No UDRS system for Australia (and NZ) series: BCCI

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zubinpepsi]

me thinks thevortex bhai got fired from hawkeye... hes fulll of agenda..

[Manny_Pacquiao]

What is strange is vortex stoutly defending that cricket is not a game of millimeters but demanding nothing less than a absolute certificate that says H/E is accurate.

:--D

[thevortex]

Lets go back to that KP dismissal. Did he not get the benefit of doubt in spite of hawkeye being used? People have always been declared out on millimeters? Its just that the visual was not available on TV unless Hawkeye and its predecessors arrived to show it on television. Are you telling me that when umpires gave the borderline decisions all these years there was not a chance that the ball may have missed the stumps by millimeters? What you are now saying is that even if there is an independent verification tomorrow and a certificate is provided that Hawkeye has a 2.6mm error probability, you won't still accept hawk eye because it has an error percentage? It is not 100% accurate.

Gunner - lets lay down the basics. The 2.6 mm error margin is first of all a myth. Do members defending Hawkeye know the origin of this number? Do they know what the "claimed" error margin of Hawkeye is - according to their website and other sources? It is 3.6 mm - just for your information. I will come back with more thoughts soon on why this system is flawed. Till then, I ask for your patience. By the way nobody on earth(other than the Hawkeye establishment) knows what the maximum error margin of Hawkeye is. Does that strike anybody at all as odd? And Gunner - typically umpires do not give a batsman out if the ball were to - in their opinion - brush on leg stump. Or even hit leg stump by half a ball length. Hawkeye does not see it that way. Hawkeye's rules are not matched with the LBW rules per se - as per MCC. Does this not strike you to be madness? How far should one go to introduce what is essentially a parlour tool? Bend the game as it were?

[thevortex]

There is no hue and cry from anybody to demand these "certificates" ... If you followed the last test match between Eng-Vs-Pak you would know why Snicko isnt a part of UDRS (because ICC hasnt gotten around to testing it ). What it means ? Well it means that they(ICC) do check out these gadgets before putting them to use. This is a no-brainer to most people hence the absolute lack of noise with regards to" seeing the certificates" in flesh. The only way this certificate thingy will come to a head is if and when H/E starts dishing out absolute bleedingly obvious howlers which will raise doubts and eyebrows prompting people to look closer. Sadly for you there aint no howlers .... not even semi-howlers. You can cry all you want but people just dont see any howlers or semi howlers. Thats what it is. Another thing that completely escapes you is that why would MCC risk their reputation by certifying H/E if it were to be actually inaccurate ? Keep in mind that this gadget is on public view on a daily basis.

You are floating around in your own la-la land I am afraid! And your last statement is a rip-roaring hoot! The MCC is trying to keep its reputation intact by not certifying Hawkeye? So, what are you saying? It is inaccurate. But they are not going to say it aloud. And resultantly we are also not to say it out aloud? Oh man, you do have a sense of humour.....:)

Bucknor gave Tendulkar out when it was sailing abive the stumps (Gabba'2004) next he ruled Katich and Langer not out (twice) when they were plumb infront .both went on to score a hundred and save the SCG'04 test which was a gonner for Aus after India put up 705. These are just one or two instances of not going by millimeters but by many inches. Many such howlers were carried out through out that series and indeed the one before and one after. It cost us a series win in Aus and a chance for our legends to have that vital accomplishement on their resume i.e A series win in Aus. How is this taking the game to a new level ? Can you explain that to me while adhering to principles of Fair play and level playing field ? You simply cant.

You made your own conclusion on your own question. But seriously you dont understand a single thing about what I have been talking about. Back to the basics, Bossbhai! :)

[thevortex]

What is strange is vortex stoutly defending that cricket is not a game of millimeters but demanding nothing less than a absolute certificate that says H/E is accurate.

OK. This is but a sign of your continuing and limitless ignorance as to the point I am actually raising. The certificate is not necessarily to prove Hawkeye 100% correct. The certificate is to come up with the error margin. The actual error margin. If at all people are absolutely pig-headed about Hawkeye, then we have got to account for all sorts of errors in the system and actually begin to acknowedge them rather than just lose ourselves to whatever the system suggests.

[thevortex]

me thinks thevortex bhai got fired from hawkeye... hes fulll of agenda..

I wish, zubin, I wish :). Regardless of how Bossbhai keeps twisting my statements into some sort of personal insult towards Hawkins and co., I do not blame them or their company at all. My passion is for cricket. And I am harried that this system has been implemented without much consideration for a lot of things - as has been discussed.

[Gunner_Mania]

Gunner - lets lay down the basics. The 2.6 mm error margin is first of all a myth. Do members defending Hawkeye know the origin of this number? Do they know what the "claimed" error margin of Hawkeye is - according to their website and other sources? It is 3.6 mm - just for your information. I will come back with more thoughts soon on why this system is flawed. Till then, I ask for your patience. By the way nobody on earth(other than the Hawkeye establishment) knows what the maximum error margin of Hawkeye is. Does that strike anybody at all as odd? And Gunner - typically umpires do not give a batsman out if the ball were to - in their opinion - brush on leg stump. Or even hit leg stump by half a ball length. Hawkeye does not see it that way. Hawkeye's rules are not matched with the LBW rules per se - as per MCC. Does this not strike you to be madness? How far should one go to introduce what is essentially a parlour tool? Bend the game as it were?

I am sorry where is the evidence for that? Is there some rulebook that says Umpire don't/shouldn't give it out when the ball is brushing the umpire or do they just make it up as they go along? and btw what the umpires are typically doing according to you, also doesnt match up with the LBW rules. If the ball is hitting the stump you are LBW whether it is brushing or hitting full on. If the batsman misses the ball and it brushes the stump and the bails fall, he is out.

