***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Cevno]

To be fair ,the BCCI has nothing at all to do with UDRS not being there in the Newzealand - Pakistan series.

 

[vcs]

To be fair ,the BCCI has nothing at all to do with UDRS not being there in the Newzealand - Pakistan series.

You never know TBH. Damn you and your inconvenient facts, getting in the way of a good old anti-BCCI rant.

 

[slugger]

that is true, however the bcci has indirectly effected other teams not to use it. because the icc is to weak to force it to be compulsary, ( thus avoiding bcci to do something they dont) so instead they allow teams to make the decision themselves. ( we dont know which team between pak and nz decided not to use it.) however if the icc had some spine this option wouldnt be availible.

there is even talk of it not to be used in the world cup.

 

[Teja.]

Lol @ speculating that the NZ board did not use UDRS because it was scared that the BCCI might apply pressure for it's removal if the board did want to use it.

It might be true though, you never know, just like how creationism might be true.

 

[slugger]

Lol @ speculating that the NZ board did not use UDRS because it was scared that the BCCI might apply pressure for it's removal if the board did want to use it.

QUOTE]thats not what i applied nor did i even say.

I think you need to re-read.. let me break it down.

bcci dont want to use udrs
icc is to weak to force the use of udrs as complusary. because if they made it compulsary this would mean India (bcci) would be forced to use it.
so an easy way out of this situation for the icc is to leave the decision to individual boards.
hence the reason in nz vs pak it only takes one board to not want to use it.

 

[smash84]

You never know TBH. Damn you and your inconvenient facts, getting in the way of a good old anti-BCCI rant.

 

[andyc]

Obviously the BCCI had nothing to do with the NZ-Pak series not having UDRS. However, the fact that they managed to get South Africa to not use it for the SA-Ind series, despite playing in South Africa is pretty average. Have said it before, but it gets my goat so much. You can't hold a series hostage by threatening to go home halfway through it because of poor umpiring, and then when a solution is brought in, refuse to use it because a few veteran players aren't fans of it and you ended up on the wrong side of it while it was still going through some teething problems.

Love Dhoni's solution as well, namely that the umpires should improve their games instead. Because without Dhoni telling them to do so, the umps obviously wouldn't care if they got it right or wrong

 

[G.I.Joe]

What about the incorrect decisions in the SL-India series that did have UDRS?

 

[smash84]

What about the incorrect decisions in the SL-India series that did have UDRS?

what about them?

 

[andyc]

What about the incorrect decisions in the SL-India series that did have UDRS?

Well what about all the correct decisions the UDRS has brought about? No one's saying it's perfect, and that series was (IIRC) the very first series to use the system so of course there was going to be some teething problems. But now it's pretty much set in stone, is a pretty logical system, and is clearly helping teams ensure that the right decisions can be made. Certainly, it's leading to more correct decisions and less wrong decisions, and there's no way you can dispute that point.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Well what about all the correct decisions the UDRS has brought about? No one's saying it's perfect, and that series was (IIRC) the very first series to use the system so of course there was going to be some teething problems. But now it's pretty much set in stone, is a pretty logical system, and is clearly helping teams ensure that the right decisions can be made. Certainly, it's leading to more correct decisions and less wrong decisions, and there's no way you can dispute that point.

What teething problems?

Decision referred > Umpire looks at hawkeye evidence > Umpire decides he cbf relying on it and upholds incorrect decision anyway > Repeat and rinse until fielding team loses all faith.

Thats incompetence and a system without self-checks, not teething problems.

 

[smash84]

What teething problems?

Decision referred > Umpire looks at hawkeye evidence > Umpire decides he cbf relying on it and upholds incorrect decision anyway > Repeat and rinse until fielding team loses all faith.

Thats incompetence and a system without self-checks, not teething problems.

Do you or do you not think that the number of incorrect decisions have been reduced after the introduction of UDRS????

 

[G.I.Joe]

Do you or do you not think that the number of incorrect decisions have been reduced after the introduction of UDRS????

I believe each and every delivery should be subject to analysis rather than limit it to a few decision per team per test and create a lottery system. And before the usual suspects jump in citing the time constraints, no, it shouldn't take that long. Demonstrate to me why hawkeye needs anymore than a few seconds to analyse a delivery.

 

[smash84]

I believe each and every delivery should be subject to analysis rather than limit it to a few decision per team per test and create a lottery system. And before the usual suspects jump in citing the time constraints, no, it shouldn't take that long. Demonstrate to me why hawkeye needs anymore than a few seconds to analyse a delivery.

even taking that limitation into account of having a limited number of referrals (which I think will go away with time) still makes the game more fair by reducing the number of wrong decisions. And empirically too it has been observed that a lot of times umpires have had to take back their decisions due to UDRS finding out that they had ruled incorrectly.

