No UDRS for Sri Lanka-India Tests

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Manny_Pacquiao]

This makes Indian cricketers look like complete clowns for what they did after Sydney.

[gaurav92]

There is no shortage of such episodes from the past. For example Last 3 ODIs in Lanka 2008. If they are persisting despite all of that then they deserve some more of it.

Well that was in 2009 i think in the first 3 ODIs in that 5 match series where Goddy got bad umpiring decisions from Kumar Dharmasena and Ashoka D'Silva i think. The SL Umpires are just too crappy :whack:

[Karan114]

http://www.cricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-india-2010/content/current/story/467049.html Make UDRS mandatory - Kumar Sangakkara Sidharth Monga in Colombo July 12, 2010 Kumar Sangakkara, the Sri Lanka captain, has asked the ICC to step in and make the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) mandatory for all Test series, following India's refusal to use it for the upcoming series. Sangakkara also said the ICC should perhaps pay for the technology needed to implement the system successfully, because it is something the ICC wants to introduce and the broadcasters have usually paid exorbitant monies for their rights and might not be able to afford extra costs for sophisticated tools such as Hot Spot. "I was under the impression that the ICC has set the standards on this by saying that everyone should use the DRS system," Sangakkara said, suggesting he was not aware of the results of the latest discussion on UDRS at the ICC's annual conference. "I think last year in India also, the entire team felt a little hard done by when we came to know that we couldn't have the DRS." The ICC's directive, too, was as ambiguous as the body's role is in international cricket. "The host member would determine whether to use DRS in home Test series (following consultation with the visiting country)," said the ICC release, in one sentence giving the home board the power to "determine" whether the UDRS should be used, and also empowering the visiting team to contest it. "The role that ICC has to play here is to make sure that all boards are bound to have the DRS," Sangakkara said, "Rather than when one side refuses, the other side can't enforce the DRS, as is under the current playing conditions. Sangakkara reiterated how the absence of DRS hurt his side on its tour of India ("It cost us close to 500 runs and lots of wickets"), and also how the presence of the same system proved to be an advantage when they hosted India in 2008. Then, Sri Lanka successfully challenged 11 decisions as opposed to India's one. "There were of course complaints by the Indian team, which led to - I think - subsequent series' being played without the review system," Sangakkara said. "Having reviewed all the matches, there are flaws. You need Hot Spot and all, but even with the existing technology in place, we can still have a very fair DRS." MS Dhoni explained his side's decision with what has been a genuine concern with the UDRS: why challenge decisions when the best available technology is not being used? "DRS is still not a 100 % correct system," Dhoni said. "We have seen that, in spite of having the DRS, not everything goes correct. Most of the teams have played a series under the DRS, so it is important now to come up with a foolproof plan. See what exactly works. In a bat-pad scenario, Hot Spot really works, it is close to over 98 % correct. Even on LBW decisions, we need to have something like that." Which brings us to the present conundrum: Several broadcasters pushed themselves to the commercial brink to secure telecast rights, and they obviously hadn't budgeted for the extra cost to make the UDRS successful. Which is what makes the ICC's role important, because essentially the DRS is its baby. "That's another option [paying for the technology] maybe the ICC should look at," Sangakkara said. "Provide the technology, make everything standard, if the costs the exorbitant, subsidise the costs. These are all the things we can look at. Maybe the broadcasters - they of course pay such a lot for cricket, but they also make sure they earn almost as much - maybe they could work out ways of subsiding it."

[Ram]

Why do they keep oscillating between the extreme positions? If they have decided in principle that increased technology assists is the way to go in cricket, they should just stick to that stance and make it mandatory for all series. Having UDRS for one series and not having it for another sends out confusing signals and makes it look as though even the ICC isn’t sure about what’s the right way forward. And I thought Sangakkara is a lot smarter than making dumb statements like ‘It cost us close to 500 runs and lots of wickets”. He speaks as though the cricket on the field is like a movie that goes like a written script. Every single ball that’s bowled influences the outcome of a match in a totally unpredictable way. The last time Lankans played in India, they did have a few decisions go against them, but its impossible to predict what would have happened if those errors in judgment didn’t happen.

