***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[vcs]

Decision Review System: DRS has to be totally error-free - Srinivasan | India Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

Anyway, I think this article definitively suggests that it's the BCCI who are being pig-headed on this, rather than dancing to the tune of a few senior players. Poor stuff really.

 

[vcs]

BCCI: We don't trust HawkEye, it's not accurate enough
Scientist: Well, that's rubbish, we're having a presentation in Australia about HawkEye which you're more than welcome to attend, hopefully it will address any concerns you have over the system
BCCI: Nah, we won't be doing that, we don't trust HawkEye, it's inaccurate
Scientist: No it's not, seriously, come to the presentation, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have
BCCI: No
Scientist: That's unfortunate, any reason you...
BCCI: No
Scientist: I think you'll find that if you just attend...
BCCI: No
Scientist: Your attitude to this...
BCCI: No

Pretty much spot on based on that article above.

 

[Shri]

Seems like they did go to the presentation according to Srinivasan tbh.

 

[Bun]

Absolutely ridiculous stuff up.

It's not a major major thing, this UDRS, but I am amazed and saddened by BCCI's utter pig headedness when all available evidence points out to it's favor.

Sreenivasan, why don't you just commission a bowling machine. Make it bowl a 100 balls at a set of stumps, and run it through the Hawk Eye thingie, make it project and compare the projections to the actual path? It isn't rocket science ffs...!!!

 

[vcs]

He says they attended a HawkEye presentation in Chennai, that other article Bun posted says they CBA to make it to a presentation last year that was to be held in Australia during the Ashes (by a rival manufacturer called Virtual Eye).

This actually raises another interesting point, which of the two offerings is better and ratified in the ICC's recent recommendations to adopt UDRS? Surely that needs to be standardized.

EDIT : To Shri

 

[indiaholic]

Swann Harbhajan and UDRS

How avoiding UDRS proved costly at Newlands - Indian Express

The article that I have linked to implies that India's refusal to accept the UDRS and England's acceptance of the same has led to umpires being conditioned to give a greater number of LBWs in favour of Swann even when it is not in use. Any truth to that?

 

[vcs]

The absence of UDRS helped at Durban TBF.

I think the differing percentage of LBWs between Swann and Harbhajan has more to do with their approach as bowlers than the UDRS, though it probably accounts for some fraction. Can't remember any obvious LBWs turned down in that 2nd innings either, I watched most of it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

If Virtualeye is a rival to Hawkeye, surely the BCCI attending their presentation would have ruffled feathers at the ICC and led to accusations that the BCCI was endorsing a rival brand for purely commercial gains? You know thats what would have happened. People just need an excuse to have a go at the BCCI.

 

[indiaholic]

It does help when it comes to front foot LBWs, no?

 

[vcs]

It does help when it comes to front foot LBWs, no?

Yeah, no doubt it has made umpires bolder at giving LBWs.

 

[Daemon]

Decision Review System: DRS has to be totally error-free - Srinivasan | India Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

One of the comments:

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (June 18 2011, 05:45 AM GMT)
I'm with Srinivasan, and forget 100% error free, I want 147% error free. It has to not only make correct future decisions, it has to also correct all past mistakes made in the history of cricket. I'd also like the DRS to cure Polio whilst we're at it, though this isn't a "necessary" requirement. Also if the ball tracking technology cannot track the path of the ball all the way to the moon, then it's just not accurate enough. Get these into DRS and maybe we'll think about it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It has no doubt led to a remarkable improvement of the physiological equivalent in the umpires of Hawkeye's 2.5 m limitation. They're now able to track the trajectory of the ball from much further down the pitch than before. Darwin would be impressed with the evolution of their eyesight.

 

[Jono]

Lol!

 

[Shri]

 

[indiaholic]

 

[Uppercut]

It has no doubt led to a remarkable improvement of the physiological equivalent in the umpires of Hawkeye's 2.5 m limitation. They're now able to track the trajectory of the ball from much further down the pitch than before. Darwin would be impressed with the evolution of their eyesight.

Yeah. They've realised that if the ball was heading straight for middle stump, it's probably not going to decide to veer wildly to the left in an effort to avoid crashing.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You're saying a lot for the quality of umpires we've had for over a hundred years that it took them this long to realise it if its as simple as you put it.

 

[Uppercut]

It's not a matter of quality, the precautionary principle was just applied to the nth degree.

 

[Furball]

You're saying a lot for the quality of umpires we've had for over a hundred years that it took them this long to realise it if its as simple as you put it.

How many times do commentators wrongly say 'probably sliding down past leg stump?'

Happened yesterday with the LBW shout Anderson got reviewed - Bumble said it might be sliding down when line was never a problem with that shout.

 

[Burgey]

I'd like to see Harbhajan bowl in a short sleeve shirt every now and again.

Just saying.