DRS technology expensive, unreliable - Niranjan Shah

[Cricket Tragic]

So WI can afford to have UDRS for their series vs Pakistan, SL will use UDRS despite being in heavy losses but the richest board has a problem with the cost. There is more to it than the public stand BCCI is taking. First they talked about seniors being against it, then about its accuracy and now the cost. Probably the biggest issue is the ego of BCCI. The day hawkeye or virtual eye get into an agreement with BCCI, they will say yes to UDRS.

They didn't have Hot Spot though, did they?

[saneindian]

They didn't have Hot Spot though' date=' did they?[/quote'] Hot Spot is a different matter as those infra red cameras are limited in number (4 IIRC) and the production os such cameras is a long drawn process requiring governmental clearances. We can keep harping about the absence of hot spot or go with whatever is available to do away with the howlers. Anyways my point is more around BCCI vaccilating on this issue , first they said the players do not want it, then they said the system is not accurate and now they say cost is an issue. Quite clearly, they have made a decision and are being bull headed about it. The simple solution is ask the players what they want (majority are in favour, the likes of Sehwag, Dravid, VVS, Gambhir, Zaheer, Bhajji etc) and go with the majority view. Rest of the things will fall in place.

[Yoda-esque]

Its true.$60K per match is a ridiculously high number And if it is so expensive,I wonder how other boards are managing to afford it.

[akshayxyz]

1) 60k USD does not sound right. I remember reading elsewhere 5-6K per match. Anyway, regardless of the number, as others mentioned, if other boards can manage, then I see no reason why BCCI can't. 2) 2 reviews is too low a limit. After the reviews the umpires can 'compensate' for the corrected decisions. They should work out a process to review all doubtful decisions, or a more fair number than 2 decisions per innings. 3) I do not see why DRS can not be implemented with different choices of technology. DRS is decision referral process, hawkeye/hotspot are various technological options to aide the decision process- in addition to simple replays/slow-mos video footage. UDRS can be mandated while leaving the choice of technology to the individual boards. 4) Hawkeye/hotspot do not depend on nature of pitch. 5) Hawekeye, hotspot solve different problems. They do not compete, rather they complement each other to solve some common problems - e.g. LBWs.

[Blue-no1]

1. As I understand it DRS is still DRS even if Snicko and Hotspot are not used. So the boards will decide what will be used in each series 2. The companies doing DRS -HE, HS and Snicko are based in UK and Aussieland and can charge any amount for using it. Talk about capital drain from India. 3. The DRS cost will be billed to the broadcaster (read Indian companies). Most series are now profitable due to Indian viewership. So Indian broadcasters/ Indian public will pay for UDRS 4. The ICC can make UDRS mandatory- Standard system in all countries and ICC will pay for it 5. The ICC has made tons of money during the WC. Can it show its accounts? If the ICC HQ is in Dubai why is the conference in Hongkong? Free parties and slush funds?

[cowboysfan]

is the UDRS still viable if we ditch the hawkeye and include everything else?Indian players and officials seem extremely wary about the predictive technology they might be thinking that its really inaccurate for their spinners.

[cricketrulez]

So WI can afford to have UDRS for their series vs Pakistan, SL will use UDRS despite being in heavy losses but the richest board has a problem with the cost. There is more to it than the public stand BCCI is taking. First they talked about seniors being against it, then about its accuracy and now the cost. Probably the biggest issue is the ego of BCCI. The day hawkeye or virtual eye get into an agreement with BCCI, they will say yes to UDRS.

BCCI point is that the cost of UDRS for a year is ~15 million USD. Currently, ICC has ~70 million to distribute to its members. If ICC is going to pay for UDRS and the cost is borne euqlly by all boards, all the boards would get less money from ICC. The reason ICC would have to pay is because poor boards can't afford to pay for it themselves. S, what is the point of ICC reducing the amount of money they give to the boards to pay fro UDRS. OR may be the other boards are thinking let the bigger boards (read BCCI) pay for it for the whole year for everyone or a major part of it. No way will this be acceptable to the BCCI.

[Gotham Cronie]

HotSpot is very expensive. ICC has to pay for it if they make UDRS mandatory

I think the home board should have to pay. Very little of the revenue from bi-lateral series goes to the ICC from what I read on Cricinfo. They don't get a majority of the revenue so they shouldn't get a majority of the expenses.