[cowboysfan]

they should be made mandatory but only if all the technologies in the UDRS is available for ALL the tests.

[thevortex]

^ yeah' date=' I just read that story. Its ridiculous though. There has been such a sea change in the way it is used from then and now. It was at trial back then, obviously the errosr have been largely fixed and there has been a huge improvement in its implementation.[/quote'] Excuse me? What improvement has there been in the implementation since then? And what errors have been fixed? And do I understand that you admit that errors did exist then? I guess you and Bossbhai are disagreeing with the Boss (Sachin) on Hawkeye :). This guys is word from the horses' mouth. And this is something I have repeated ad nauseam. We cannot confuse between what is good for the spectators and what is needed on the field. It is not good for the game.

[thevortex]

That's not right. In 2008 there was no predictive path of Hawk Eye used in the UDRS' date=' which left the entire thing ambiguous and arbitrary. With the new rules the predictive path is used and the 3 zones of pitching, hitting the pads, and hitting the stumps make it a much more unambiguous tool.[/quote'] And I would say these reasons alone provide you even stronger cases as to why this thing must not be foisted upon the players!! Forget taking out ambiguity. As things stand, Hawkeye is taking the decision! I know - we have had this conversation before. But I really respect the Indian team for having come out strongly in this and stating their mind. Most of all Tendulkar. He has always been a diplomat. For him to have come out strongly against Hawkeye and in support of Hot Spot - that means something.

[thevortex]

so you don't mind if a ball is pitching outside leg stump and the umpire gives the batsman out? Why do we need onfield umpre if he is always ging to consult the 3rd umpire for a doubtful decision? Only to give decisions that are 100% correct? The 3rd umpire can do it with his technological tools can't he?

So, following the same logic - do you really need an on field umpire? You want him to be there to check on no balls and wides? Or to act as an arbitrator when people like Steyn and Benn are ready to erupt? What is his role exactly - in your mind? Any technology anywhere in the world is best used as an aid. Not as a decision making system. We would do well to keep that in mind. That has always been my take.

[varun]

So' date=' following the same logic - do you really need an on field umpire? You want him to be there to check on no balls and wides? [/quote'] The on-field umpire is still very important, as UDRS is only used to avoid blunders as far as I can tell. If the TV umpire doesn't find conclusive evidence to overrule the on-field umpire's decision, the on-field umpire's decision will always stand. An example of conclusive evidence is in regard to the use of Hawkeye in LBW decisions. If hawkeye shows the ball barely hitting the stumps (i.e. within a margin of error), then the on-field umpire's decision will stand. However, if hawkeye shows the ball hitting smack in the middle of the stumps where the on-field umpire gave it not out, then his decision will be overruled.

[thevortex]

The on-field umpire is still very important, as UDRS is only used to avoid blunders as far as I can tell. If the TV umpire doesn't find conclusive evidence to overrule the on-field umpire's decision, the on-field umpire's decision will always stand. An example of conclusive evidence is in regard to the use of Hawkeye in LBW decisions. If hawkeye shows the ball barely hitting the stumps (i.e. within a margin of error), then the on-field umpire's decision will stand. However, if hawkeye shows the ball hitting smack in the middle of the stumps where the on-field umpire gave it not out, then his decision will be overruled.

We have been over this many a time, really. Ultimately it all boils down to what the technology is showing its 'prediction' as and the umpires absolutely having to base their decision on that prediction. The 3rd umpire is not making his own decision. He is simply conveying what the replay is showing him. Will anybody ever get to thinking about whether the prediction is good enough to rely upon it entirely? I say - why not give the on field umpire a hand held device for him to view the output and not look like a chump out there?!! Oh yes the spectators can have their fill of all the predictive outputs too.

