***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Bun]

Really? Given India earns nearly 3/4 of the total revenues in cricket I don't think I'd go so far as to say they have a right to oppose it.

They saving up to be Scottish or something?

That they have earned it and continues to earn well is no excuse for squandering it. They earned all this much through exercising financial prudence as well.

Yes, if that's the cost per day for implementation, I'd call it's implementation "squandering" if one takes into account cost benefit analysis.

Although the key issue being the correctness of those figures quoted.

 

[Daemon]

Surely that's the implication if you're advocating a slow-mo system but defending India's stance on UDRS? If you're going to do something then do it as well as possible. Use UDRS. It's simple.

When have I ever defended India's stance on the UDRS? I don't know about Cevno's views but I have always supported the UDRS. With the slow motion I don't see what excuse the BCCI can use to argue against it and it's a fairly good improvement for the time being until the BCCI remove their heads out of their arses.

 

[Teja.]

I'd say they certainly have the right to not use UDRS for the home series but that doesn't change them being insincere and stubborn ****s in that scenario.

 

[Teja.]

When have I ever defended India's stance on the UDRS? I don't know about Cevno's views but I have always supported the UDRS. With the slow motion I don't see what excuse the BCCI can use to argue against it and it's a fairly good improvement for the time being until the BCCI remove their heads out of their arses.

Pretty sure Cevno is for the UDRS too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That they have earned it and continues to earn well is no excuse for squandering it. They earned all this much through exercising financial prudence as well.

Yes, if that's the cost per day for implementation, I'd call it's implementation "squandering" if one takes into account cost benefit analysis.

Although the key issue being the correctness of those figures quoted.

My point was that if other nations whose income (by definition) is a small fraction of India's can afford to implement UDRS, India pleading poverty is way beyond prudence and into parsimony.

 

[Borges]

I suppose I am in a minority on CW; I quite welcome the idea that the BCCI evaluate the cost vs. potential benefit of every rupee that they spend. I fervently want them to try as much as possible to reduce the fees that are charged by service providers, bargain extremely hard for media and sponsorship deals etc. They have every right, and IMHO would be failing in the discharge of their duty, if they fail to do so.

In fact my grouse is that BCCI honchos do not exercise due diligence every single time that they expend the funds for which they are the custodians.

The issue with UDRS is that the majority of the test nations apparently wants its implementation; while the BCCI does not. The BCCI should therefore bow to the majority and allow fair voting on the issue. And if it is voted in, the BCCI should continue to examine if the charges are reasonable, and explore ways in which it can be brought down.

 

[Spark]

Except they're not spending it...

 

[Debris]

India have gone from being sceptics of the technology to being out-and-out deniers. They are grasping at any reason now, no matter how ridiculous. All I can think of is that they don't want it to come in because they think it would make them look foolish.

 

[Borges]

Except they're not spending it...

Indirectly they are, for their home series.

If the broadcasters have to pay for it out of their pocket, it is going to be reflected in lower values for the broadcast deals.

 

[Spark]

Which has zero relevance for their refusal to allow the ECB to use it.

Notwithstanding the obvious fact that the broadcasters don't use this technology primarily for UDRS (all facets of which were being used by broadcasters like Sky, C9 etc well before UDRS was implemented at all), they use it because viewers like it.

The additional cost imposed on Sky/ECB were the BCCI to change its mind is zero. The savings achieved were the UDRS to be completely scrapped today for several broadcasters would be zero. Because the viewing public likes having the technology there, and knowing after-the-fact whether a decision was in fact correct or not. It's a completely fallacious argument.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Be interesting to know how much, say, hiring the Washington Redskins' cheerleaders stacks up in the cost/benefit equation.

My personal guess is their effect on decision making was, at best, negligible.

 

[Spark]

The trouble is that it isn't quite that cut and dried, is it?

UDRS has an inbuilt margin of error, so there are some calls that can conceivably have two different decisions applied with equal accuracy.

Unless we want to debate the semantic nuances of "howler", I think saying UDRS should only be used for them (or "obviously wrong decisions", "clear **** ups" or "Asokas" or whatever you want to call them) is fair enough.

Can't believe this thread has got to 200+ replies tho. Can we all just agree the BCCI is wrong on this and move on?