[veer]

yeahh, first question is how did he come up with number 60,000... ? strange figure

[cricketrulez]

yeahh' date=' first question is how did he come up with number 60,000... ? strange figure[/quote'] Numbers have been corroborated by the guys who owns the Hot Spot. He posts on RSC. Also, this is the second time a BCCI official is quoting this number and no official body has challenged this number

[cricketrulez]

Its true.$60K per match is a ridiculously high number And if it is so expensive,I wonder how other boards are managing to afford it.

I think it is the "Try it for for a low price" deal. The price goes up after the trial offer

[cricketrulez]

Hot Spot is a different matter as those infra red cameras are limited in number (4 IIRC) and the production os such cameras is a long drawn process requiring governmental clearances. We can keep harping about the absence of hot spot or go with whatever is available to do away with the howlers. Anyways my point is more around BCCI vaccilating on this issue , first they said the players do not want it, then they said the system is not accurate and now they say cost is an issue. Quite clearly, they have made a decision and are being bull headed about it. The simple solution is ask the players what they want (majority are in favour, the likes of Sehwag, Dravid, VVS, Gambhir, Zaheer, Bhajji etc) and go with the majority view. Rest of the things will fall in place.

I don't think so. BCCI's stance has been that it is too expensive for what was essentially 1) a suspect, unvalidated technology in case of HE 2) not available every where tech in case of HS. ICC has been carefuil to not talk about how they will help the poor boards pay for UDRS. I think ICC's plan is to hang it around BCCI neck (~15 million USD per year).

[Chandan]