[varun]

I say - why not give the on field umpire a hand held device for him to view the output and not look like a chump out there?!!

I don't see what the harm is in an umpire looking like a chump if he commits a blunder. All the other players look like chumps if they hit a horrible stroke or bowl a terrible delivery, and as it stands currently the umpire is as much a "performer" in the game as the rest of the players are. The hand-held device idea would be funny though.. seeing the umps scrolling through their device as the players are screaming howzzat :D

[putrevus]

Why is lack udrs a big news for Indian series but it is not a news on other series in England which by the way has hot Spot Camera available.

[thevortex]

I don't see what the harm is in an umpire looking like a chump if he commits a blunder. All the other players look like chumps if they hit a horrible stroke or bowl a terrible delivery, and as it stands currently the umpire is as much a "performer" in the game as the rest of the players are. The hand-held device idea would be funny though.. seeing the umps scrolling through their device as the players are screaming howzzat :D

After the players are done screaming howzatt perhaps :). Then it wont look so odd. By the way did anybody hear Warne talk about Hawkeye with derision. Ponting was hit on the thigh by Asif and Warne commented 'What does Hawkeye show? Hit half of middle?' And I dont like the idea of the players looked at as paid performers. First and foremost they are there because they like doing it.

[Gunner_Mania]

Excuse me? What improvement has there been in the implementation since then? And what errors have been fixed? And do I understand that you admit that errors did exist then? I guess you and Bossbhai are disagreeing with the Boss (Sachin) on Hawkeye :). This guys is word from the horses' mouth. And this is something I have repeated ad nauseam. We cannot confuse between what is good for the spectators and what is needed on the field. It is not good for the game.

Of course there were errors. That is why it was called a trial. The 3rd umpire made the final call back then not the the umpires. Hawkeye's predictive path was not used. The on field umpires decision being final when the ball is pitched 50/50 or kissing the bails /stump was not implemented. I'vent heard him come out and say in so many words that Hawkeye is rubbish, so technically no I am not disagreeing with him, but if he did come out and say that then yes I will disagree with him as based on what I've seen of the UDRS implementation I honestly believe it helps more than hinders. Let Boss get 2 dubious LBWs in this series and we will see if he and the rest of the team still think the same way about the DRS.

[thevortex]

We have been through this before. If the 3rd umpire with all the latest gadgetry that the world can offer, can see it and make mistakes, why is it considered an improvement to have the decision shunted back to the on field umpire who according to you pro-Hawkeye members is at a disadvantage? We can take all the dubious LBWs in the world. What players cannot take is the possibility of being ruled out by a machine with absolutely dubious credentials. I am all for making cricket spectator friendly. Bring in the hot dogs and even the cheer girls if you have to. But please, please draw the line at using TV-friendly tools to make decisions. Especially when that is the only established credential of the tool in question! By the way, Ian Gould made a major mistake in ruling Katich not out for an LBW appeal against the magnificent Amir. But guess what, the players can take it. They are not going to moan and groan about it. It is, as they say, part and parcel of the game.

[thevortex]

About Sachin - when he is asked about Hawkeye he says he prefers Hot Spot. What else do we need? Surely you dont expect him to come out and denounce Hawkeye openly? By the way, if you recall our earlier conversations this is the exact same thing that I mentioned. I have much more respect for Hot Spot than Hawkeye. Any given day. Although I will say this - that too does not have any public third party verification data on it out there. But just based on TV replays. Hot Spot looks that much more solid. And of course there is none of this prediction business.

[Gunner_Mania]

So' date=' following the same logic - do you really need an on field umpire? You want him to be there to check on no balls and wides? Or to act as an arbitrator when people like Steyn and Benn are ready to erupt? What is his role exactly - in your mind?[/quote'] My response was in response to this post by g92.

I don't mind if we don't use UDRS but the on field umpires must always try and confirm a doubtful decisions with the third umpire who has all the technologies

Any technology anywhere in the world is best used as an aid. Not as a decision making system. We would do well to keep that in mind. That has always been my take.

