Jump to content

Let's talk about the DRS


champ

Recommended Posts

The hot technology seems to be one of best inventions that will revolutionalize the cricket game. it works on infra red imaging and result shown as a negative image .. it seems this technology does not have much flaws at the moment .. This technology when coupled with the review system will surely bring the much needed change one feels .. the only downslide it seems is the cost of adopting this technology .. but icc should be able to afford this when the top teams play in the tests .. also i really hope hot spot is used in SA tests next month ..

Link to comment

And the technology is getting better and faster. Has been very helpful in crime investigation as images can show heat signatures long after the persons are gone. So the investigators would know the activities like on which table men sat, which doors the opened, how many were there etc. It's like looking into the past in more detail than a normal human eye can. And this look into the past will change cricket definitely.

Link to comment

Harper howlers undermine UDRS Not for the first time Daryl Harper has been caught at the centre of controversy over the Umpire Decision Review System Andrew McGlashan at the Wanderers January 15, 2010 Not for the first time Daryl Harper has been caught at the centre of controversy over the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) and this time it sounds as though his failure to turn up the volume on his television set is to blame. It beggars belief. When Graeme Smith, on 15, flashed a cut at Ryan Sidebottom England went up as one for the top edge, but Tony Hill, the on-field umpire, turned down the appeal and Andrew Strauss quickly asked for a review. There was no noticeable deflection on the replays so the noise from the stump microphone would have to be the decisive evidence. Except Harper couldn't hear anything, so he simply upheld Hill's decision. It soon became clear that an edge was clearly audible on subsequent replays. How did Harper fail to hear the nick, which commentators said was as clear as they come from the stump microphone? Before the series an agreement was reached that the third umpire would set his volume level to four out of 10, but there is nothing to prevent him turning it up to assess a decision, should the need arise. Initially it was suggested the feed provided to Harper hadn't included the audio, but it later emerged that he had merely committed a bungle of the highest order, and this coming from an umpire who has a history of embarrassing errors. It led Andy Flower, the England coach, to make an official complaint to Roshan Mahanama, the ICC match referee, who has also had a curious part to play in the whole affair after first telling Flower, incorrectly, that he had a different TV feed. It was only after England made further investigations and found out this wasn't true that Mahanama admitted Harper had failed to adjust his volume. Harper was also the TV umpire during the England series in West Indies early last year, when he was unable to rule on a caught-behind appeal against Darren Powell. It transpired that, on that occasion, he was let down by the hardware because his TV screen wasn't wide enough to include the whole picture and the ball was lopped off. The ICC have put measures in place to ensure such situations don't arise again. But later in the series, at Barbados, Harper failed to overturn an lbw against Shivnarine Chanderpaul that was clearly heading over the stumps, although at that stage of the UDRS trial, the predicative element of Hawkeye wasn't available to the TV umpire. All the same, regardless of the possible defences for Harper in those situations, a system is only as good as the people operating it - and faith in Harper's decision-making is currently at rock-bottom. On the whole, the review system has emerged from this series with its reputation boosted after an iffy start in Centurion, during which the main issue was the length of time taken to ask for reviews. At Cape Town it was especially impressive as it overturned three glaring errors; a caught-behind against Ashwell Prince, an lbw against Kevin Pietersen when he inside-edged the ball and, most crucially, a first-ball slip catch at the start of Paul Collingwood's match-saving rearguard, when the ball deflected off his back leg. Ironically, the Prince and Pietersen errors were both made by Harper, the standing umpire, but that is what the system was designed for and it worked. However, this latest controversy again highlights the problem of UDRS's inconsistent implementation around the world. In this series there is neither HotSpot nor Snickometer technology, and either of those would have offered a definitive answer to the question of Smith's edge. The lack of HotSpot is due to there being only four cameras in the entire world and they are all in Australia where, despite Mark Benson's walkout at Adelaide following an overturned decision against Chanderpaul, it has proved effective. If the ICC wants to implement the review system successfully it has got to go the whole hog with the available technology. The current piecemeal compromise isn't acceptable. HotSpot isn't cheap, but the ICC isn't so short of money that it can skimp on the provision of enough cameras to deploy around the world as required. This isn't to say ICC should be left with the entire cost of the system, but HotSpot is looking like an important piece of equipment that should be made available. Of course, as the Chanderpaul incident showed, it won't eliminate controversy 100%, but the ICC has admitted that such a situation will never be achieved and they are aiming for a success rate of around 98% of correct decisions. There has been enough evidence in this series to prove that the system does work, but only with people more competent than Harper in the hot seat Andrew McGlashan is assistant editor of Cricinfo http://www.cricinfo.com/rsaveng09/content/story/444330.html

