CA and BCCI, explain yourselves

[SJS]

Can anyone tell me why the UDRS costs so much? Isn't it just a bunch of extra cameras and someone to interpret the images?

BCCI's objection has nothing to do with cost. Some senior Indian cricketers (whose voice REALLY matters) said they were against it and BCCI said "Yes Sir" and the media parrotted it as if the entire UDRS system was somehow a conspiracy to dethrone India from their number one ranking.

I exaggerate of course but thats the crux of it.

The UDRS system (all that goes into it) is going to be available during Australia's trip to India whether the refferal system is finally agreed as part of the series conditions or not.

The money HAS BEEN spent. The question is only of BCCI coming off its "we-can-block anything-and-we-have-the-greenbacks-to-back-that-threat" attitude and allowing it to be used for referrals and not just to show some high tech stuff to the TV viewers for which it will be used any way.

 

[G.I.Joe]

BCCI's objection has nothing to do with cost. Some senior Indian cricketers (whose voice REALLY matters) said they were against it and BCCI said "Yes Sir" and the media parrotted it as if the entire UDRS system was somehow a conspiracy to dethrone India from their number one ranking.

I exaggerate of course but thats the crux of it.

The UDRS system (all that goes into it) is going to be available during Australia's trip to India whether the refferal system is finally agreed as part of the series conditions or not.

The money HAS BEEN spent. The question is only of BCCI coming off its "we-can-block anything-and-we-have-the-greenbacks-to-back-that-threat" attitude and allowing it to be used for referrals and not just to show some high tech stuff to the TV viewers for which it will be used any way.

Oh, I agree. It's just that I've read that the UDRS costs $56,000 per day. I can't figure out why it has to cost that much! It might not be an issue for the BCCI, but surely a board like the SLC or BCB or the WICB would prefer not implementing it for purely financial reasons?

 

[SJS]

Oh, I agree. It's just that I've read that the UDRS costs $56,000 per day. I can't figure out why it has to cost that much! It might not be an issue for the BCCI, but surely a board like the SLC or BCB or the WICB would prefer not implementing it for purely financial reasons?

I don't know about that figure. It really seems absurdly high and as you said some boards not as overloaded with the 'stuff' have gone ahead and done it so how come? It appears to be mainly something the TV channels spend money on it seems from this report

UDRS technology available in India irrespective of BCCI stand

 

[SJS]

Even if there is such a heavy usage cost per day, all that needs to be done is to get someone to sponsor the referrals. Everytime a referral is made the sponsors name/logo/whatever can get prominence both audio and visual. That should do it.

For the Indians, who have mastered the art of putting commercials between the groundsmen's toe nails (or is it their arm pits), this shouldn't even be an issue to be talked of . . .

 

[Cevno]

The Indian players ,specially the senior ones don't like the UDRS for some strange reason ,and the BCCI are only backing them at this point.

Sehwag i think is the only one who has come out in favour of the UDRS from the Indian camp so far.

 

[Matt79]

Using UDRS in the subcontinent is OK, but in places like England where runs are already hard to come by? It seems to me you always need a bit of luck by way of surviving a marginal LBW/caught behind decision or two early on in your innings when the ball is moving all over the place.

Not sure whether this is in jest or not, but if serious.

Split inning List A games are so so so stupid. Will serve us right when our ODI squad starts to get worse. Makes it clear that T20 was by no means the stupidest idea to 'liven up' limited overs cricket going around.

 

[Himannv]

The only time the Indians were exposed to the UDRS system they screwed up They seemed to be under the impression that if it was like the toss of the coin - if you asked for a review the chances were fifty-fifty of it being turned in your favour or against. When they found it did not happen like that they screamed blue murder.

If they had been smarter and went for the reviews only where they were very confident a mistake had been made, as the Sri Lankan's did, they may have had much better results and this controversy never would have arisen. Just imagine if the two sides (India and Sri Lanka) had got exactly the opposite response to their referrals and then be honest and ask yourselves if India would have ruled against the UDRS.

