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

[Nova]

^ That's right. BCCI better have UDRS soon...making a mockery of a good system in place.

[thevortex]

Hawkeye showed Pujara as out - with that Johnson delivery hitting the leg stump! The system does not seem to consider the trajectory when a bowler is bowling from that wide of the stumps.

[Chandan]

Hawkeye showed Pujara as out - with that Johnson delivery hitting the leg stump! The system does not seem to consider the trajectory when a bowler is bowling from that wide of the stumps.

Hardly made a difference here as even the umpire gave it as out.

[thevortex]

Hardly made a difference here as even the umpire gave it as out.

Chandan - I thought you got the context! There is nobody who says that umpires are infallible. And yes, as I have mentioned elsewhere that was a wrong decision by the umpire. My point was that Hawkeye too was wrong in having that ball hitting leg stump in the fashion shown. What did you make of it?

[Chandan]

Chandan - I thought you got the context! What did you make of it?

I got the context Bala. And the ball would have missed the leg stump no doubt. Just fail to understand how umpire and now hawkeye looked at it.

[Gunner_Mania]

Hawkeye showed Pujara as out - with that Johnson delivery hitting the leg stump! The system does not seem to consider the trajectory when a bowler is bowling from that wide of the stumps.

Again you are focussing on the marginal decisions and completely missed my post about the earlier decision of Vijay that was plumb but ruled not out. So you will accept if the Umpire says it is out, but not if Hawkeye says so.

[Chandan]

Again you are focussing on the marginal decisions and completely missed my post about the earlier decision of Vijay that was plumb but ruled not out. So you will accept if the Umpire says it is out, but not if Hawkeye says so.

I won't accept that. At least HE will be consistent for both the teams, won't get affected by hot and humid weather, won't be tired by the end of the day to give a bad decision. Even if it isn't perfect, it'll remain consistent for the entire day, for each delivery and for each player. That'll bring a change in batting and bowling techniques but it is more than good for me and add to it hot spot and all the other helps to the umpire and I think the system is quite good and India should embrace it as soon as possible.

[thevortex]

Again you are focussing on the marginal decisions and completely missed my post about the earlier decision of Vijay that was plumb but ruled not out. So you will accept if the Umpire says it is out, but not if Hawkeye says so.

Gunner - like I said in my reply to Chandan - there is no question about not accepting umpires' mistakes and limitations. I never have contested that point. So what is the point in bringing that up time and again? Forget marginal - that Pujara decision was not marginal. There was no way in the world that ball would have hit leg stump and Hawkeye had it hitting flush on leg! I hope you too would have seen it. I had in mind a write-up on this. Got busy with other things. Should get it ready sometime soon. Without Hot Spot, UDRS may not be what all you guys crack it up to be. Hawkeye needs improvement as does the implementation thereof.

[thevortex]

I won't accept that. At least HE will be consistent for both the teams, won't get affected by hot and humid weather, won't be tired by the end of the day to give a bad decision. Even if it isn't perfect, it'll remain consistent for the entire day, for each delivery and for each player. That'll bring a change in batting and bowling techniques but it is more than good for me and add to it hot spot and all the other helps to the umpire and I think the system is quite good and India should embrace it as soon as possible.

Chandan - this will bring about a change in the whole match strategy and even appealing. It will be more of gamesmanship where captains know that a ball that an umpire will not give LBW to, will have Hawkeye showing it as hitting most of the time. And they will gamble... Is that what the game needs? How can we get the system to incorporate the concept of 'benefit of doubt'?? Or do you think that concept needs to be done away with?

[thevortex]

I got the context Bala. And the ball would have missed the leg stump no doubt. Just fail to understand how umpire and now hawkeye looked at it.

Indeed madam!

[Chandan]

Chandan - this will bring about a change in the whole match strategy and even appealing. It will be more of gamesmanship where captains know that a ball that an umpire will not give LBW to, will have Hawkeye showing it as hitting most of the time. And they will gamble... Is that what the game needs? How can we get the system to incorporate the concept of 'benefit of doubt'?? Or do you think that concept needs to be done away with?

Do you have a better solution?

[Gunner_Mania]

Chandan - this will bring about a change in the whole match strategy and even appealing. It will be more of gamesmanship where captains know that a ball that an umpire will not give LBW to, will have Hawkeye showing it as hitting most of the time. And they will gamble... Is that what the game needs? How can we get the system to incorporate the concept of 'benefit of doubt'?? Or do you think that concept needs to be done away with?

Sorry don't buy that. The benefit of doubt is taken care of by the Hawkeye implementation. That Pujara decision - the umpire did not give the batsmen the beenfit of doubt. He gave it out. Now my question to you is why do you expect the benefit of doubt from hawkeye where the umpire doesnt give one. Now if the umpire had given the benefit of doubt, inspite hawkeye showing a part of the ball hitting the stumps, the benefit of doubt would have stayed. Now I know we both can argue about this till the cows come home, but still wont agree for it, but I am willing to accept this lack of benefit of doubt more often for marginal decisions as you put it, if we can get howlers eliminated from the game through hawk eye.

[thevortex]

Sorry don't buy that. The benefit of doubt is taken care of by the Hawkeye implementation. That Pujara decision - the umpire did not give the batsmen the beenfit of doubt. He gave it out. Now my question to you is why do you expect the benefit of doubt from hawkeye where the umpire doesnt give one. Now if the umpire had given the benefit of doubt, inspite hawkeye showing a part of the ball hitting the stumps, the benefit of doubt would have stayed. Now I know we both can argue about this till the cows come home, but still wont agree for it, but I am willing to accept this lack of benefit of doubt more often for marginal decisions as you put it, if we can get howlers eliminated from the game through hawk eye.

