Furball
Evil Scotsman
Rubbish.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** DRS discussion thread
- Thread starter morgieb
- Start date
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I don't see how this is arguable. There was nothing on snicko. There was no hotspot where the ball passed the bat. There was no deviation in the ball trajectory.
What was it exactly that was not clear?
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If I went into an office and promised them a new computing system that would improve their efficiency from 95% to 99%, they'd jump at the offer. I'm still yet to see a convincing argument against UDRS other than the fact that it's not perfect.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Like I said, nothing on hotspot, no noise, no deviation. Not out.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
No they would not because 95% efficiency is pretty amazing. They would prefer 99% efficiency but if all you are going to tell them is that "Hey we have no proof of concept, you will have to take our word for it and we want it implemented first in your most productive system and then move on to other less important systems".
You will be out of there in no time.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
I do not trust the hotspot blindly. The picture I posted tells a different story.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Yes, how surprising that GMIH jumps into attack me at the slightest opportunity. No one would have thought.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Tells you nothing except that the ball passed very close to the bat. There was absolutely no deviation.
Fusion
Global Moderator
Yup, agreed. I would presume the “95% to 99%” efficiency ratio was just used as an assumption, but I think the UDRS system improves the decisioning by a bigger margin than that. First and foremost, it corrects the clearly wrong decisions. Take a look at the ongoing Pak/NZ series and you’ll see that those types of incorrect decisions are fairly common. I guess the controversy comes in when it’s a close call. Even then, the rule is that if it’s too close to call, the umpire’s original decision stands. I simply don’t understand what problem people still have with the system.
I think the BCCI (or PCB or any other board that opposes it) is being a little pig headed and standing in the way of improving the game. Let’s make it mandatory and if there are any issues with it, then let’s identify them and correct them.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
That's your interpretation, which you are allowed to have. You also said there is no Snicko, there definitely is .
YouTube - Ashes 2010 - Ponting v Umpire (Possible Pietersen Wicket) (between .51-52 sec mark and then again at 1:19-1:20 mark)
Fusion
Global Moderator
Sanz, what are you trying to argue here? Are you saying the UDRS didn’t work in this instance? If so, how did it not? If there was no UDRS, then what would’ve been the outcome? "Not Out", since that’s what the original umpire’s decision was. In my opinion, there is clear evidence that decision is correct. But even if you think it’s too close to call, the original decision stands. Then what’s the issue?
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
When there is a close call controversy, I am pretty sure that most fans can deal with. My problem is when there is a close call and you are out of your challenges and I think that is where most opponents of UDRS have problem with.
The argument given by most supporters is that Dhoni is Stupid and The captain is stupid, dumb or whatever to use his reviews unwisely.
Take for example the Ponting case, Was Ponting stupid to take his teammate's word and use the review ?
Teja.
Global Moderator
Even though, I do think the UDRS should be implemented, This argument fails because in a workplace, If the president of the workers union(Dhoni) along with the most senior and important employee(Sachin) and most of the others are extremely uncomfortable with it and have had a bad experience with it in the past, No way is the office gonna employ the computing system.
Even if an assurance is given that the system has been improved, It will take some time for the office which will approach it's implementation with caution.
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
I am saying is that there was no definitive evidence:-
a.There was snicko evidence, could be heard twice in the replay, as opposed to what was claimed here.
b. the picture does show that the ball was touching (I understand that alone can not be taken as pure evidence)
c. I assume that everyone is going by the evidence from Hotspot, well then why use Snicko as part of your technology tools.
I am not someone who blames umpires for win/loss ( I have been over it long back). My issue is that Australia lost one of its challenges where IMO technology failed to conclusively state one way or another. Secondly why should be there a limitation on no. of challenges ?.
Last edited:
Fusion
Global Moderator
Well if it’s about challenges, then we can debate whether to give the Captains more than currently allocated. But the argument still shouldn’t be that “either you give them more challenges or we don’t want this system at all”. That logic is puzzling to me.
In the case of Ponting, I don’t mind him appealing that decision. It was indeed a close call “live” and I can see why he would want to refer it. He did and he lost the decision. Whether he agrees with the UDRS call is irrelevant to this debate IMO, because even if there was no UDRS system in place, the original call would have been “not out”. Hence the outcome doesn’t change with or without UDRS.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
There's no snicko there.
Fusion
Global Moderator
So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that that decision was too close to call and Ponting shouldn’t have lost a challenge. Then your beef is not with the concept of UDRS as a whole, but with the number of challenges? Like I said above, I think that aspect can be debated. However, I’m still puzzled by those that seem to imply that either their preferences should be fully incorporated or the system shouldn’t be used at all. If we agree that this system does correct the howlers at the very least, and only causes controversy in the close calls (where the original umpire’s decision still stands FWIW), then why not implement it and keep trying to improve it?