Let's talk about the DRS

[cowboysfan]

^^^******* ECB and BCCI are pissing me off.they are doing everything in their power to undermine UDRS.

[kabira]

ECB has no Clue. Message to Morons of ECB, Your team was saved by UDRS, you would have lost 3rd game by tea on 5th day had there not been UDRS and by that losing the series. so fa.ckers wake up

[Clarke]

There was this super duper camera used by some channel a few yrs back which had some amazing rate like thousand (dont remember the number) frames per sec. It seemed like one could easily distinguish edges visually using that .. any idea where thats gone ?

[thevortex]

all these arguments have also ignored the most important factor in sports-the fans.take any poll on UDRS and you you see an overwhelming support for it.The reason is simple' date='the fans don't want the umpire to influence the course of a game(or atleast an illusion of it)[/quote'] Actually I feel the most important group to be consulted is the playing one. And I believe almost all players have reservations about Hawkeye. And lets not confuse UDRS with one of the tools to be used in the process - Hawkeye. UDRS is bigger and welcome to stay, provided Hawkeye is not its only crutch. In my honest opinion, that is. ________ HOW TO ROLL A JOINT

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - tell me do you feel that Hawkeye has helped in eliminating the howlers from umpires instead of introducing howlers of its own? That was ICC's stated objective and they also clearly stated that Hawkeye's objective was not to rule on marginal decisions. Now, that is where Hawkeye's involvement is being most resented. Technology being such, it will always work out that the hard-done-by party would moan and wail about it and the winning group would just say it is part of the game. It is upto the authorities and serious cricket fans to see under all the tosh. ________ Live sex webshows

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachinism]

When playing in certain countries you see the ball swing after it passes the batsman. Hawkeye cannot predict that

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

You didnt respond to my post .... do you prefer the howlers shown in my post opposed to the howlers (if they can be called that) you were taking about in your post ... And yes I will easily take the word of Hawkeye over a human being .... its guaranteed to be accurate by its manufacturers and works based on science not emotion or any other human trait. The best thing is it work exactly the same way regardless of which teams are playing.

I did not respond to that as there are so many recordings that can be pulled up where Hawkeye has been absolutely wrong about either the ball hitting the stumps or about the line of the ball (when Hawkeye magically shows it grazing the leg stump). I am not sure if these are available in Youtube:). But if you watched cricket telecasts for any length of time, this much would be apparent. If it is not, then I guess we better agree to disagree and leave it at that. By the way, Hawkeye's accuracy or apparent lack of it will be evident even if you watch a few tennis matches in recent times. The last Wimbledon would be an excellent example to start with. Oh, and there is also another excellent reason I did not respond. Take the example cited in the article. Is that a howler? Hardly. It is a marginal decision. Yet, Hawkeye introduces even more doubt into it - not to mention the choice of implementation by ICC (in making available the predicted path to the TV umpire). I would appreciate it if technology simplifies things rather than complicate. I really would. That is precisely why I appreciate (among countless millions) the technological innovation that was the slow motion replay for the run out decision. There we have an unequivocally accepted and demonstrably accurate technological innovation for cricket. Do you see a paralllel in Hawkeye? And can someone help me understand why the highest level of the game should settle for anything less than the best?

Can you show me who was moaning about technology ? If anything England who were the only team that were vehemently against technology have now filed an official complaint with ICC that the 3rd umpire didnt technology. They also know that had it not been for UDRS they would have lost this test series against SAF.

Who was moaning? Lets see now. Ponting had reservations. So did Gayle. As did Strauss. We know what Dhoni has said on that subject. What else do you want? Show me a glowing review of Hawkeye by the players. More specifically by any of the captains. Then we probably can discuss this subject. On the other hand, reservations are freely expressed by almost all the captains. What does that say? ________ E CIGARETTE SHOP

[thevortex]

Nor can the umpire.

Umpires can, Bossbhai. Yes, human intuition cannot be measured. But so can experience, or to be precise, its value cannot be measured. But it is there nevertheless, is it not? And moreover cricket is not a millimetres game. If there is doubt, then it is given to the batsman. As simple as that. Why are we now talking about millimetres when the solution itself claims an error coefficient of 3.6 mm? ________ LIANA_love

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Its laborious to do this point by point. But let me try.

ok by that I assume you are saying that the Bucknor howlers are nowwhere as drastic as the ones hawkeye makes .... so in that case can you even recall the most famous "howlers" made by hawkeye ?

