am not against it but if a captain or board is not for it you have to take that input and try to make the system better as opposed to calling him dumb or stupid or whatever else is being called here.

It is obvious that UDRS in its current form of limited referrals can be a major disadvantage/advantage for a team and that is why some teams are not very comfortable with it.

Also , Let's not compare referral system in Tennis to Cricket. In Cricket when a batsman is gone, In Tennis, you just lost a point. Secondly in Tennis, there is no human decision involved in the Tennis review system, Technology makes the decision for you, therefore the consistency of decision, it is almost always right. In Cricket you still have to depend on the umpire to make the best guess using the technology and that does not guarantee the consistency (as was the case in Smith' case)

 

[Shri]

Such a stupid idea. Batsmen would be as well referring decisions everytime they're out, even clean bowled, on the off chance the umpire has missed a bowler over-stepping by a couple of millimetres.

If you are such a big fan of technology, ever heard of bluetooth head sets? Set a camera that is fixed to the bowler's crease all the time then make the 3rd umpire watch that camera and instantly relay to the on field umpires if it is a no-ball. No time wasted. There are ways to make this **** work successfully if the fat umpire ****s are willing to work. Personally I would chuck all those fat, lazy bastards out of the field and make every decision based on technology.

 

[Sanz]

He's just saying that you need something there to discourage players from appealing every decision made, otherwise it'd all get a bit silly. Yes, umpiring decisions could be made almost 100% accurate if we simply did away with umpires, and had people in the studio replaying of every delivery to check it wasn't a no ball, used Hawkeye every time the ball hit the pads, and went to Hotspot every time there was a halfhearted appeal for a caught behind. But that'd take forever and it'd be wildly impratical. The current system provides a good balance in terms of giving plenty of leewasy for teams overturn decisions while still discouraging them from using it willy-nilly.

Why not educate the players, BCCI, Boards, Umpires and all other stakeholders about using this technology properly, judiciously instead of going the cheap or easy way where you just want to put a deterrant to prevent the abuse of the system.

I have spent half of life in implementing technology at different levels and ridiculing the people who are not very comfortable with it almost always goes against and it takes much longer to implement.

 

[Furball]

If you are such a big fan of technology, ever heard of bluetooth head sets? Set a camera that is fixed to the bowler's crease all the time then make the 3rd umpire watch that camera and instantly relay to the on field umpires if it is a no-ball. No time wasted. There are ways to make this **** work successfully if the fat umpire ****s are willing to work. Personally I would chuck all those fat, lazy bastards out of the field and make every decision based on technology.

That's a completely different issue and I'm completely in favour of removing the responsibility of checking for no-balls from the on field umpires.

 

[pup11]

Personally despite my initial reservations, I'm now warming up to this whole split innings one day game.
I think it keeps the interest alive in the game, and also ensures that there aren't many drag on moments in the game, but don't see the logic in, CA introducing it during the world cup year.
As for UDRS, I'm all for it, but if the Icc doesn't have the power or resources to implement it through test cricket, then why waste everyone's time.
BCCI obviously would oppose UDRS, because the great SRT doesn't like it, and there is no way, they can go against his will.