Let's talk about the DRS

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

This poll's a bit like asking 'What do you trust more to take you from point A to point B? Bullock Cart or Car?' Of course the Hawkeye is more accurate than a human in predicting the ball's path. Its machine that was bloody designed for that. The point is not what do you have to do to get all decisions on the field right, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time. The point is, whether you want to a sport where decisions are gotten right, EVERY single time. Now, there's one side that swears by terms like 'fairness' and 'justice' and says things like 'We need to get it right all the time.. I dont want an umpiring blunder to cut short a brilliant innings..'. On the other side, there's a VERY small minority that feels the sport of cricket is better off with the improbabilities caused by human (in)decision. Obviously, this is a massive ideological difference that can be debated back and forth for eons. But what is really missing the point is for one side or the other to post 'evidence' (videos of umpiring blunders, bad decisions that cost a team a match or cut short an innings) to support their claim. I am sure they probably realize that for every umpiring error that cost a particular team a match, there's probably another one somewhere else, that helped them win another one. So in this case, the 'evidence' is simply superfluous and does not add or subract anything from the central argument. This debate is not about statistics of counting the number of umpiring errors, even though that is what it has been unfortunately reduced to. Its about how each one wants the game of cricket to be played. Thanks to all frankly PATHETIC and blind umpiring by idiots like Bucknor and Benson in the Sydney test and all the controversy that ensued, the anti-technology brigade has simply been outnumbered and outgunned by the pro-technology group. So guys like me have no option but to reconcile to the FACT that technology will keep marginalizing the umpire on the field. All we want now is that, if you have already decided that technology is the way to go, at least do it properly, within the original spirit of what you wanted to achieve. There's no point in having umpiring referrals if half the time, it is used by selfish batsmen trying to overturn plumb lbw decisions.

[Ram]

And just to clarify, I have NOT voted in this poll as yet, but If I had to vote on which is more accurate, of course I'd vote in favor of Hawkeye. Is there even any doubt?

[Gunner_Mania]

All we want now is that' date=' if you have already decided that technology is the way to go, at least do it properly, within the original spirit of what you wanted to achieve. [b']There's no point in having umpiring referrals if half the time, it is used by selfish batsmen trying to overturn plumb lbw decisions.

Now this I agree, but at other times it also leads me to think that that the players themselves have no clue about how much the ball is moving or where the feck their off stump is. I do think though that it will change over time, may be where the Umpires themselves call the referral when they are not sure rather than the players calling it. I am not sure, but what I am convinced is the probablity of technology getting it right (even without its certification) is definitely higher then human getting it right and hence the best solution is a combination of Man & Machine.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

But as someone who has for long been an opponent of more technology in the game, I'd like to express my heartfelt thanks to the blind-as-bat specimens like Bucknor and Benson. They singlehandedly destroyed all the credibility that umpired had enjoyed in this sport so far, with their hideous umpiring. Come to think, on field umpiring survived an era where it frequently accused of being deliberately biased (all the tales of Pakistani umpires like Shakoor Rana..). These days, we're talking about inadvertent mistakes by umpires and yet the chorus to replace them has gotten louder and louder.

[thevortex]

Marris - well, sorry I misunderstood you. But see, my take on this is that one disastrous test, no matter how bad it might be, should not render the umpires as hopeless. There was never a Sydney in the past and there probably will never be in the future. It cannot be held as the showpiece of umpiring performance. Just my opinion.

[Ram]

Marris - well, sorry I misunderstood you. But see, my take on this is that one disastrous test, no matter how bad it might be, should not render the umpires as hopeless. There was never a Sydney in the past and there probably will never be in the future. It cannot be held as the showpiece of umpiring performance. Just my opinion.

Bang on!:two_thumbs_up: And mate, I was being sarcastic.. I dont like technology either. :D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

Marris - well, sorry I misunderstood you. But see, my take on this is that one disastrous test, no matter how bad it might be, should not render the umpires as hopeless. There was never a Sydney in the past and there probably will never be in the future. It cannot be held as the showpiece of umpiring performance. Just my opinion.

Jo'burg 2010.

"If you want an argument in favour of the review system, put Harper on the field; if you want an argument against the system, put Harper in the third umpire's booth."

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[riya]

I would say review system.I wonder why we are avoiding it.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Like I said, Boss, the poll should have been very simple. As in replacing the two on field umpires with technology (as in Hawkeye). And it must very clearly state that it is not that technology is not going to assist them but replace them. That was the original deal, remember? :)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Now, now, lets not twist it around, Bossbhai. You know my views on that very clearly. The point you have proved with this poll is that a lot of members here would prefer Hawkeye to an umpire. Good on them. :) This poll though was a direct result of a question I had asked as to whether people here would prefer umpires OR Hawkeye. That was a direct either or question. So, would people prefer not having the umpires on? That was the question...

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

My answer lies in that one line of yours - umpire cannot be taken out of the game completely yet. Emphasis added.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

I get it - you want them to be there to signal the wides, the boundaries, the sixes and the powerplays :)