Link to comment
In this series there is neither HotSpot nor Snickometer technology, and either of those would have offered a definitive answer to the question of Smith's edge. The lack of HotSpot is due to there being only four cameras in the entire world and they are all in Australia
I just can't believe it. If all the cameras are in Australia, does Sky cover the matches through those cameras in Australia while showing the home series in England and with regular use of hot spot?
Link to comment

anyone had a chance to look at ponting dismissal .. he got the faintest of edges on gloves and was caught down legside by keeper .. no surprises , ponting dint walk and he was on 89 .. but the hotspot caught it and dint spare ponting .. :hail: hotspot technology ..

Link to comment
105250.jpg
Stop it, ICC! Immediately. ICC or whoever it is that controls world cricket at the moment, that is. Stop what is happening to cricket in the name of technology. Stop it before cricket becomes a laughing stock in the world of sport for being the tail that wagged the dog. Why all the bile, you ask? Anybody who saw Andrew Strauss declared 'out' on an LBW appeal today in the 3rd Test between England and South Africa will understand. Let me walk people through the moment - or at least those of you who did not have the misfortune of watching this live. Wayne Parnell - arguably the best young fast bowler that the cricket world has seen in a long, long time (not to mention that he is left handed) charged in and bowled an indipper at a good length at Strauss. Andrew Strauss played all over that ball which struck him high on the flap of his right pad. Initial impression of yours truly - NOT OUT (Ball was going above the stumps. Too much doubt involved.) What played out on TV was slightly different. Umpire Tony Hill wasted no time in declaring Strauss out, leading to the English captain bring his bat down horizontally on his glove covered index finger in the universal symbol of 'Time out'. Time for a referral - Hawkeye style. Predictably, Hawkeye has the ball pitching just outside the line of the stumps, hitting the batsman in line at around the flaps region of the pad and the ball kissing the top of the bail resting on the middle stump. Astoundingly, the 3rd umpire, Daryl Harper if any of you were breathlessly waiting to know, upheld the decision. What does that mean? That reasonable doubt, a concept that has been the tradition, conscience, common sense and driving force of cricket decision making for ages is now headed to the garbage heap? And does that also mean that the ICC asserts that Hawkeye is accurate down to the millimetres and even less? Where is it going to stop? While on the run, let me pose the ICC or whoever it is that seems to mysteriously make all these decisions, another question. What if Tony Hill's original decision had been 'not out'? Would Daryl Harper still have given Strauss out considering the evidence shown by Hawkeye? If the answer is 'yes', where does this take cricket? Let me take the liberty to try and answer my own question. It will take cricket into a new age. An age where it would be improper to make any comparisons between cricketers of this era and those of years gone by. It is simply irrelevant. Cricketers of yore were not given out when the ball could have possibly been clipping the top of the bail then! Now, they are going to be. So, where is the sense in comparing? Now, it would be easy for a proponent of Hawkeye (for I would not call somebody a proponent of technology if he/she proposes Hawkeye!) to say that I seem to be against the game moving on. Not at all. Physically the game is no longer the same that somebody like Bradman played or even the same game as somebody like Sunil Gavaskar who played relatively recently as compared to the Australian legend. Yet, comparisons still take place and in most cases, we dont come off dissatisfied in the extreme. But with Hawkeye it is all set to change. You never know when a batsman is going to get a marginal decision thanks to Hawkeye! If this is the ICC's plan to empower the bowlers, by any stretch of the imagination, it is dastardly, not to mention - quite misplaced and misconceived. To empower the bowlers, we need good quality surfaces. Not a touchy system like Hawkeye which under the synonym of technology is running riot in cricket today. Let me add some fuel to the already burning fire here. Here is an article which tries to explain the Decision Review system wih specific reference to Hawkeye. Really Long Link Relevant quote from the aforementioned article: "The idea is that there are different degrees of ?outness?. If Hawk-Eye suggests that the ball would have flicked the outside part of the stumps, then that is seen as an open verdict. In these situations, the third umpire?s advice is to let the onfield decision (whether ?out? or ?not out?) stand unchallenged". "But if the CENTRE of the ball would have hit the stumps, then the third umpire is advised to give the batsman out, no matter what the onfield umpire said. The appeal is then said to be within the ?Zone of Certainty?". So, going by this, what the duo of Tony Hill and Daryl Harper did today in the case of Strauss was patently wrong. Now before we hasten to add the blame to the already beleaguered umpires, lets consider this. Was Hawkeye perfect in representing that the ball would have clipped the top of the bail? What percentage of certainty would Hawkeye attest to concerning that verdict? Where are the testing data to back any claims of accuracy up? Once you have chewed this much, mull this one out too. Whose bright decision could it have been to allow the TV umpire to also view the predictive path as determined by Hawkeye? And if such is the decision taken by the powers that be, then why have that poor sod sweating it out in the sun hampered by such infernally poor technological devices as a pair of human eyes - aged too, that is (in most cases)? Why not pull that guy out of the field and have the TV umpire run it all by remote control? I will go back to the premise of introducing technology into cricket. The premise of introducing technology into cricket, as spouted by most ICC officials starting with Dave Richardson was, 'to eliminate glaring mistakes (read 'decisions'). What they are doing now is introducing coefficients that alter the delicate balance that cricketers know as 'doubt' and therefore allowing more mistakes to creep in. The fervour to stop glaring mistakes is gone now. Replaced by an overruling desire to have technology supplant humans in the decision making process on the cricket field. I dont know about others, but I am yet to come across technological inventions which successfully substitute or even supercede human intuition, intellect and estimation - all of which are involved in this decision making process. PS - By no means is this Strauss dismissal the worst one during the Hawkeye-Decision Review System regime. But this is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back! ________ Avandia settlement information
Link to comment

