*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[Jarquis]

Choosing when to use your referrals is under your direct control though.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hilarious that the Indian team, of stand-by-jet-to-leave-Australia-fame, is so concerned that this technolgoy makes it a lottery instead of the status quo that caused them to.....you know, effectively end the career of an umpire and almost call of the tour.

SS, Sanz knows why:

Yeah, Referrals system in its present form is simply shifting the responsibility or blame from the umpires to the team asking for the review.

 

[Daemon]

It's a lottery because even though the overall number of bad decisions have been reduced, the improved decision making doesn't necessarily benefit each team equally, which matters a lot in a sport where two teams compete against each other. In order for it to not be a lottery, you need to ensure that its reliable, and that it doesn't alleviate the injustices to one team more than the other, excepting for factors that are under their direct control to a reasonable extent.

Does the current system without the UDRS benefit each team equally? No, because umpires do not make wrong decisions equally on both sides.

With your argument, the whole concept of umpires is a lottery.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Choosing when to use your referrals is under your direct control though.

Doesn't work in case of marginal lbw's that are indistinguishable in real time, but end up with different results on review. The batsman basically has to take a gamble on the decision to review.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Does the current system without the UDRS benefit each team equally? No, because umpires do not make wrong decisions equally on both sides.

With your argument, the whole concept of umpires is a lottery.

Won't argue with that. Umpires aren't prefect. The solution is to use technology more effectively, not in a half baked tokenism manner like currently.

 

[Daemon]

Won't argue with that. Umpires aren't prefect. The solution is to use technology more effectively, not in a half baked tokenism manner like currently.

Hmm. The idea is to improve decision making. Doesn't matter how it's done as long as there are more correct decisions made overall imo. Have a feeling this argument is going in a circle

Back on topic, India v New Zealand: 'We believe in each other' - Harbhajan | Cricket News | India v New Zealand | Cricinfo.com

Usually hate the **** out of Harby but he seems quite humble here

 

[Jarquis]

Doesn't work in case of marginal lbw's that are indistinguishable in real time, but end up with different results on review. The batsman basically has to take a gamble on the decision to review.

Then you're using your reviews wrong. They're there, primarily, to eliminate shocking decisions, not marginally wrong ones.
If there's a practical way to ensure all decisions are made correctly then go ahead but as it stands at the minute reviewing every appeal isn't feasible.
So make do with what we have, turning down something that improves the overall number of correct decisions because it's not perfect seems like an awful lot like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Thats why every other team other than the team who was too stupid to use it right the first time is in favor of the system?

Let's have a team benefit much lesser than their opposition, and you'll see the **** hit the fan.

What is stupid about the lbw example, SS? The Indians aren't opposed to hot spot, you can't pretend they're afraid of asking to review nicks and edges.

 

[Sanz]

Thats why every other team other than the team who was too stupid to use it right the first time is in favor of the system?

http://www.cricinfo.com/nzvaus2010/content/story/452890.html

ECB's request to reinstate the lost review reflects opposition to UDRS | Cricket Features | South Africa v England 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com

South Africa coach Mickey Arthur reveals 'misgivings' about UDRS | South Africa Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Players grapple with review system | Cricket News | Australia v West Indies 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com

Umpire review system not working | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Yeah right, only one country is complaining.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Then you're using your reviews wrong.

For reasons beyond your control! Ergo, a lottery.

They're there, primarily, to eliminate shocking decisions, not marginally wrong ones.
If there's a practical way to ensure all decisions are made correctly then go ahead but as it stands at the minute reviewing every appeal isn't feasible.
So make do with what we have, turning down something that improves the overall number of correct decisions because it's not perfect seems like an awful lot like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I don't buy that. If all hawkeye needs are real time co-ordinates and a program to extrapolate from them, lbw's can be decided in an instant. Just switch on the green light and overturn an incorrect decision immediately after the umpire raises his finger. That's it. If hawkeye needs more time than that, I don't know what for. I suspect the only reason we aren't already seeing that is because cricket views umpires as sacred cows. Symbolism and tradition rules.

 

[Shri]

They are cows alright.

 

[Jarquis]

For reasons beyond your control! Ergo, a lottery.

No, it's perfectly within your control. Hawkeye is there to overturn bad decisions, not marginally wrong ones. If you hit the leather of one or get struck 6 inches outside the line, review it. If you think it was maybe a bit to high or might be hitting leg stump, stfu and don't whinge when it doesn't get overturned.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No, it's perfectly within your control. Hawkeye is there to overturn bad decisions, not marginally wrong ones. If you hit the leather of one or get struck 6 inches outside the line, review it. If you think it was maybe a bit to high or might be hitting leg stump, stfu and don't whinge when it doesn't get overturned.

It's not under your control to decide the fine line between a decision that was surely not out and one that could go either way. The batsman doesn't get to watch himself from the other end. He's probably in an even worse position to make that marginal call than the umpire giving the decision! You just have to watch the reactions of batsmen out LBW to know how much faith to repose in their own judgement. Like Sanz said, its just shifting the blame from the umpire to the batsman. Just have a universal review system in place and be done with it instead of playing mindgames with the players.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah right, only one country is complaining.

So how many still use it?

 

[BeeGee]

New Zealand in India: Franklin replaces Bennett in NZ squad | Cricket News | India v New Zealand | Cricinfo.com

He should have been in the squad in the first place, imo.

 

[NZTailender]

Frankeeeeee!

 

[Jono]

Harbhajan won the Man-of-the-Match award for his batting exploits, something he never dreamed he would do in a Test. "May be in the one-dayers I thought I can get a chance to go up the order, slog a few, get a quick 50-odd and be the Man of the Match.

He also felt that Chris Martin was the real Man of the Match for his devastating spell on the fourth day. "Hats off to this guy (Martin) for he bowled his heart out on this flat wicket. For me he is the Man of the Match; to take five wickets on this pitch was something really special."

Glad to see Bhajji praise Martin. Was superb on day 4.

He also chimed in on the UDRS debat:

Both Laxman and Zaheer Khan fell to poor umpiring decisions today, and Harbhajan was asked his opinion on the Umpire Decision Review System. "As a bowler, I don't mind if that system comes. We had it in Sri Lanka and I quite liked it as I got couple of wickets. But I am no one to decide on this. Big people decide; my job is to just bowl, bat, and field. That's the best I can do."

 

[Sanz]

So how many still use it?

You tell me. As far as I know India, BD, Pakistan and WI don't use it. SL might use it in the current series but WI isn't very keen on using it.


That said, It doesn't matter. Your assertion that India complaining only because UDRS worked against it simply incorrect. You don't know it you are making an assumption a misguided one at best. My post suggested that almost every team has showed its reservations when UDRS didn't work for them.

How many domestic games these technologies are being used in ?

 

[silentstriker]

That said, It doesn't matter. Your assertion that India complaining only because UDRS worked against it simply incorrect.

Really? They wanted it. They got it in SL. They sucked at using it. They are no longer using it.

 

[Sanz]

Really? They wanted it. They got it in SL. They sucked at using it. They are no longer using it.

And it couldn't be because they think (after using the system on a trial basis) that a restriction on referrals (along with other possible reasons) isn't the best way of using it, could it ?