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

[fineleg]

vortex, A perfect solution can come later as tech evolves. For now, why cant we accept HE (with flaws) - its atleast better than 'charming' umpire-howlers, and is what is avail now. Future tech can continue to evolve.

[ZodiaC]

@Vortex Hawkeye can be erroneous sometimes in full length balls, but the error margin is very less. And it is 100% reliable in ruling out the howlers - so I don't see why you're so against it. And btw do you think that hotspot is flawless?

[thevortex]

Fineleg - I would take Hawkeye even if it was a little bit less accurate but did not introduce newer howlers. That is what I tried to explain and have tried to explain for quite some time. I would even be happy if some of the implementation ideas related to this technology were modified. Zodiac - are you aware of Hawkeye's claimed error margin? Do we know what the basis of that error margin figure is? Further I would not venture to say that it is 100% reliable in ruling out the howlers as it introduces a few of its own! No, I do not believe Hot Spot is flawless. I actually do not believe that a machine built by humans can be completely flawless. But there is a difference between being fundamentally flawed (read trajectory mapping) and merely not being perfect. Here I would not lay all the blame on the corresponding company. A lot of the blame has to go to ICC and other boards involved in ushering this in at the highest level.

[Karan114]

http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article827236.ece Tendulkar on UDRS Sachin Tendulkar said that the use of technology along with the much-debated ‘Umpire Decision Review System' must be fool proof before a call can be taken on its implementation in matches. “Last time when I saw hot-spot, it was rather good. You have to find something that is close to 100 per cent. You cannot expect overnight results that can give you 100 per cent, it is quite good but we need to be convinced,†Tendulkar said.

[fineleg]

http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article827236.ece Tendulkar on UDRS Sachin Tendulkar said that the use of technology along with the much-debated ‘Umpire Decision Review System' must be fool proof before a call can be taken on its implementation in matches. “Last time when I saw hot-spot, it was rather good. You have to find something that is close to 100 per cent. You cannot expect overnight results that can give you 100 per cent, it is quite good but we need to be convinced,†Tendulkar said.

This is in today's Hindu newspaper! oh boy! He is still saying this thing. Its clear if BCCI wants to bring in Tech, they have to ignore what SRT is saying. Bowden or Gould may shaft us on Day-5 and SRT may still say this :dontknow: Tech is better than today's umpiring charms and Tendu has been charmed many times!

[yoda]

It is interesting how we expect 100% from technology but are willing to work with much less when it comes to humans. I can see that in situations where a less than 100% technology can end up killing someone like in a automobile or a airplane, but it needs to be looked at in context.

[fineleg]

It is interesting how we expect 100% from technology but are willing to work with much less when it comes to humans. I can see that in situations where a less than 100% technology can end up killing someone like in a automobile or a airplane, but it needs to be looked at in context.

Exactly. Umpiring Charm is now far, far, far less than 100% and inconsistent!

[Karan114]

It is interesting how we expect 100% from technology but are willing to work with much less when it comes to humans. I can see that in situations where a less than 100% technology can end up killing someone like in a automobile or a airplane, but it needs to be looked at in context.

Indeed - there are things in which technology needs to be foolproof, like where people's lives are at stake. But a cricket match is just a game at the end of the day, so if technology offers more than human beings do, why not use it instead of putting it off because it isn't 100%?

[thevortex]

It is interesting how we expect 100% from technology but are willing to work with much less when it comes to humans. I can see that in situations where a less than 100% technology can end up killing someone like in a automobile or a airplane, but it needs to be looked at in context.

Tendulkar is looking at it in context! Erroneous technology could snuff out a batsman's life out there! That is the context.

[yoda]

Tendulkar is looking at it in context! Erroneous technology could snuff out a batsman's life out there! That is the context.

How is it going to snuff out a batsman's life more than a human who is performing worse even by your own admission? (you didn't expect that to go away did you? :winky:)

[ZodiaC]

Zodiac - are you aware of Hawkeye's claimed error margin? Do we know what the basis of that error margin figure is? Further I would not venture to say that it is 100% reliable in ruling out the howlers as it introduces a few of its own!

Hotspot failed to pick many obvious faint edges. I've created a thread for that purpose. :giggle: Hawk eye is tested and approved by MCC, now don't bring Raw mossad conspiracy theories like padosis please

[thevortex]

How is it going to snuff out a batsman's life more than a human who is performing worse even by your own admission? (you didn't expect that to go away did you? :winky:)

It introduces new howlers - pure and simple. And Yoda I have still not seen your reply to the points I raised in the full context I put them in. Simply picking a line out of my post will not do.

Hotspot failed to pick many obvious faint edges. I've created a thread for that purpose. :giggle: Hawk eye is tested and approved by MCC, now don't bring Raw mossad conspiracy theories like padosis please

I am not sure what you are trying to prove - no technology is perfect. It cannot be. If you are willing to take Hawkeye as it is and see no issue with it, then you are welcome to. Even among the Hawkeye supporters, I think there are many who can spot the errors it makes.

[yoda]

It introduces new howlers - pure and simple. And Yoda I have still not seen your reply to the points I raised in the full context I put them in. Simply picking a line out of my post will not do.

As long as the new howlers are fewer in number than the current howlers and are consistent howlers across teams, across matches what is there to get all worried? Yes I did read the rest of your post and other posts, just chose to quote only that, cause honestly that's all that matters. A system that is better than the current is worth going for than waiting for the perfect system to come around, god knows when.

