DRS to be used in England/India Series, but not for lbws.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2011/content/current/story/523933.html

A watered-down version of the Decision Review System (DRS) will be used in the England-India series with both sides agreeing to not use the system for lbw decisions. A day before the first Test starts at Lord's, the ICC announced that infra-red technology and stump microphones will be part of the DRS - though not for lbw decisions - but not ball-tracking.

This meets the minimum standards for DRS usage stipulated by the ICC at its annual conference last month but the decision to do away with reviews of lbw decisions could lead to anomalies. For example, if a batsman is given out to a bat-pad catch, he can get the verdict reviewed and if it is overturned because there is no bat involved, the fielding side has no recourse to an lbw appeal.

An ICC statement said the ECB wanted to include ball-tracking technology (such as Hawk-Eye or Virtual Eye) but the Indian board didn't.

"While we are disappointed that the full DRS will not be used to support the umpires, we are pleased that the ECB and BCCI have worked hard to ensure the minimum DRS is used in this much anticipated series," ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat said.

"It is common knowledge that the ICC and ECB would have liked ball tracking to have been included so that LBW decisions could have also been reviewed, but the last Chief Executives Committee and Board meeting in Hong Kong agreed to independently confirm the accuracy of ball-tracking technology. This will now take place as a matter of urgency."

The Indian board has long been averse to the DRS and had announced last month that it didn't want the system to be used in the England series. A compromise on the DRS was thrashed out at the ICC's annual conference later in the month. The series against England will be the first time India will be using the review system in Tests since 2008.

No LBW?
WT??
then why use it at all??

i think its ridiclous, you either use all of it, or none of it!!!!!!!!!!

liverbnz wrote:This meets the minimum standards for DRS usage stipulated by the ICC at its annual conference last month but the decision to do away with reviews of lbw decisions could lead to anomalies. For example, if a batsman is given out to a bat-pad catch, he can get the verdict reviewed and if it is overturned because there is no bat involved, the fielding side has no recourse to an lbw appeal.

An ICC statement said the ECB wanted to include ball-tracking technology (such as Hawk-Eye or Virtual Eye) but the Indian board didn't.

The Indian board has long been averse to the DRS and had announced last month that it didn't want the system to be used in the England series. A compromise on the DRS was thrashed out at the ICC's annual conference later in the month. The series against England will be the first time India will be using the review system in Tests since 2008.

Whats really stupid is that the crazy ambiguities like this will be used as a stick to bash DRS, rather than to show how absurd the halfway house comprise forced by the BCCI is.

activereactive wrote:No LBW?
WT??
then why use it at all??

For edges and no balls, stumpings, run outs, and judging clean catches. You can probably pick up Stuart Broad abussing the umpire on the stump mike to and get that replayed as a review if you want.

The bat pad issue is a comeplete minefield and will cause all kinds of problems for umpires and confussion for those wishing to review.

As far as I was aware, referrals will now only be used for edges. Everything else, from no-balls to run outs can be sent upstairs by the umpire at any stage. Could be wrong though.

i bet harbajhan wishes UDRS was being used for lbws

cricketfan90 wrote:i bet harbajhan wishes UDRS was being used for lbws

Its screwed him both ways in this series now.

Again we have seen India incensed that an umpire refussed to give an lbwq for a player a long way down the pitch, yet they cite the unreliability of prediciting teh path of the ball at this distance for disliking hawkeye. Which brings us back to the question if you cant trust the technology in that situation why would you trust an umpire? It also highoights incositency in umpiring that you dont get form a system like hawkeye, in the previous test an umpire was happy to give an lbw from 2.5 metres.

And also yesterday we gain saw the uselessness of hotspot. It just isnt reliable. Even the manufacturers say it is only 90-95% reliable in good conditions, and can be affected by sun. They also have a problem with bats having reflective stickers put on the edge which maskl real spots, and are now having to check if friction reducing substances applied to the edge can fool the system...why was this introduced without adequate testing and regulations when hawkeye was rejected because it "needed more testing"?

Any suggestions of backhnaders and corruption to get certain systems approved are of course wild speculation. As are any suggestions that the ICC has goen for a deliberatly poor comprimise that will turn people against DRS by "provinG" that it doesnt work.

Its quite clear that the wrong technology is being used. Hotspot is poor. Its not so bad if an umpire gives a player not out and the appeal fails to prove he should have been when he was, taht is a msiatke that would have been made under a no DRS system. The real problem cases are those where an umpire makes a correct decision which is overturned because of a hotspot faliure, that is unnaceptable.