In effect what you are arguing is that if the system is not 100% foolproof then there is no point in implementing that system. I believe that this system still works better than the previous system and hence should be implemented.

 

[G.I.Joe]

even taking that limitation into account of having a limited number of referrals (which I think will go away with time) still makes the game more fair by reducing the number of wrong decisions. And empirically too it has been observed that a lot of times umpires have had to take back their decisions due to UDRS finding out that they had ruled incorrectly.

In effect what you are arguing is that if the system is not 100% foolproof then there is no point in implementing that system. I believe that this system still works better than the previous system and hence should be implemented.

This is the 'something is better than nothing' argument that always crops up in these debates. But this argument makes sense only when the best possible system is either non-existent or too prohibitive in terms of time and money to put into practice. Not when it isn't. Real time hawk eye analyses of every delivery in a time and cost-effective manner is feasible IMO, and IMO the only reason the ICC doesn't admit it is because it makes the on field umpires nearly obsolete.

 

[vcs]

Frankly I don't give a crap about UDRS. It could be implemented and I'd be fine, or we could continue without it and I wouldn't care either. I think the umpires do a fantastic job all things considered (the Pak-NZ series is a rare anomaly) and a bad decision or two rarely affects the pleasure I get out of watching a match (no matter which way it goes). While watching matches with UDRS, it's a bit annoying not knowing whether or not to celebrate LBW/caught behind decisions with the referrals and all, but I guess I could get used to it.

To sum up, I don't really care.

 

[pup11]

Look the emphasis should be on cutting out absolute howlers from a game, now I still don't think that players showing the ump a 'T' everytime they have a doubt is the best way forward.
There is a 3rd umpire sitting in an air-conditioned room through the duration of the game probably munching doughnuts and getting paid for it, I mean why not just give him the power to overturn a wrong decision, there still might be an odd bad decision that may slip under the radar, but its the best method to employ becuase when a team burns its two reviews then they are pretty much again at the risk of a decision going against them, and you certainly don't want that as it kills the very purpose of having the UDRS....

 

[smash84]

This is the 'something is better than nothing' argument that always crops up in these debates. But this argument makes sense only when the best possible system is either non-existent or too prohibitive in terms of time and money to put into practice. Not when it isn't. Real time hawk eye analyses of every delivery in a time and cost-effective manner is feasible IMO, and IMO the only reason the ICC doesn't admit it is because it makes the on field umpires nearly obsolete.

Yes but as you say something is better than nothing really.

Look the emphasis should be on cutting out absolute howlers from a game, now I still don't think that players showing the ump a 'T' everytime they have a doubt is the best way forward.
There is a 3rd umpire sitting in an air-conditioned room through the duration of the game probably munching doughnuts and getting paid for it, I mean why not just give him the power to overturn a wrong decision, there still might be an odd bad decision that may slip under the radar, but its the best method to employ becuase when a team burns its two reviews then they are pretty much again at the risk of a decision going against them, and you certainly don't want that as it kills the very purpose of having the UDRS....

True and I don't quite like the idea of having only 2 referrals and I do think that it will go away with time and UDRS has reduced absolute howlers from the game. UDRS might not be the best way forward but it is a way forward and every step along the way helps. It is not that UDRS is detrimental to the game in any way. At worst it leaves the game the way it is.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yes but as you say something is better than nothing really.

No, I didn't. FFS that particular post explained exactly why it isn't true in this case

If we accept that 'Everything' > Something > Nothing, then in the absence of 'Everything', something is definitely better than nothing. But if 'Everything' is feasible to implement, it makes no sense to settle for 'something' instead, especially if that something is a crippled entity.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, I didn't. FFS that particular post explained exactly why it isn't true in this case

If we accept that 'Everything' > Something > Nothing, then in the absence of 'Everything', something is definitely better than nothing. But if 'Everything' is feasible to implement, it makes no sense to settle for 'something' instead, especially if that something is a crippled entity.

Yeah, but when you get told you can't have everything, and your choices are something or nothing, surely you'd take something.

What you're saying is basically akin to being offered $500,000 and saying "No thanks, I'd rather have $1,000,000, so I'll just stay broke."

While I completely agree with everything you said about using technology to an even fuller extent than what UDRS supplies currently, that is no argument for just going completely by the umpire's word, at all.