I am sorry but i dont agree with you.The technology is new and definitely has teething problems(also stupid umpires like harper who cant follow simple rules on how to implement it).I have seen a lot of glaring errors corrected by UDRS.most of the time its the 3rd umpire who has screwed up by not following the letter of the law.England would have lost the series without the UDRS.the Technology is fair,it is not biased,it is not stupid.we need to better educate our 3rd umpires to just follow the rules in regards to the referrals.the UDRS is here to stay.

Link to comment

Cowboysfan - you are welcome to disagree. I have noticed when I have put the same point across many people see me as being anti-technology and anti-UDRS. I must hasten to point out that that cannot be farther from the truth. I am a techie - at least I like to think of myself as one - and love the potential of the Decision Review system. My gripe is centred around Hawkeye. And I have been very clear about that. Do you believe that Hawkeye can be believed as being 100% accurate when it depicts the predicted path of the ball clipping the top of the bails? Personally I do not. This, after watching countless Hawkeye goof ups in cricket as well as tennis. Some of its goof ups in tennis have simply been atrocious. With blustery conditions, its error rate seems to go up. Of course this is no scientific study. All I am asking for though is some form of scientific study so that we actually know what the error percentile is for Hawkeye to be used as the guiding authority for decision making. Yes, we can and should blame umpires for dim decision making. But essentially we must look at the information input that Hawkeye is giving to them. If that is flawed, where is the question of making them responsible? I will try and make this a little more clear with an example. In the last decade or so, the slow motion replay for run outs has become a thing which is second nature. So much so that it is only in the rarest occasions that the umpires even take a call as to whether the batsman is actually out or not. They leave it to the TV umpire. Now, in this usage of technology, I have zero problems. Why is that? Because it is demonstrably accurate and that is the sole reason why we never hear voices of discontent either from the players or from the experts or from the much maligned armchair cricket fan. Do try and contrast this usage of technology with Hawkeye. I think things will be far more clear. ________ VAPORITE VAPORIZER WHIP

Link to comment
Hawkeye can definitely use some finetuning and better interpretation by the 3rd umpires.there needs to even stricter guidelines to overturn a LBW decision.however the Hawkeye is impartial and the UDRS will be a chaos without it as we have seen early on in its implementation.
Do you still see partiality in decision making after neutral umpires being made available for all games? Personally I do not see UDRS as a solution for partiality. If partiality were to be rooted out then the openly racist Chris Broad should not be a match referee! :) Strictly speaking this technology was supposed to simplify the decision making process and help eliminate absolute shockers of decisions. What it is doing instead is complicating the decision making and introducing more doubt into the decision making process - thereby generating more shockers, not less! ________ Marijuana Card
Link to comment

