• 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

UDRS?

  • Total voters
    138
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I was not talking about when the batsman is hit on the full here at all.. I am talking when he is hit after the ball bounces. Someone pointed out the law states the umpire assumes it would have continued on the same path even then...
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Remember when Dasa used to have Leslie from WI in Super International Cricket in his avatar?

wag.
 
Cevno

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
Ian Taylor is a lot more candid than others who make the technology. Have posted his previous statements before too raising doubts about predictive path's.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I've always been a supporter of UDRS but when the founder/creator comes out and says that it is alarming.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Jono said:
I've always been a supporter of UDRS but when the founder/creator comes out and says that it is alarming.
Click to expand...
If what's been reported is true, what he says is only common sense. I'll happily hold my hand up to being a complete science cretin, but if four cameras are needed to properly calibrate Virtual Eye and two of them aren't working it's flat out daft to pretend all is rosy with the system.

Moreover it's a calumny on the players and the punters too.

Must admit in retrospect I now wonder about one day during the Pak/Eng test series in UAE. Memory fails me as to which it was, but Virtual Eye (or Hawk Eye, whichever was being used) had a distinct leg-side bias. It was commented on in the tour thread.
 
K

kingjulian

U19 12th Man
So the criticism aimed at BCCI and some of the Indian players for not trusting the technology is over the top?

It's a free world and nobody should be forced to follow the majority.

Even the founder of the company who sells the technology doesn't back it 100%, why should BCCI settle for less.

I honestly don't think there would have been much criticism if it was the New Zealand board that didn't want to use virtual eye. The tallest tree catches most wind. Due to their large fan base and the amount of money the generated through the sport BCCI had become the tallest tree at the point, pipping some of the boards with more illustrious history....to top it.. their team was successful on the pitch in that period too...holding on to Test No.1 status for more than 2 years and becoming world cup and world 20-20 Champions within a short space of time.

I think it was pure jealousy that resulted in some of the criticism.

We need a proper thorough independent study done on the technology and also on its implementation...
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kingjulian said:
So the criticism aimed at BCCI and some of the Indian players for not trusting the technology is over the top?

It's a free world and nobody should be forced to follow the majority.

Even the founder of the company who sells the technology doesn't back it 100%, why should BCCI settle for less.

I honestly don't think there would have been much criticism if it was the New Zealand board that didn't want to use virtual eye. The tallest tree catches most wind. Due to their large fan base and the amount of money the generated through the sport BCCI had become the tallest tree at the point, pipping some of the boards with more illustrious history....to top it.. their team was successful on the pitch in that period too...holding on to Test No.1 status for more than 2 years and becoming world cup and world 20-20 Champions within a short space of time.

I think it was pure jealousy that resulted in some of the criticism.

We need a proper thorough independent study done on the technology and also on its implementation...
Click to expand...
The criticism was fully merited, the BCCI's irrational stance is the sole reason we have this fudged situation where DRS is watered down whenever India are involved.

It wasn't based on any science. They haven't taken the opportunity to examine the technology or listen to developers. Some cronies in the BCCI have decided they don't like it and they've placed their fingers firmly in their ears and shouted la la la.

The technology has been studied before and will continue to be studied. It's a scientific process not a BCCI dictatorship where their lackeys impose their ****ed up half-baked ideas on the rest of the cricket world.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Serious question here: how many non-India supporters are anti-UDRS? Benchy seems about the only one.

Happily not every India follower is anti, but there does seem a correaltion between the two.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Let me ask it this way: how many people who dont support india also dont support their stance on udrs? :p

Nah i cant stand the anti technology stance. If the independant cambridge study gives it the go ahead, there wont be any excuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top