***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Dasa]

So even though the margin of error is such that the 3rd umpire had to stick with the onfield umpire decision it's still the fault of the 3rd umpire?

"The ICC playing conditions relating to this part of the system come under Process of Consultation No. 3.3 (i). It states that if a 'not out' decision is being reviewed and the distance from impact to the stumps is greater than 2.5m then the third umpire passes this information to the on-field official along with: the distance from the wickets of the point of impact with the batsman, the approximate distance from the point of pitching to the point of impact, and whether the ball is predicted to the hit the stumps.

The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision.""

Nothing about having to stick with the onfield decision, so it'd be nice if people didn't keep stating that as if it's gospel.

 

[Cruxdude]

Pretty daft decision by Billy.

 

[Sanz]

Poor implementation of a system doesn't make it a poor system.

If the implementation is poor, it does not matter how good the system is on paper.

 

[Sanz]

If URDS weren't in place then there'd have been no change to the outcome.

The point is not if the absence of UDRS would have made a difference to the outcome, I think the fans are okay with the outcome of the game and it is really ridiculous to continuously bring that point.

The point is that UDRS was available and there was an opportunity to convince those doubt the implementation of it. That opportunity was lost and the doubters have been justified once again in their stance.

 

[jeevan]

Actually, the point is that a flaw in the UDRS system was uncovered today. Some people who previously were not doubters, now are. Saying we were no worse off than before is a cop-out. Why not fix the basic flaw in it?

This isn't a perfect being the enemy of good enough argument, before someone brings up that cliche. On field human umpires are good enough for the most part to begin with, despite the occasional blip.

And this isn't a Luddite 'no to technology' rant either. Actually, almost the opposite was the case in today's instance. Bowden being able to see a replay might have been enough, the extrapolation or the accuracy of the extrapolation were almost not necessary.

It is a gripe about the poor implementation (UDRS) of a good idea (use technology to make the umpire's job easier).

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but you saying fix it is different to the BCCI's position which is to not use it at all until it's flawless.

A lot of the flaws in a system like this don't actually become apparent until it's used and there will be more to fix which we can't see now. That's why the BCCI's stance is pretty backward.

 

[smash84]

Not having it wouldn't have changed the decision though. Bowden must have been blind to give that not-out. It was hitting middle of middle for Christ's sake! I'd blame him more than the third umpire.

This

Yeah but you saying fix it is different to the BCCI's position which is to not use it at all until it's flawless.

A lot of the flaws in a system like this don't actually become apparent until it's used and there will be more to fix which we can't see now. That's why the BCCI's stance is pretty backward.

and this

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Nobody said it was perfect yet, but it is better than the alternative i.e. nothing.

Referrals have come a long way since they first were brought in. Then we had the 3rd umpire making the decisions, with lots of mistakes and inconsistent decisions. And improvements were made by using technology and putting a whole lot of rules in place regarding its usage. Such strict are necessary, as otherwise the 3rd umpire would have too much say and in steps human error and inconsistency again. It may have been the wrong decision in the end, but at least it's the same for all teams. Never mind the fact that with no UDRS the wrong decision still would have stood.

There's no reason why improvements to the UDRS can't continue, but if you refuse to use it then how is it going to get any better? Yeah, you could say that it could be used in first class matches until it's perfect, but it will never be 100% perfect, so at what point do you decide on implementing it? 99%? 99.5%? 99.99999%? Heck, its probably 95%+ at the moment.

At the end of the day, it's best to use it while it's slowly improving than not using it at all.
Captains just need to get better at using their given referrals, and accept the few limitations to an improving system. Captains shouldn't be throwing their toys out of their cot.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah but you saying fix it is different to the BCCI's position which is to not use it at all until it's flawless.

A lot of the flaws in a system like this don't actually become apparent until it's used and there will be more to fix which we can't see now. That's why the BCCI's stance is pretty backward.

The point is that the UDRS system implementation has not been able to offer a solution the most basic issues despite being in the use for a while now. I am not sure how BCCI comes into the picture here, because whether they like it or not, the system is in use and the issues have not resolved. BCCI may be backward but their stance was justified again.

A half baked implementation of technology is just money and time wasted.

 

[Sanz]

Nobody said it was perfect yet, but it is better than the alternative i.e. nothing.

Referrals have come a long way since they first were brought in. Then we had the 3rd umpire making the decisions, with lots of mistakes and inconsistent decisions. And improvements were made by using technology and putting a whole lot of rules in place regarding its usage. Such strict are necessary, as otherwise the 3rd umpire would have too much say and in steps human error and inconsistency again. It may have been the wrong decision in the end, but at least it's the same for all teams. Never mind the fact that with no UDRS the wrong decision still would have stood.

There's no reason why improvements to the UDRS can't continue, but if you refuse to use it then how is it going to get any better? Yeah, you could say that it could be used in first class matches until it's perfect, but it will never be 100% perfect, so at what point do you decide on implementing it? 99%? 99.5%? 99.99999%? Heck, its probably 95%+ at the moment.