Not only should the UDRS be mandatory, the number of referrals should be increased to four per side.

While on the subject of squealing sub-continental sides, one is amazed that Waqar was so squeamish about the use by England of a ball that swung "too much". There we go again. Coming from one of the greatest exponents of that fast disappearing skill this is rich.

If Waqar had Pakistani'c cricket's interest at heart, he would have shut up and made a note in his diary for making a recommendation to the PCB to make the use of the same "swinging-too-much" cricket ball mandatory in all domestic cricket in Pakistan. It may have, over time, given Pakistan openers and other batsmen who can do what openers were always expected to be able to do - face the new ball with better competence than shown by the sub-continent's youngsters.

I wonder why ICC should not change the law of which cricket ball to be used in a Test series. Why should the home side be the arbitrator for all the balls. Let the decision be left to the fielding sides as long as they are from an approved list of balls from the ICC.

I know this second bit is off topic but I have been thinking about it for some time so just thought I would say it :-)

Exceptionally good post and agree completely.

 

[kingkallis]

What's the consensus here about UDRS? Is everyone in favour of adopting it? I'm not so sure myself.

Everyone is in favor of using the technology but its expensive! Its ICC's duty to avail it...

Its really sad that BCCI didnt opt for UDRS!

 

[morgieb]

50/50 on split innings, it could work, but probably won't.

India's refusal for URDS is just stubborness.

 

[SJS]

People talk about the unreliability of the tracking system (hawkeye). I think the at-least-half-ball hitting the stumps rule that is being enforced is way of making an allowance (giving the benefit of the doubt if you please) for this percieved lack of 100% accuracy. After alll the ball has to just graze past the stumps to break them not hit them with half or more of it.

If people dont want to accept a system they wont.

The fact of the matter is that since the advent of the hawk eye, many leg before's that were habitually not given earlier are now being given out. The umpires have become much stricter with batsmen who used to just plonk their front foot forward and claim the benefit of doubt. Those "doubtful benefits" are no longer available to the batsmen and they dont like it.

I was telling a friend the other day that the batsmen in cricket are like men on earth treating the bowlers - the women - like inferior species. Even the pleadings of two women(read bowlers) in the case of cricket is considered the equal to that of a single men and the laws, as always are made and changed by and for men ONLY.

PS : The game has lived for 133 years (at test level) with bad, incompetent, indifferent and even biased umpiring (besides good umpiring of course) but refuses to move to a system which clearly is a BIG improvement (even if not 100 percent foolproof) on the current system and what is more, any inaccuracies (perceived or real) are exactly the same for both sides.

Its amazing that people can be so dumb as to reject this though they have lived with and are willing to go on with, a system that is not only not close to being fool proof/perfect, it also does not necessarily provide the same level of 'inaccuracy' to both sides "in a game*

People who talk of it evening out in the long run have a HUGE problem differentiating between a game and a career

 

[Shri]

Not a fan of the UDRS atm as it stands. If the referals were unlimited I would support it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Not a fan of the UDRS atm as it stands. If the referals were unlimited I would support it.

Really? Really?

You might want to consider the implications of every single decision in the whole match being reviewed. The point of this system is to filter out the crap, and it works fine unless Umar Akmal is trying to use it.

 

[Shri]

Fine the captain and the players involved if it looks like they are abusing the system by appealing for decisions that are obviously right.

 

[Jellybeans]

This split innings thing is one of the most idiotic innovations to have been offered for ODI cricket revival, basically like two T20 games-how is that supposed to work? Considering most Aus players are against it and the CA still chose to okay the thing, it's difficult to see anything else than financial advantage to be the main reason for them making this decision.

 

[Jellybeans]

I'm in favour for the UDRS system but think it could be slightly improved. I read an interesting view on the system a while back which I'm posting here :

"It certainly should not be scrapped, however it could use a little tweaking.