I am sorry I also disagree. Lets take this same Strauss LBW in the good old tays before the advent of UDRS. If he had been given out and later hawkeye showed that the ball was clipping the outside of the stumps, we would have said Strauss was unlucky but nobody would be arguing that the umpire made a blatant error. It would just be accepted as human error. It is the same now, if the 3rd umpire cannot make up his mind after loooking at the hawkeye the the decision rests with the on field umpire. If he had given the Strauss verdict as notout and South Africa had reviewed it, the call would likely have been not out, because the 3rd umpire cannot say for certainty that the ball would have clipped the stumps. The UDRS is not for there for eliminating the dcisions that are marginal but for eliminating the howlers that daryl Harper is known for. Its a different sory that with technology in place he still managed to give a howler of a decision with Graeme Smith's caught behind in the 4th test. The ICC have acknowledged that Hawkeye is not 100% error but they have built in a tolerance of 2.5mm or something to that effect. I am not sure of the exact number and finally I am all for benefit of doubt but thats a call the onfield umpire to make. If he gives the BoD to the batsman and the fielding captain reviews it and technology cannot prove beyond doubt with the tolerance built in then the onfield umpires decision stays.

Link to comment
Do you still see partiality in decision making after neutral umpires being made available for all games? Personally I do not see UDRS as a solution for partiality. If partiality were to be rooted out then the Chris Broad should not be a match referee! :) Strictly speaking this technology was supposed to simplify the decision making process and help eliminate absolute shockers of decisions. What it is doing instead is complicating the decision making and introducing more doubt into the decision making process - thereby generating more shockers, not less!
ICC always have and probably always will turn a blind eye to the actions of Broad. Its quite a shame really, the stupid toss-pot is destroying the game
Link to comment
I am sorry I also disagree. Lets take this same Strauss LBW in the good old tays before the advent of UDRS. If he had been given out and later hawkeye showed that the ball was clipping the outside of the stumps' date=' we would have said Strauss was unlucky but nobody would be arguing that the umpire made a blatant error. It would just be accepted as human error. It is the same now, if the 3rd umpire cannot make up his mind after loooking at the hawkeye the the decision rests with the on field umpire. If he had given the Strauss verdict as notout and South Africa had reviewed it, the call would likely have been not out, because the 3rd umpire cannot say for certainty that the ball would have clipped the stumps. The UDRS is not for there for eliminating the dcisions that are marginal but for eliminating the howlers that daryl Harper is known for. Its a different sory that with technology in place he still managed to give a howler of a decision with Graeme Smith's caught behind in the 4th test. The ICC have acknowledged that Hawkeye is not 100% error but they have built in a tolerance of 2.5mm or something to that effect. I am not sure of the exact number and finally I am all for benefit of doubt but thats a call the onfield umpire to make. If he gives the BoD to the batsman and the fielding captain reviews it and technology cannot prove beyond doubt with the tolerance built in then the onfield umpires decision stays.[/quote'] kpsrinivasan - the tolerance figure that Hawkeye Inc quotes for itself is 3.6 mm. Hardly a figure to be ignored - especially when considering that this is not even an independently verified figure, dont you think? Next - the whole point is about whether Hawkeye was right in claiming that the ball would have clipped the top of the bails. By my estimation that ball would have gone above the stumps. I have explained what exactly needed to have done (IMO) in teacup's 'Ian Chappell on UDRS' thread. Umpires' manual error is always going to be there unless we are going to entirely replace them. As claimed by the ICC, is Hawkeye helping them eliminate howlers? It is creating more howlers actually. And no, other than that obvious Harper howler we would be hard put to find other howlers which were a result of the TV umpire's interpretation of the technology and not the technological representation itself. Just my 2 rupees. ________ Avandia Attorney
Link to comment
I just can't believe it. If all the cameras are in Australia' date=' does Sky cover the matches through those cameras in Australia while showing the home series in England and with regular use of hot spot?[/quote'] I think Hot spot camera follows Australia wherever they go:haha: SABC couldn't afford Hotspot so there was no hotspot in South Africa. Sky can probably afford hotspot and will have it when they cover the home series. Interesting Giles Clarke from ECB suggested on the lpenultimate day of the SA-Eng test that whether they use UDRS at home against Bangladesh would depend on whetehr Strauss and Andy flower wanting it.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...