[Gunner_Mania]

The howlers I think most of us are talking about is when the decisions are plumb or there is an inside edge (which I know has nothing to do with Hawkeye, but more to do with UDRS) and the umpire is blind. What you are suggesting as howler is when the ball is showing as clipping the stumps, but some people believe that it would have missed the stumps. I am calling those as marginal decisions and not as howlers. I & most here or happy with Hawkeye as long as it reduces the howlers of the first kind. Improvement in technology should & will also reduce the 'howlers' of the second kind, but it needs an opportunity. It cant be improved in the labs.

[SachDan]

:yay::yay:

[thevortex]

As long as the new howlers are fewer in number than the current howlers and are consistent howlers across teams, across matches what is there to get all worried? Yes I did read the rest of your post and other posts, just chose to quote only that, cause honestly that's all that matters. A system that is better than the current is worth going for than waiting for the perfect system to come around, god knows when.

I am afraid, if you did read the post, you may not have understood the full context. It is not that the howlers are reduced. Surely they will be. And you can quote me on this when the time comes :). However, the usage of Hawkeye will introduce newer howlers. I am having none of that. And I take it you are alright with the Hawkeye way of measuring the trajectory of the cricket ball?

The howlers I think most of us are talking about is when the decisions are plumb or there is an inside edge (which I know has nothing to do with Hawkeye' date=' but more to do with UDRS) and the umpire is blind. What you are suggesting as howler is when the ball is showing as clipping the stumps, but some people believe that it would have missed the stumps. I am calling those as marginal decisions and not as howlers. I & most here or happy with Hawkeye as long as it reduces the howlers of the first kind. Improvement in technology should & will also reduce the 'howlers' of the second kind, but it needs an opportunity. It cant be improved in the labs.[/quote'] As you rightly point out, I do not have any case against the UDRS, just as it should be. But I do have a case against Hawkeye. Gunner - I think we understand each other on this subject. So, I will put the same question over to you as well. Do you understand and accept the stand that Hawkeye takes as far as the tracking the trajectory of the cricket ball is concerned?

[Karan114]

BCCI officials to scrutinise UDRS during Ashes Sharda Ugra October 13, 2010 A close-in view of the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) during the Ashes this year may finally convince the BCCI to change its stance over using the technology that allows players to question and reverse dismissals. Board officials, accompanied by ICC CEO Haroon Lorgat, will travel to Australia to watch the use of the system during the upcoming Ashes series. After the ICC's Board meeting this week, Lorgat said he "had agreed with Cricket Australia to attend the Ashes matches ... with representatives of the BCCI, to understand the successful application of the technology and its contribution to correct umpiring decisions." The entire exercise is meant to serve as a test run for the UDRS at the 2011 ICC World Cup - the ICC said India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, the three World Cup hosts, had confirmed that the system would be used at the tournament subject to the "reliability" of ball-tracking technology. The Hot Spot technology, which uses expensive thermal imaging cameras, would be used in the semi-finals and final only. The ICC executive Board also announced that it would try to find sponsors for the UDRS to cover its high cost. Member nations could either pool their UDRS sponsorship rights with the ICC, and so earn sponsorship revenues after deducting costs, or try to find independent sponsors themselves. The ICC would ideally like the Ashes inspection to lead to the BCCI finally accepting UDRS for India's series. "We certainly hope so. There is so much agreement about the UDRS among other members and hopefully India feels it is time to look at it seriously again," said an official. The BCCI officials heading for the Ashes to give the system a thorough once-over could be chosen from a select group, with one among BCCI secretary N Srinivasan, operations in-charge Suru Nayak and the board's chief administrative officer Ratnakar Shetty most probably being on the visit. An ICC official admitted that the ball-tracking technology was "not 100% secure" but added that, "we have built in margins of error in the system. To overturn a decision, the third umpire would have to have a high degree of confidence." There is also the likelihood of the Ashes television coverage using a slightly improved version of its ball-tracker technology as well as the Hot Spot. These are meant to be the two arguments which, the ICC are hopeful, will eventually change the BCCI's mind. ESPNcricinfo has learnt that during the India-Australia Test series, there have been discussions between players, particularly the two captains, and officials, about the UDRS and the ball-tracking technology currently being used. Controversial decisions, against Gautam Gambhir, Ishant Sharma and Michael Hussey, during the Mohali Test certainly proved that the UDRS was missed at critical junctures. India's doubts over the UDRS rest mostly on Hawkeye's accuracy in the assumption of heights. The use of vector graphics for 'projectile mapping' - predicting the course of the ball - does not, its cynics believe, take into account the variety of wicket conditions which changed daily. The ICC hopes that the next few months could be a 'turning point' for the UDRS. It maintains that studies have proved that the DRS system increases the percentage of correct decision-making from 92% to around 97%. A superior ball-tracker and a resolution over the Hot Spot cost issue could however lead to the system being used in India next season. That is, if the BCCI wants to find a way to squeeze in a home series in 2011, as the year is dominated by away tours for the Indian team. http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/481602.html

[nballa]

don't understand this. will only add fuel to the claim that we've been winning matches based on umpiring decisions. why not eliminate that point of argument by using technology?

[coffee_rules]

don't understand this. will only add fuel to the claim that we've been winning matches based on umpiring decisions. why not eliminate that point of argument by using technology?

There was UDRS in the series "you" lost recently.

[nballa]

There was UDRS in the series "you" lost recently.

we just beat aussies 2-0 without urds