At the end of the day, it's best to use it while it's slowly improving than not using it at all.
Captains just need to get better at using their given referrals, and accept the few limitations to an improving system. Captains shouldn't be throwing their toys out of their cot.

The current implementation of UDRS is not better than the alternative. It is like buying a lottery ticket is better than not buying one.

 

[Prince EWS]

I wish I could have my access to this thread removed.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

The current implementation of UDRS is not better than the alternative. It is like buying a lottery ticket is better than not buying one.

Yep, because

0% of incorrect decisions being reversed > 98% of incorrect decisions being reversed

obviously

 

[Top_Cat]

The point is that the UDRS system implementation has not been able to offer a solution the most basic issues despite being in the use for a while now. I am not sure how BCCI comes into the picture here, because whether they like it or not, the system is in use and the issues have not resolved. BCCI may be backward but their stance was justified again.

A half baked implementation of technology is just money and time wasted.

I don't think it's half-baked, though. It's done pretty much what it set out to do and that is to eradicate really bad decisions and I personally can see how much better decision-making in general has become, not to mention how many times it's backed up the umpires' instincts.

Been watching cricket for a while now and I do remember just how many shockers there were until this came along. There used to be multiple bad decisions per Test/ODI which fans could rage about now there's bugger-all. We only don't remember them because they were pegged as 'benefit of the doubt/umpire couldn't have given that out', now, apparently, they're 'blatantly out/not-out'. For me, URDS been entirely positive. It's not perfect, of course, but it probably never will because a lot of it comes down to interpretation of the laws rather than a strictly technological limitations.

Take one example, HotSpot. Now, they're uncooled IR cameras. Relatively low-res and I don't think they pick up all edges. Now the BCCI might say that the system should be using the best available tech or not at all, etc. but that runs contrary to the way things are implemented, tested and refined. Even the low-res cameras are freaking expensive and no-one would be stupid enough to invest money in making the existing better, let alone putting up the $ to buy cooled cams if we lived in the BCCI's world and weren't even sure they were to be used anyway (even the cooled cams have limitations). Need to walk before you can run so the existing cams need to be used and proven to work in most cases before any further investment in time or money can be courted to refine them.

For mine, the BCCI's stance has definitely not been justified at all. If they were arguing only for changes, suggesting ways to fix the issues it has, etc., fair enough but they're arguing not to use it at all until it's mistake-free. Don't agree with that and I don't think it's been a haphazard introduction at all, just imperfect. Sometimes you have to just suck it and see.

 

[jeevan]

Yeah but you saying fix it is different to the BCCI's position which is to not use it at all until it's flawless.

A lot of the flaws in a system like this don't actually become apparent until it's used and there will be more to fix which we can't see now. That's why the BCCI's stance is pretty backward.

Agree with this, all that happened today (i.e. England-India game) is that it seems we found one of those flaws. There's a real danger of the wrong conclusion being drawn and the baby being thrown with the bath water.

BCCI's stance is baffling (to me an an India fan). OK so SL was tactically better than India on the use of reviews in one of the test series, but nothing there was quite as dramatically bad for India as the umpiring bloopers at Sydney. And even if one is to be very very political about this, there simply are no Indian umpires in any of the elite panels. So, whose job or honor is BCCI protecting?

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah it's a fair question and their stance has been confusing, tbh. I mean, the BCCI's reaction to Sydney sorta suggest they're not in the 'umpires make mistakes, accept the decision no matter which way it goes, bad decisions even out, etc.' camp. But similarly they're not fully in the 'use tech to assist decision-making' camp either. There's a fair amount of ignorance of things like error in calculations at play here too, stands to reason that the longer the distance Hawkeye has to estimate from the point of impact to the stumps, the larger the errors will be;

When he was asked whether he had known about the 2.5m rule Dhoni didn't hide his frustration. "Well, if the Hawkeye says it is going to hit the stump, and it's going to hit the middle stump, then [there is] no reason why the distance really matters," he said.

From: India v England: MS Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

Where the 2.5m part comes from I don't know but I assume it's a point at which the calculations start to be more about noise than signal. That both he and Strauss hadn't heard of it is definitely another flaw in the system and I do wonder whether Billy fully understands what happens or whether he just heard the word 'doubt' and assumed batters should get the benefit of any of it regardless of what was on the big screen.

Part of me wonders whether they're against it just because Sachin doesn't like it.

 

[Spark]

Silly Billy being silly shocker.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Still like it, still a few faults with it that need ironing out but it is better to have it than not, hopefully in time these faults can be sorted. It is funny how these things always seem to happen to the same people, Ian Bell in 2 big decisions in recent months which were both wrong.

 

[Cruxdude]

I am still in favour, just need the umpires to use some sense.

 

[Furball]

The frustrating thing is that India are the one board that need convincing about UDRS, and incidents like yesterday's don't help.

It's like finally persuading that hot chick that you've been chasing for ages to finally have *** with you, promising her the best night of her life then blowing your load in 30 seconds when you get down to it.

 

[Migara]

Yes, definietly. If more than 5 members vote for it, make it manadatory. FFS, world is supposed to be democratic,