Manual mistakes have always been part of the game. Bucknor was far better than in the past than what he was in the *** end of his career. I dont know what the case is that you are attempting to build based on this. Would you like to compare Hawkeye to the 'lowest common minimum' as far as umpires are concerned. If I were looking to be progressive, I would compare technology to Taufel. Nothing less. All the time.

Actually if you watched cricket telecasts for any length of time you will understand how faulty the umpires are .... go look at the official ICC error % before and after UDRS .... why is the % better after introduction of UDRS ?

Official ICC error percentage? Pardon me if I look askance at the figures provided by that organization. They provide two figures. 93% before and 98% afterwards. No supporting statistic whatsoever. If you wish to believe, them, then please go ahead. I will need more detail before I take it as 'truth'.

ok so now you are saying its not a howler :hmmm: but you are still not going to respond to my question in my first post on this thread ? BTW hawkeye is not complicating things here ... its the stupid ICC rules .... hawkeye is quite bluntly telling you that the ball would have hit the stumps/grazed the stumps or not. The stupid rule allows the Umpires to overrule hawkeye in marginal decisions based on the original umpires decision ... hence the bakwaas. Dont blame hawkeye if you cannot use it properly.

Tell me what do you indicate when you put in the 'or not' in your sentence. Is that the best Hawkeye can do? If so, I dont want for that to be part of cricket decision making. Especially not the predicted path. And remember the umpire's decision comes second. The information provided to them by Hawkeye comes first. My point, first and foremost is about the information provided by Hawkeye. It is another matter that both Tony Hill and Harper were wrong in this case. About the howler part, Bossbhai, let me try make it a little bit clearer. It ended up being a howler. But in reality it was a marginal decision to make. Hope this helps.

feel free to provide documented evidence as to why Hawkeye is "less than the best". with all due respects your ranting and ravings dont amount to evidence. I trust the engineers and scientists who developed that technology more than the bozo umpires who have no credibility issues to worry about. look at Bucknor !!

I am sorry but there is no documentary evidence in the first place that Hawkeye is the 'best' for me to try and shatter that notion. I am a techie myself and realize that technology does not have all the answers all the time. Technology for the sake of it does not interest me. Do consider my example. The technology being used for the run out decision is solid. Absolutely useful to the game and has taken it forward. It is also demonstrably accurate. Does Hawkeye compare with that in your mind? Plus when we have an established common minimum for technology (as in the slow motion replay technology for runouts) I think that is the least we should expect from other technologies being introduced in cricket. Hotspot to me, takes the cake on that front. I would much rather rely on that than on Hawkeye. Tell me - did you watch Wimbledon last year? If so, I would not think there would be so much of defending Hawkeye. Truly.

Sangakkara was crying that there was no UDRS ... heck our own players were bawling when Bucknor and Benson screwed them nice and long over 5 days ... they were so mad that they got him removed from the next Test match ... remember ? ! Not to forget Strauss questioning Harper as recently as 5 days ago. Vettori was very happy with the UDRS and for the first time a Tour to Australia ended without any umpiring bakwaas. Need more ? BTW why do these so called players who swear by umpires capabilities call for a referal when given out wrongly ? shouldnt they shut up and take a hike ? Care to elaborate that piece of contradiction.

Allow me a small correction. Sangakkara and Dhoni only pointed out that the referrals are not being used here and that they wanted uniformity in how Test matches were played. Tell me - is that a crime? It is the monumental stupidity of ICC that there are Test matches played in unequal umpiring conditions. Forget the individuals who bring the difference. There is a difference in tools being used and that is a shame. And that is putting it lightly. Also I am not missing the fact that you are missing all the negative feedback from the players that I pointed out. Why? Ah, your last point - here is how I see it. The players are just playing to win. You know why they appeal even on the slightest grounds. It is not because they think they are not out. Most sadly they are starting to appeal because they think there might be a loophole on the technological front. If that is not sad, I dont know what else is. Bossbhai - I do not stand against technology. Not at all. But I want technology which is demonstrably accurate and which is faultlessly implemented, with forethought and in consultation with the playing group. We cannot have Hawkeye thrust at the game just because it is owned by Wisden! Or because it looks so cool to spectators. ________ Buy E Cigs

[thevortex]

Thank you Mods for adding the picture in. Thoughtful touch much appreciated. ________ PAXIL LAWSUITS

[achilles]

Wonderful article

[thevortex]

Thank you, achilles. ________ California medical marijuana

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Mr. Wicket]

Charm is a wonderful wonderful thing! Jp_zV94l2pY Doesn't that just warm your heart with all the charm and randomness?

[ludhianvi]

I like the current UDRS.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --