ICC ****s all over the game again - UDRS no longer mandatory

[benchmark00]

So your example against the use of Hawkeye in UDRS is one where if there hadn't been UDRS the same decision would've been made.

Yes it is, so why have UDRS if the same decision is going to be made? Thanks for falling into the trap. Please play again next time.

How do you not understand that it undermines the credibility of the system? srsly.

 

[Furball]

No batsman wants to make a mistake either, but they make up the portrait of test cricket.

Jesus ****ing Christ.

 

[benchmark00]

Mate you may watch test cricket for the stats and hate when someone makes a mistake or can't appreciate the subtleties and differences between two situations, but I watch it because it's human vs human, **** can go wrong, and I like knowing that. If you want everything perfect just read cricinfo at the end of the days play.

 

[Furball]

Wtf does stats have to do with anything?

There's an enormous difference between the players making an error and the umpires doing the same. I'd much prefer it if the result was 100% down to what the players do on the field though

 

[benchmark00]

That's the beauty of test cricket. If UDRS was in 2005 England wouldn't have won the Ashes. Makes for a better story that there was no UDRS though.

Cricket is a game played by humans, adjudicated by humans and watched by humans. Take away any of that human aspect completely and you can go **** yourself afaic.

 

[marc71178]

That's the beauty of test cricket. If UDRS was in 2005 England wouldn't have won the Ashes.

Why not?

 

[benchmark00]

Why not?

Ummm because Kasper didn't have his hand on the bat when the ball hit it..

 

[Furball]

That's the beauty of test cricket. If UDRS was in 2005 England wouldn't have won the Ashes. Makes for a better story that there was no UDRS though.

Cricket is a game played by humans, adjudicated by humans and watched by humans. Take away any of that human aspect completely and you can go **** yourself afaic.

Assuming you're referring to the decision to give Kasprowicz out, he was plumb lbw when Australia were about 40 behind.

 

[Furball]

Ummm because Kasper didn't have his hand on the bat when the ball hit it..

Then surely he's out handled the ball?

 

[benchmark00]

Assuming you're referring to the decision to give Kasprowicz out, he was plumb lbw when Australia were about 40 behind.

Herein lies my point. In the grand scheme of things it matters **** all.

England deserved to win, so they won.

 

[Furball]

Herein lies my point. In the grand scheme of things it matters **** all.

England deserved to win, so they won.

The error would have been hugely significant if Australia had won at Edgbaston and taken a 2-0 lead though.

 

[benchmark00]

The error would have been hugely significant if Australia had won at Edgbaston and taken a 2-0 lead though.

Possibly, but if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.


You're free to prefer UDRS. I'm not trying to change your opinion. Just sick of people jumping up and down having a teary and saying the BCCI is ruining the world because they don't share your point of view on the issue.

 

[hang on]

annoying. but would have been far more hacked off if this had happened before some of the hotspot related uncertainties and the absolute shocker of the predictive bit (the one in the lankan series that taufel reported).

still hope that they sort out the glitches and force everyone to implement it in the near future. however, should have more than 2 referrals per team. ideally let the 3rd ump decide if something seems a bit dodgy.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Mate you may watch test cricket for the stats and hate when someone makes a mistake or can't appreciate the subtleties and differences between two situations, but I watch it because it's human vs human, **** can go wrong, and I like knowing that. If you want everything perfect just read cricinfo at the end of the days play.

I see where you're coming from, but I think UDRS makes the human contest between bat and ball purer. It annoys me when a great battle is ended falsely or a bowler is denied his due because of an umpire's horlicks; ultimately, however good some umpires are, they should be facilitators.

More generally on this volte face by the ICC, I do wish they'd drop the pretence of being an independent body. It's all too painfully clear that when the BCCI gets a hard on the ICC touches its toes and invests in some lubrication.

 

[Prince EWS]

There are a lot of things I don't like about UDRS and a lot of ways I think the ICC could handle it differently, but ultimately there are a lot more things I don't like about human umpiring and hence I find the decision nothing short of a disgrace. I'm struggling to get as outraged as I really should though because it was as predictable and it was ridiculous.

But you already knew all that.

 

[Flem274*]

Benchy, I don't see how wrong decisions add to the beauty of the game. They just make it incredibly annoying and unless you're 1980s Windies or 2000s Australia, can completely change the course of the match.

 

[Woodster]

Rather than more referrals be given to both sides, for me it should be less. The UDRS was brought in primarily to eliminate the obvious blooper, the real balls up that everyone knows has happened apart from the poor bloke in the white coat that having seen the big screen starts to turn a similar colour to a brand new Dukes cherry.

There are many times a side calls a referral because they hope to get a lucky wicket, maybe that of a key batsman. For me, they are not what it was brought in for. Lessen the number of reviews and sides will be more inclined to refer only the obvious decisions, in their eyes, that are judged incorrectly from the umps.

The thought of players overruling umpires still doesn't sit too comfortably with me, but most of the umpires seem to get on with it.

This decision is of course no surprise, as the BCCI continue to pull the strings.

 

[SamSawnoff]

Rather than more referrals be given to both sides, for me it should be less. The UDRS was brought in primarily to eliminate the obvious blooper, the real balls up that everyone knows has happened apart from the poor bloke in the white coat that having seen the big screen starts to turn a similar colour to a brand new Dukes cherry.

There are many times a side calls a referral because they hope to get a lucky wicket, maybe that of a key batsman. For me, they are not what it was brought in for. Lessen the number of reviews and sides will be more inclined to refer only the obvious decisions, in their eyes, that are judged incorrectly from the umps. .

UDRS does lead to a lot of amusement though. Things like Watson referring every LB, and Prior's utter, utter lack of judgement over when to refer something. I'll miss these things if there are less referrals.

 

[Woodster]

UDRS does lead to a lot of amusement though. Things like Watson referring every LB, and Prior's utter, utter lack of judgement over when to refer something. I'll miss these things if there are less referrals.

Of course there is that, and if that was what was intended when they implemented the system, then fair play.

 

[uvelocity]

Just sick of people jumping up and down having a teary and saying the BCCI is ruining the world because they don't share your point of view on the issue.

More generally on this volte face by the ICC, I do wish they'd drop the pretence of being an independent body. It's all too painfully clear that when the BCCI gets a hard on the ICC touches its toes and invests in some lubrication.

^^ this

As to making DRS better, the 3rd ump should have time to see if it's a howler as the outgoing batsman is walking off, call him back if its a joke decision. If it's a close LBW or nick going the wrong way, we can live with them.