My thought is balls that pitch marginally outside leg. Given that it's on replay, there isn't really as to whether a ball has pitch outside leg or not but it would be harsh to call it a "howler", especially if on first viewing it looked as if it had pitched on leg (perhaps because of the batsman's movement etc)

 

[Bun]

My point was that if other nations whose income (by definition) is a small fraction of India's can afford to implement UDRS, India pleading poverty is way beyond prudence and into parsimony.

The state of India's economy or finances of BCCI is totally irrelevant here.

The viability of a project which involves considerable expense involves independent analysis of it's cost vs benefit. Just because your neighbour has a mercedes doesn't mean you too got to have one, even if you can afford it. Worst, a third person cannot come and ask you to buy it just because he thinks you've the money, and that your neighbour is a poorer guy. And also when you invite someone over to your house, the lack of a brand new SLR in your garage is going to cause only a slight discomfort, because that person has otherwise come to your home before regularly and you are otherwise a very good host.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My thought is balls that pitch marginally outside leg. Given that it's on replay, there isn't really as to whether a ball has pitch outside leg or not but it would be harsh to call it a "howler", especially if on first viewing it looked as if it had pitched on leg (perhaps because of the batsman's movement etc)

See my point about the nuances of "howler".

IMHO that would fall into the "obviously wrong decision" category. One has sympathy with the umpire, but he made the incorrect call.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The state of India's economy or finances of BCCI is totally irrelevant here.

The viability of a project which involves considerable expense involves independent analysis of it's cost vs benefit. Just because your neighbour has a mercedes doesn't mean you too got to have one, even if you can afford it. Worst, a third person cannot come and ask you to buy it just because he thinks you've the money, and that your neighbour is a poorer guy. And also when you invite someone over to your house, the lack of a brand new SLR in your garage is going to cause only a slight discomfort, because that person has otherwise come to your home before regularly and you are otherwise a very good host.

Lol.

I generally try to avoid replying like that, but sometimes one has no option.

See my previous post. Think that adequately deals with "India's financial prudence" argument.

 

[Borges]

Which has zero relevance for their refusal to allow the ECB to use it.

Agreed. Which is why I specified 'home series'.

all facets of which were being used by broadcasters like Sky, C9 etc well before UDRS was implemented at all), they use it because viewers like it... Because the viewing public likes having the technology there, and knowing after-the-fact whether a decision was in fact correct or not. It's a completely fallacious argument.

It is your argument which is completely fallacious. Sky, C9 etc. are not Indian broadcasters. Neo Cricket had clearly told BCCI that they are not willing to foot the bill for hot-spot, unless the BCCI compensates them for it.

 

[vcs]

The state of India's economy or finances of BCCI is totally irrelevant here.

The viability of a project which involves considerable expense involves independent analysis of it's cost vs benefit. Just because your neighbour has a mercedes doesn't mean you too got to have one, even if you can afford it. Worst, a third person cannot come and ask you to buy it just because he thinks you've the money, and that your neighbour is a poorer guy. And also when you invite someone over to your house, the lack of a brand new SLR in your garage is going to cause only a slight discomfort, because that person has otherwise come to your home before regularly and you are otherwise a very good host.

Those analogies again.

 

[Spark]

Agreed. Which is why I specified 'home series'.



It is your argument which is completely fallacious. Sky, C9 etc. are not Indian broadcasters. Neo Cricket had clearly told BCCI that they are not willing to foot the bill for hot-spot, unless the BCCI compensates them for it.

So why is the BCCI opposing its use in the England series? This argument is not consistent at all.

 

[Borges]

Be interesting to know how much, say, hiring the Washington Redskins' cheerleaders stacks up in the cost/benefit equation.

My personal guess is their effect on decision making was, at best, negligible.

That certainly does not imply that prudence should continue to be negligible for ever.

Just as the past history of cricket does not imply that the minority with disproportionate financial clout should continue to impose its will on the majority.

 

[Borges]

So why is the BCCI opposing its use in the England series? This argument is not consistent at all.

My stance is that if it be the decision of the majority to have UDRS for all test matches, the BCCI should agree and have it for their home series too.

I am at variance with the (apparently widely held) view in this forum that they have an obligation to the rest of the world to also agree not to evaluate the costs involved.