A good article by Siddharth Monga on UDRS: Let's talk about the DRS Never mind whether the BCCI is a bully; the real debate is whether the DRS is implementable in its current form, and whether it has moved too far away from its initial purpose of eliminating howlers Sidharth Monga June 26, 2011 As has been the case with cricket of late, a debate as important as the implementation of the Decision Review System (DRS) has degenerated to India v the world. The BCCI's my-way-or-the-highway approach and the shrill response from some of the other countries threatens to stand in the way of a reasonable discussion about the genuine issues regarding the DRS in its current form. Making DRS mandatory is a move that has huge consequences for the game, and we can't talk enough before implementing it. No matter how persuasive the argument for DRS is, no matter how heavy-handed the BCCI can sometimes be, in its present form the DRS needs discussion. On various levels. The first might be naïve, and can be got out of the way quickly. The DRS does not sit right with a sport that prides itself in fining people for showing dissent over umpire's decisions. And what of the poor bowlers; now they can't celebrate spontaneously, a raised finger no longer guarantees them a wicket. They have to watch the striker discuss painstakingly with the non-striker whether he looked not-out, and whether it would be fun to challenge the decision despite being plumb because he is the last recognised batsman. Such things are irritants, yes, but a crucial inside edge that wasn't spotted is a bigger problem for the public that pays to watch cricket. There are other issues, ones that concern the tools being used for the system, that should strike a chord, concerns also aired by Sambit Bal and a few informed blogs. At the heart of the argument lies the unease with the blurring lines between devices for entertainment and decision-making, with the broadcasters' licensees assuming the umpires' role, especially when the ICC neither pays nor controls them. The handling of ball-tacking technology by humans has produced some silly moments. One such example was when Virender Sehwag, quite symbolically, became the first batsman to be given lbw after a bowler challenged the original not-out decision. The ball had hit his front pad barely in front of leg stump, and then deviated onto the back pad in front of middle stump, but the tracking device failed to note that deflection and joined the dots directly, hardly evidence you would want to be hanged by. There are other examples, too, and the doubts specifically revolve around the predictive element of the technology. Neither of the two common brands of tracking technology, Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye, is perfect or immune to human mistakes. Our leap of faith, however, is absolute - so absolute that commentators and spectators have stopped using their brains. Virtual Eye admits that entertainment and decision-making are horses of two different colours. It prefers to provide the umpires with facts until the ball strikes the batsman, and then leave the rest to the on-field umpire, who knows which way and how hard the wind is blowing and how the pitch is behaving, better than the system whose camera is not even placed right behind the stumps. Hawk Eye is more optimistic about being able to replace the umpire, and is also keen to point out flaws with Virtual Eye. The BCCI remains unconvinced. Why the BCCI is not convinced is not clear, just like it is not clear how every now and then a projection looks improbable, or how it is perfect at 2.4 metres but unreliable at 2.5, how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full, or the bounce when a batsman is hit on a half-volley, or why we don't get to see simulations of some balls at all, or why - if it is used as an umpiring tool - it is not minded by the ICC and the ACSU, or why we have to blindly believe its accuracy and not assess it independently, or why the ICC doesn't say so if it has assessed it independently. All these doubts may seem like splitting hairs, complicating the game, but complicate is exactly what DRS in its current form does. The original purpose of the system wasn't to predict whether the ball would have clipped the leg bail. Its purpose was to spot edges (or their absence), balls pitched outside leg and balls hitting the batsman outside off when offering a shot for lbws. It was introduced for umpires who have trouble grasping basic umpiring rules, and for the odd big mistake made by the good officials. It wasn't meant to be a contest between Ian Gould reckoning that the offbreak would have hit leg stump and Hawk Eye's prediction that it would have missed it by centimetres. When the ICC meets in Hong Kong, it is pertinent that it establishes a distinction between entertainment and decision-making tools, and also reminds itself that the DRS' original purpose was to eliminate howlers. One of the howler-eliminating tools that the players - among them Sachin Tendulkar - and fans appreciate is Hot Spot, which is based more on fact than conjecture. Rare exceptions aside, it detects edges accurately, and enjoys more support from players than ball-tracking technology. Without Hot Spot, the DRS can be self-defeating. Consider, for example, Virat Kohli's caught behind dismissal down the leg side in the recent Sabina Park Test. Going by Kohli's reaction, he would have challenged the call had the DRS been available, or in India's case thrust upon them. The replays, however, were not conclusive either way because of a lack of technology. Such cases rob sides of reviews without actually proving them wrong, and lend validity to Tendulkar's view that the DRS is no good without Hot Spot. Which brings us to the important question: who will pay for Hot Spot? The ICC, which doesn't make much money from bilateral series, does not want to foot the bill because it might eat into its development budgets. The broadcasters have already paid exorbitantly to buy television rights. The home boards are not rushing to part with their profits. Still, these aren't valid reasons for waiving the minimum technology requirements for the implementation of the DRS. There are unconfirmed reports that when new broadcasting contracts are awarded, Hot Spot will be one of the minimum requirements, which is bound to reduce the value of television rights and affect the boards' revenues. Good luck convincing the BCCI to sell rights at a lower cost, and in countries where Test cricket doesn't invite lucrative TV deals. It will be nothing short of a coup if the ICC can ensure the availability of Hot Spot in every international match once every host country has signed new TV deals. It will be great common sense if ball-tracking technology is used only until the point of contact, so that we stay true to the original purpose of the DRS, which is to eliminate howlers. While on the subject of howlers, why stop the elimination of mistakes against a team after it has exhausted its two reviews? On one hand it seems fair punishment for a team's poor use of the system, but it remains denial of justice. It is impractical to ask the television umpire to review every decision, especially in not-out cases because the next ball is delivered quickly. Still, we need to keep looking for a way out. There are other teething issues that need to be discussed, for they have the potential to turn matches. In a World Cup game, India challenged an lbw call because the umpire's signal of leg-byes eliminated the only thing they thought could come in the way of the lbw: an inside edge. The replays showed an inside edge, the umpire went on to change leg-byes to runs, but India were docked one review, even though the umpire's error, established through replays, was what made them go for it. During another World Cup game, Abdur Razzak was given out lbw before he successfully reviewed the call, but while the ball was counted, the four leg-byes weren't, which is the current regulation. The team was deprived of a scoring opportunity by an umpiring decision, which was proved to be wrong. In tennis, such points are played again, and fairly so. The ICC is lucky that incident occurred at a relatively innocuous time. Imagine a similar situation with two runs required off the last ball of the World Cup final. These examples are anomalies and should have been dealt with at the first available opportunity. The first available opportunity was at the ICC cricket committee meeting soon after the World Cup. Did they even study such minor but potentially controversial incidents before passing the DRS in its current form? Nothing in life is perfect, though, and all these doubts about the DRS don't deny that, in principle, the system is good for cricket. Yet the ICC's - and the cricketing world's - obsession with getting India on board, as opposed to making the DRS as foolproof and as true to the cause as possible, is rather unhealthy. Perhaps part of the reason is the BCCI's unflattering reputation. Perhaps the BCCI's reasons for opposing the DRS in its current form are different from those stated above. You never know with the BCCI, do you? On the other hand, we have the rest of the world not open to discussion because it is the BCCI that is raising the issue against DRS. It is evident in how the otherwise terrific commentators in England and the West Indies have moaned more in the last month than they have discussed the DRS since its inception. Newspapers in England have written that India don't want the system because Tendulkar and MS Dhoni don't want to fall lbw to Graeme Swann when not offering shots. Go figure. To misquote Elvis Presley, we need a little more conversation … "all this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me." ------------------------- Some very valid questions raised in the article which the pro UDRS journalists and fans are tending to avoid. If nothing, this issue does derserve a positive, constructive debate without any bias to move forward.

