DRS has NOT been made mandtory

There seems to be a lot of confussion on this point, apparently down to most peoples inability to read beyond newspapaer headlines.

The recent ICC meeting did not make the DRS system mandatory in tests or ODI's. The decison stated that they had agreed universal standards for the uses of the technology in all games subject to its availability and cost.

Simply put if a board feels that hotpsot is too expensive (which it is) then they dont have to use it for a series. The only thing that was when it is used there are a set of technologies and standards that have to be applied, and the implication of the commercial consideration now puts the onus on the host board to make the decision rather than the touring party being able to veto it.

So really it is still a cop out. WHat really frustrates me is that there is no provision to use the ball tracking part of hawkeye. Many people have concerns about predictied path (decideing if the ball would hit the stumps) which are largely based on ignorance, but fine. But there can be no argument that the part of the technology which shows where the ball pitched is 100% relaible and simple to implement. Yet instead we have hotpost which still has question marks about reliability and relies on operater interpretation...not to mention being stupidly expensive. The worst of that is that hotpsot could make it blantantly obvious a batsman given out lbw after the umpire gave him not out but hotpsot showeed he didnt knick it onto his pads was infact a ball which pitched outside the line...yet the decision would still have to be overturned to show he was out as hotspot cant be used to make ball picthing calls despite showing them. Its insane.

I also dont like the just one review cop out. It means that less bad decision will be challenged, that defeats the purpose of the system. Why invest all the money in teh technology if its not going to be used. Yes there has tro be a limit but the system as it was has been working very well, and greatly reduce on and off field spats between oppsoing teams and umpires.

Now u do, now u dont

the icc are idiots, they cant stand up to india, and they cant make a decision!

Maybe they'll decide to use it on an 'as needs' basis. Could be interesting.

Seriously, this ambiguity is killin' me. All or nothing, no bits & bobs please!

pathetic that india get their own way, again, no hawkeye, why can they deal with udrs

cricketfan90 wrote:pathetic that india get their own way, again, no hawkeye, why can they deal with udrs

strange no one thought pathetic when Australians and England were arrogantly ruling the roost (ICC) before 1983.

every country is fine with UDRS except india do the maths!!!!!!!!!!!

I really don't understand what there is to be against, in terms of the DRS system. Is it purely because they want to be able to pressure umpires into making wrong decisions that cannot be shown to be wrong? IMO the DRS has been nothing but good for the game, it allows a batsman to right a wrong if, for example, they have edged onto their pads and been given out LBW. It also allows a bowler to challenge what they believe to be a wrong decision, and puts less pressure on umpires as they know things can be checked. I know that the predictive bit of hawkeye is not 100% accurate but that's why there is leniency in the system, if a not out is given and the ball was only clipping the stumps the original decision will stay (correct me if I'm wrong btw).

So, for me, I just don't understand the issue. It's surely only a matter of time until the whole system is used in every series. Until then, I'll just be hoping for some bad decisions to go against the Indians this summer.

the indians cant have it both ways, they dont like the ICC, and cos darryl harper made some mistakes in the test they cricticsed him so much that he had to withdraw from the 3rd test cos of the comments, they cant have it both ways, you either back the techhology, or the umpires.

Carrotdude wrote:I really don't understand what there is to be against, in terms of the DRS system. Is it purely because they want to be able to pressure umpires into making wrong decisions that cannot be shown to be wrong? IMO the DRS has been nothing but good for the game, it allows a batsman to right a wrong if, for example, they have edged onto their pads and been given out LBW. It also allows a bowler to challenge what they believe to be a wrong decision, and puts less pressure on umpires as they know things can be checked. I know that the predictive bit of hawkeye is not 100% accurate but that's why there is leniency in the system, if a not out is given and the ball was only clipping the stumps the original decision will stay (correct me if I'm wrong btw).

So, for me, I just don't understand the issue. It's surely only a matter of time until the whole system is used in every series. Until then, I'll just be hoping for some bad decisions to go against the Indians this summer.

How do you know how accurate hawkeye is when ICC has never tested it independently?

And cricketfan90 need to stop his anti-Indian propaganda.

ECricket wrote:

Carrotdude wrote:I really don't understand what there is to be against, in terms of the DRS system. Is it purely because they want to be able to pressure umpires into making wrong decisions that cannot be shown to be wrong? IMO the DRS has been nothing but good for the game, it allows a batsman to right a wrong if, for example, they have edged onto their pads and been given out LBW. It also allows a bowler to challenge what they believe to be a wrong decision, and puts less pressure on umpires as they know things can be checked. I know that the predictive bit of hawkeye is not 100% accurate but that's why there is leniency in the system, if a not out is given and the ball was only clipping the stumps the original decision will stay (correct me if I'm wrong btw).

So, for me, I just don't understand the issue. It's surely only a matter of time until the whole system is used in every series. Until then, I'll just be hoping for some bad decisions to go against the Indians this summer.

How do you know how accurate hawkeye is when ICC has never tested it independently?