[Gunner_Mania]

If you get a chance watch the appeal of Asif to Strauss (Over 5.5 - 1st innings), it was given not out and had it been reviewed it would have still stayed not out. Every body in the comm box thought it was out, but because the umpire said not out, even with Hawk eye the decision had it been reviewed would have been not out. Are you still saying benefit of doubt hasnt gone to batsmen?

[zubinpepsi]

10.3 Wahab Riaz to Strauss, OUT, huge appeal for a catch behind! Is that a maiden Test wicket for Wahab Riaz? Umpire Hill says no... but they think about it and refer it. Well, he's got a huge edge on that so the decision's over-turned and that's out! Great moment for the young bowler. And despite the fairly lifeless wicket England have lost both openers

:giggle: the vortexbhai

[The Outsider]

The 2.6 mm error margin is first of all a myth. Do members defending Hawkeye know the origin of this number? Do they know what the "claimed" error margin of Hawkeye is - according to their website and other sources? It is 3.6 mm - just for your information. I will come back with more thoughts soon on why this system is flawed. Till then, I ask for your patience. By the way nobody on earth(other than the Hawkeye establishment) knows what the maximum error margin of Hawkeye is. Does that strike anybody at all as odd?

You can question the 2.6/3.6 mm margin that they purport, but when you ask statements like the bolded one, you are showing ignorance of what error analysis and quoted figures like 2.6/3.6 mm mean from a scientific perspective.

[thevortex]

You can question the 2.6/3.6 mm margin that they purport' date=' but when you ask statements like the bolded one, you are showing ignorance of what error analysis and quoted figures like 2.6/3.6 mm mean from a scientific perspective.[/quote'] I am sorry but I thought we had the background on this subject covered. In case there is still any remaining confusion on this subject the numbers spoken about here are 'average error margins'. In the words of the creator and promoter of this system. Does that help you, Outsider?

[thevortex]

I am sorry where is the evidence for that? Is there some rulebook that says Umpire don't/shouldn't give it out when the ball is brushing the umpire or do they just make it up as they go along? and btw what the umpires are typically doing according to you' date=' also doesnt match up with the LBW rules. If the ball is hitting the stump you are LBW whether it is brushing or hitting full on. If the batsman misses the ball and it brushes the stump and the bails fall, he is out.[/quote'] The rule is - typically of cricket - oblique about that :). It does not talk about brushing or hitting full on. There are rules. And then there are conventions. Going about there is culture. Cricket is a simple game. Yes. But it is also in many ways a deep, entrenched game. We can hardly expect machines to understand such aspects, can we?

[thevortex]

:giggle: the vortexbhai

I am afraid you dont have much idea about what I have been going on about. My ire was never against the UDRS, in case you were doubting that. It has always been against Hawkeye and its implementation. Very simply.

[thevortex]

If you get a chance watch the appeal of Asif to Strauss (Over 5.5 - 1st innings)' date=' it was given not out and had it been reviewed it would have still stayed not out. Every body in the comm box thought it was out, but because the umpire said not out, even with Hawk eye the decision had it been reviewed would have been not out. Are you still saying benefit of doubt hasnt gone to batsmen?[/quote'] Gunner - this is but a single instance. Does anybody really have to point out instances where umpires would give the batsman a benefit of doubt but Hawkeye would not? Unfortunately though I did not see this live. So, I do not have much to say about the instance itself.

[Chorazin Reto]

I thought India would be happy to have the referral system considering from the fans perspective how hard done by the Indian team is. Also it's good practice as it becomes more common in games. I dont see a problem with a team having a turnaround of opinion on the referral system, Australia and India better get used to the technology because it's here to stay.

[Feed]

No UDRS system for India-Australia series: BCCI The much debated Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) will not be used in the forthcoming Test and ODI series between hosts India and Australia, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) said on Saturday. More... No UDRS system for India-Australia series: BCCI August 28, 2010 The much debated Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) will not be used in the forthcoming Test and ODI series between hosts India and Australia, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) said on Saturday. "There won't be any UDRS in the series. We have already written to the International Cricket Council ," said BCCI's chief administrative office Prof Ratnakar Shetty said in Mumbai. Australia, who are set to arrive on September 21, are to play two Tests at Mohali and Bangalore and three One-Day Internationals -- at Kochi, Vishakapatnam and Goa. Asked if the UDRS could be used in next year's World Cup to be held in the sub-continent, Shetty, who is also the Tournament Director, said it is an ICC event and the world body calls the shots over the issue. On July 1, the ICC Executive Board met in Singapore and approved 13 recommendations relating to the use of UDRS in Test matches and the 2011 World Cup following recommendations from its Cricket Committee and minor amendments from the Chief Executives' Committee (CEC). One of the decisions was that the host member board would determine whether to use UDRS in home Test series (following consultation with the visiting country). It was also agreed that UDRS would be used in 2011 World Cup if agreement can be reached with the ICC's broadcast partner ESPN STAR Sports, the host countries (Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka ) and if there is sufficient technology available to operate UDRS in a global event. ICC Chief Executive Haroon Lorgat said after the meeting that the world governing body for the game is eager to use UDRS in cricket's mega event. "We have all seen the benefits of using UDRS to assist umpires in Test cricket and we are now keen to use UDRS in the ICC Cricket World Cup," he had said.

[kabira]

oh well if we lose a test match, I really really hope its due to sydney type blunders

[Desi Cartman]

:dontknow: why is BCCI so against it ?

[cowboysfan]

I dont want the udrs in the world cup if are unwilling to use it in the tests.most of the other countries will have experience using it and we will look like morons if we are required to use it,what a cluster**** this has been so far.