The concept of the referral system is good, and the process of the referrals works fine.

However sometimes the spirit in which teams ask for a referral is questionable.

The Referral System is there to correct bad decisions. It is not something to be gambled with.

Often teams decide to ask for a referral in the hope they can get a wicket when the umpire is not obviously wrong. Or they ask for a referral to save one of their best batsman when again the umpire is not obviously wrong. This is a gamble. And it is against the spirit of the referral system. Everyone is guilty of it.

However the referral system is designed to eliminate umpiring mistakes i.e. bad decisions. People need to learn that 'bad' and 'wrong' are not necessarily synonyms, if it's a decision that could go either way then there's no way it could be called 'bad', even if it can be called wrong after the 47th replay. And the system allows for this, with the 'umpire's call' concept.

The way to get rid of the gambling is to change the rules regarding the quota of referrals each team can have. Instead of each team getting two incorrect decisions per innings (giving them one to be gambled and one to be kept in hand), the rule should be that each team gets one referral per new ball. That way they only have a maximum of 1 in hand at all times, which they are going to want to keep in hand because who knows when they will need it, and if they use it up reasonably early in the innings and the innings proves to last a long time, they don't have 100+ overs without a referral. There is some punishment for using up their referral too early, but they are not forced to go without a referral for more than a day.
Also if they don't use their referral for one ball's lifetime they can't have 2 for the next ball's lifetime.

In ODIs, each team should get 1 referral per innings, and in T20 each team should get 1 referral for the whole match."

Your views?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't know about that figure. It really seems absurdly high and as you said some boards not as overloaded with the 'stuff' have gone ahead and done it so how come? It appears to be mainly something the TV channels spend money on it seems from this report

UDRS technology available in India irrespective of BCCI stand

Oh, that's interesting. In light of that, no board should really not implement it without valid reasons.

Incidentally, Tendulkar is against UDRS in its current form, supposedly because it doesn't incorporate hot-spot technology. According to him, he'd have no problems with evidential (is that a word?) tools, which is what hot-spot is, but he definitely has issues with predictive tools, which is what hawk-eye is. There was a comment in the cricinfo comments section claiming that UDRS does incorporate hot-spot technology now, so I suppose hawk-eye remains the stumbling block.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Oh, that's interesting. In light of that, no board should really not implement it without valid reasons.

Incidentally, Tendulkar is against UDRS in its current form, supposedly because it doesn't incorporate hot-spot technology. According to him, he'd have no problems with evidential (is that a word?) tools, which is what hot-spot is, but he definitely has issues with predictive tools, which is what hawk-eye is. There was a comment in the cricinfo comments section claiming that UDRS does incorporate hot-spot technology now, so I suppose hawk-eye remains the stumbling block.

UDRS is using hotspot this summer in the English series, but I've not seen it used elsewhere. Is this related to the fact that Sky Sports' coverage is infinitely better than the crap served up by Ten Sports?

 

[G.I.Joe]

UDRS is using hotspot this summer in the English series, but I've not seen it used elsewhere. Is this related to the fact that Sky Sports' coverage is infinitely better than the crap served up by Ten Sports?

I've never seen hot-spot used outside of Sky and Channel Nine coverage, so I guess the ICC themselves aren't consistent in what constitutes the UDRS across the globe. And Ten Sports coverage is crap even disregarding their UDRS implementation

 

[Debris]

Everyone is in favor of using the technology but its expensive! Its ICC's duty to avail it...

Its really sad that BCCI didnt opt for UDRS!

Maybe SL can offer to pay for it if BCCI can't afford to.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hey, look the UDRS isn't perfect by any means (that wrong calls have to stand because other players earlier in an innings have been a bit trigger happy still rankles), but it's soooo much better than no reviews at all.

WTF are the BCCI thinking of?

Split innings thing seems gimmicky, tbh. Dying format, decadent Romans, etc, etc.