And cricketfan90 need to stop his anti-Indian propaganda.

Because theres been no end of independant testing done on the technology and its accuracy is widely published? Its used in a number of other applications. Yes the ICC has no tested it directly themselves for this specific purpose but they have plenty of data both for this application and others showing its accuracy. Theres no debate that its more accurate than human judgement, except from the genuinly ignorant. Yes there are slight flaws in the system and some basis for variation that it cannot account for no matter how smart it were, but thats no different from the human etye. At least it is entirely consistent and incapable of bias. If you put the same data in you will alwys get the same result, the same cannot be said for umpires making real time decisions.
Again its only the predicted path part that this applies to anyway. Theres no questioning the ball tracking element, that is as near as is relevant entirely accurate. There is no reason why the ball tracking element shouldnt have been included, other than cost and "moral" objections to a review system of any kind.

Anyway the whole point of this is that even teh elements of DRS that have been accepted as accurate and included in the package are still not mandatory. A host can decide to not use them for commercial reasons, which is essentialy a get out clause on the whole system. Its quite possible we will still see cases of uneven application of the technology.

Yes this shouldnt be an "India" issue. However it should be an issue to question why individuals (regardless of nationality) within the ICC block certain proposals, how they go about making decisons, whats best for cricket on the field, and why they feel the need to try and hoodwink the public by putting out misleading press releases.

ECricket wrote:

Carrotdude wrote:I really don't understand what there is to be against, in terms of the DRS system. Is it purely because they want to be able to pressure umpires into making wrong decisions that cannot be shown to be wrong? IMO the DRS has been nothing but good for the game, it allows a batsman to right a wrong if, for example, they have edged onto their pads and been given out LBW. It also allows a bowler to challenge what they believe to be a wrong decision, and puts less pressure on umpires as they know things can be checked. I know that the predictive bit of hawkeye is not 100% accurate but that's why there is leniency in the system, if a not out is given and the ball was only clipping the stumps the original decision will stay (correct me if I'm wrong btw).

So, for me, I just don't understand the issue. It's surely only a matter of time until the whole system is used in every series. Until then, I'll just be hoping for some bad decisions to go against the Indians this summer.

How do you know how accurate hawkeye is when ICC has never tested it independently?

And cricketfan90 need to stop his anti-Indian propaganda.

i havent got an anti-indian propaganda, i just speaking the truth.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

ECricket wrote:

Carrotdude wrote:I really don't understand what there is to be against, in terms of the DRS system. Is it purely because they want to be able to pressure umpires into making wrong decisions that cannot be shown to be wrong? IMO the DRS has been nothing but good for the game, it allows a batsman to right a wrong if, for example, they have edged onto their pads and been given out LBW. It also allows a bowler to challenge what they believe to be a wrong decision, and puts less pressure on umpires as they know things can be checked. I know that the predictive bit of hawkeye is not 100% accurate but that's why there is leniency in the system, if a not out is given and the ball was only clipping the stumps the original decision will stay (correct me if I'm wrong btw).

So, for me, I just don't understand the issue. It's surely only a matter of time until the whole system is used in every series. Until then, I'll just be hoping for some bad decisions to go against the Indians this summer.

How do you know how accurate hawkeye is when ICC has never tested it independently?

And cricketfan90 need to stop his anti-Indian propaganda.

Because theres been no end of independant testing done on the technology and its accuracy is widely published? Its used in a number of other applications. Yes the ICC has no tested it directly themselves for this specific purpose but they have plenty of data both for this application and others showing its accuracy. Theres no debate that its more accurate than human judgement, except from the genuinly ignorant. Yes there are slight flaws in the system and some basis for variation that it cannot account for no matter how smart it were, but thats no different from the human etye. At least it is entirely consistent and incapable of bias. If you put the same data in you will alwys get the same result, the same cannot be said for umpires making real time decisions.
Again its only the predicted path part that this applies to anyway. Theres no questioning the ball tracking element, that is as near as is relevant entirely accurate. There is no reason why the ball tracking element shouldnt have been included, other than cost and "moral" objections to a review system of any kind.

Anyway the whole point of this is that even teh elements of DRS that have been accepted as accurate and included in the package are still not mandatory. A host can decide to not use them for commercial reasons, which is essentialy a get out clause on the whole system. Its quite possible we will still see cases of uneven application of the technology.

Yes this shouldnt be an "India" issue. However it should be an issue to question why individuals (regardless of nationality) within the ICC block certain proposals, how they go about making decisons, whats best for cricket on the field, and why they feel the need to try and hoodwink the public by putting out misleading press releases.

Do you think this guy who is CEO of virtualeye is ignorant?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/522086.html

And if ICC wants others to use it then they need to pay for it.

Right now ICC officials does not even have any control of replay which is shown to third umpire, thats kind of system these morons have come up with because they rely on broadcasters to pay and control it all the time

im not a fan of UDRS, but if its here to stay, every team has to use it, you cant have situation where u use it in one series and not the rest its ridicous