Here is my thing, Gunner. Lets state the givens - the umpires do make mistakes, sometimes blatant ones. Now that we have that out of the way, lets acknowledge something. If you have read about the technology used in Hawkeye, it is clearly stated that Hawkeye does not care two hoots about which point of the crease a bowler bowls from or whether the action of the bowler is round arm or straight arm or whether the bowled ball is held across the seam or along. All it cares is about tracking the trajectory and velocity of the ball after it has pitched. Do you still stand by your case? I would still like it if Hawkeye can contribute to the game without creating new howlers. Its insistence on depicting balls to be hitting the leg stump regardless of its actual trajectory means that it introduces new types of howlers. Certainly that cannot be the solution!!

[thevortex]

Do you have a better solution?

Not really. I would love to know what sort of selection process - if at all any - goes into the selection of umpires in the elite panel. If there is nothing there, then a scientific process needs to be put in place to help retain only those with both the reflexes and aptitude for the game with all its vicissitudes. In my opinion this will help greatly. In a way in our sport, umpires too are top athletes. It is just that all their athleticism takes place in the mind. And we really do need to respect that. That automatically means that we will have to put in a process where only those who deserve respect get into the elite panel! All that apart though I would not have jumped like the ICC and had the system put into Test cricket without any proper trial at the lower levels of the game! That is a given!

[yoda]

thevortex, based on the games you have seen and hawkeye replays you have seen, who do YOU think gets more decisions correct - the umps or HE? Of course you can never tell for sure as the ball doesn't hit the stumps, but what is your take based on the games you have seen?

[thevortex]

thevortex, based on the games you have seen and hawkeye replays you have seen, who do YOU think gets more decisions correct - the umps or HE? Of course you can never tell for sure as the ball doesn't hit the stumps, but what is your take based on the games you have seen?

Thats a trick question, Yoda?! :) If I were to guess I would probably say that Hawkeye would beat the umpires in a pure numbers game. Also as many have intuitively pointed out, Hawkeye does not care about who the batsman is or who the bowler is who screams blue murder into your face or what the game situation is. This is all true. However, when a new system is brought to fix old problems, one of the first things to check would be whether the new system brings with it new problems. I am afraid that is true with Hawkeye. Dont you wish that ICC had the system on trial and had a proper voting system where the players themselves gave feedback on it based on their experiences? Also I do believe that some of the problems with Hawkeye lie at the core, the real heart of the system itself. Please read my reply to Gunner_Mania (a couple of posts above this one) regarding what the reference point is for Hawkeye when it comes to judging the trajectory of the cricket ball. Do you not have a problem with that?

[saneindian]

Thats a trick question, Yoda?! :) If I were to guess I would probably say that Hawkeye would beat the umpires in a pure numbers game. Also as many have intuitively pointed out, Hawkeye does not care about who the batsman is or who the bowler is who screams blue murder into your face or what the game situation is. This is all true. However, when a new system is brought to fix old problems, one of the first things to check would be whether the new system brings with it new problems. I am afraid that is true with Hawkeye. Dont you wish that ICC had the system on trial and had a proper voting system where the players themselves gave feedback on it based on their experiences? Also I do believe that some of the problems with Hawkeye lie at the core, the real heart of the system itself. Please read my reply to Gunner_Mania (a couple of posts above this one) regarding what the reference point is for Hawkeye when it comes to judging the trajectory of the cricket ball. Do you not have a problem with that?

Abe ye phir chaalu ho gaya. Bhai change your nick to theUDRS :--D BTW in one of your posts you say "All it cares is about tracking the trajectory and velocity of the ball after it has pitched." The little that I read about trajectory tells me that the trajectory of a moving object does depend upon the angle of release!! and therefore to say Hawkeye doesnt care about angle of release is BS. Otherwise why would it show a ball hitting leg stump and other missing leg stump when both are released from nearly the same point? As many of us have pointed it so many times, technology is not foolproof, but then given the likes of Ashokas, Bucknors and Dharamsenas, I would always prefer to go in with hawkeye.

[yoda]

Thats a trick question, Yoda?! :)

It was, to extract the answer below. :winky:

If I were to guess I would probably say that Hawkeye would beat the umpires in a pure numbers game.

I purposely deleted the rest of your post, cause honestly, that is all we should care about.

[thevortex]

Abe ye phir chaalu ho gaya. Bhai change your nick to theUDRS :--D BTW in one of your posts you say "All it cares is about tracking the trajectory and velocity of the ball after it has pitched." The little that I read about trajectory tells me that the trajectory of a moving object does depend upon the angle of release!! and therefore to say Hawkeye doesnt care about angle of release is BS. Otherwise why would it show a ball hitting leg stump and other missing leg stump when both are released from nearly the same point? As many of us have pointed it so many times, technology is not foolproof, but then given the likes of Ashokas, Bucknors and Dharamsenas, I would always prefer to go in with hawkeye.

Saneindian - you would think so, would you not? See the highlighted line. Now go read about up about how Hawkeye does its stuff. We can talk more after that.

[thevortex]

It was, to extract the answer below. :winky: I purposely deleted the rest of your post, cause honestly, that is all we should care about.

Well, at least I got your intention right :). Really it is not about semantics. Please do read the rest of the post when you get a chance and comment upon it with your views. If we care about the game, I think these things are very important. These decisions - whether to implement or not implement a system which will dictate the course of play at the highest level of the game - are certainly not trivial.