Its funny that this has always been your take and you steadfastedly refuse to accept an implementation of Hawkeye where by it is being exactly used as an technological aid and not a decision making tool.

We have been over this many a time, really. Ultimately it all boils down to what the technology is showing its 'prediction' as and the umpires absolutely having to base their decision on that prediction. The 3rd umpire is not making his own decision. He is simply conveying what the replay is showing him. Will anybody ever get to thinking about whether the prediction is good enough to rely upon it entirely? I say - why not give the on field umpire a hand held device for him to view the output and not look like a chump out there?!! Oh yes the spectators can have their fill of all the predictive outputs too.

Lets try this one last time else may be we can dissect this over that cup of 'kaapi' while watching the India-SL test live:P Step 1 - Bowler makes an appeal Step 2 - Umpire gives out or not out (No Hawkeye involved) Step 3 - Batsman / fielding captain ask for review Step 4 - 3rd Umpire looks at Hawkeye and says Step 4a - Umpire, I agree you are right OR Step 4b - Umpire, I don't know, Lets stick with whatever decision you made with the naked eye. Lets retain the Charm element of the game OR Step4c - Umpire, dude you are way of the mark, thats a howler, You need to reverse your decision. Step 5 - Next ball is bowled.

[thevortex]

My response was in response to this post by g92.

My question is still relevant, I think :).

Its funny that this has always been your take and you steadfastedly refuse to accept an implementation of Hawkeye where by it is being exactly used as an technological aid and not a decision making tool.

It is not an aid if umpires HAVE to go with its 'predictive inputs'. I fail to understand how I can make this more clear. A 3rd umpire CANNOT say that he does not agree with the representation of Hawkeye. Therein lies the real problem. And the gentleman who is best placed to disagree with the representation, by the way, does not get to see it. He has to decide blind if the 3rd umpire shoves the responsibility back at him!! See the irony? And the holes in the implementation?

Lets try this one last time else may be we can dissect this over that cup of 'kaapi' while watching the India-SL test live:P Step 1 - Bowler makes an appeal Step 2 - Umpire gives out or not out (No Hawkeye involved) Step 3 - Batsman / fielding captain ask for review Step 4 - 3rd Umpire looks at Hawkeye and says Step 4a - Umpire, I agree you are right OR Step 4b - Umpire, I don't know, Lets stick with whatever decision you made with the naked eye. Lets retain the Charm element of the game OR Step4c - Umpire, dude you are way of the mark, thats a howler, You need to reverse your decision. Step 5 - Next ball is bowled.

Please see my response above. And no - Hawkeye is not being used as an aid. It can be described as being used as an aid if - and only if - the 3rd umpire (or better yet the onfield umpire) can disagree with its representation. Otherwise I wish to reiterate it is being used as the sole decision making tool. Period. Oh and the kaapi is always there :).

[Gunner_Mania]

And no - Hawkeye is not being used as an aid. It can be described as being used as an aid if - and only if - the 3rd umpire (or better yet the onfield umpire) can disagree with its representation. Otherwise I wish to reiterate it is being used as the sole decision making tool. Period. Oh and the kaapi is always there :).

Lets forget the predicitive path element for a moment. Up untill the point of impact, Hawkeye is not making any predictions, it is calculatiing the trajectory of the ball based on the actual trajectory it has travelled. Now at this point if the ball has pitched outside the leg stump, but the onfield umpire judged it to have pitched it as in line or inside leg stump with his naked eye, why does he need to have a tool to see it, anybody can tell him, he is wrong. Now coming to the predicitive path, the 3rd umpire doesnt always agree with hawkeye. He can clearly disagree with it. Its just a different terminology being used, I said that as 3rd umpire not trusting hawkeye's judgement and hence going by the onfield umpires judgement. So in effect he is disagreeing with the hawkeye. They only agree with it where its clear to even a blind bat but the umpire goofed it.