[CSK Fan]

A good article by Siddharth Monga on UDRS: Let's talk about the DRS ------------------------- Some very valid questions raised in the article which the pro UDRS journalists and fans are tending to avoid. If nothing, this issue does derserve a positive, constructive debate without any bias to move forward.

But Chandan, isnt the point of debate that all other boards, excluding BCCI, do want DRS and only BCCI is using its power to stop them? How much right should one board have to oppose what everyone else wants just because its rich and powerful? Whether DRS is right or wrong is only secondary

[Chandan]

But Chandan' date=' isnt the point of debate that all other boards, excluding BCCI, do want DRS and only BCCI is using its power to stop them? How much right should one board have to oppose what everyone else wants just because its rich and powerful? Whether DRS is right or wrong is only secondary[/quote'] If ONLY BCCI is opposing it, it will be isolated in the final voting, no? And whether DRS is wrong or right is not secondary but the first thing for us to discuss. Is it taking cricket forward indeed? It is removing the bad decisions? Is it benefitting cricket? These questions should be the first questions to be debated. If the answer is yes, then one can go on asking how. I personally remember quite a number of incidents in the short history of UDRS where things have gone awefully wrong and instead of sorting out the matter, it has confused players, umpires and public even more. So clearly it is a work in progress and far from even 97% that ICC is quoting. Should we not UDRS just for that? No. I think we should use it. But after sorting out the unreliable HE and VE first, making hotspot available in every match, also after addressing the teething problems and sorting them out after every match rather than waiting for the end of the tournament. Read this blog and its excellent points about UDRS: BCCI is for it or against it hardly such a contentious matter that everyone is making out to be.

[The Outsider]

1. The handling of ball-tacking technology by humans has produced some silly moments. One such example was when Virender Sehwag, quite symbolically, became the first batsman to be given lbw after a bowler challenged the original not-out decision. The ball had hit his front pad barely in front of leg stump, and then deviated onto the back pad in front of middle stump, but the tracking device failed to note that deflection and joined the dots directly, hardly evidence you would want to be hanged by.

The fault lies with an incomplete and incorrect application of technology - when the deflection off the front pad is clearly visible, that line of impact should be chosen. Like any other technology, basic common sense should not be sidelined.

2. It prefers to provide the umpires with facts until the ball strikes the batsman, and then leave the rest to the on-field umpire, who knows which way and how hard the wind is blowing and how the pitch is behaving, better than the system whose camera is not even placed right behind the stumps.

Above shows a clear lack of understanding of how an extrapolation software works. The wind speed and pitch behavior are already accounted for in the extrapolation. Hawk Eye does nothing more than what the human brain and eye does - predict where the ball would have gone if it had not been intercepted. By simple Newton's laws of motion, the only thing it needs is the position and velocity of the ball at the point of impact to make the extrapolation.

3. Why the BCCI is not convinced is not clear, just like it is not clear how every now and then a projection looks improbable, or how it is perfect at 2.4 metres but unreliable at 2.5,

Again, the writer shows a gross misunderstanding of how any technology works. It is not that Hawk Eye is 100% accurate at 2.4 meters and 0% at 2.5 meters. Any technology has an optimum range in which it works best. For example, batteries don't work optimally in cold weather - that does not mean there is a temperature at which they stop functioning altogether from an optimal efficiency. It's a temperature gradient. Like the speed limit is chosen as 25 mph in city zones because there is a 15% chance of someone getting killed at that speed which increases to 80% at 40 mph. Or the drinking age is set as 21 - does not mean your body and psyche is incapable of handling a drink at 20 years 364 days and all of a sudden becomes capable.

4. how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full, or the bounce when a batsman is hit on a half-volley,

Refer to point number 2 about how an extrapolation software works - if the travel path is not enough before impact, Hawk Eye might not have enough data points to be accurate, but then neither does a human being.

5. It will be great common sense if ball-tracking technology is used only until the point of contact, so that we stay true to the original purpose of the DRS, which is to eliminate howlers.

How will howlers like the ball flying over the stumps or sliding down leg side be eliminated without using predictive technology?

6. While on the subject of howlers, why stop the elimination of mistakes against a team after it has exhausted its two reviews? On one hand it seems fair punishment for a team's poor use of the system, but it remains denial of justice.

Denial of justice? WTF! If a batsman is calling for a review after hitting the cover off the ball in the hope that Hot Spot might not have detected it, there should be no penalty? If the number of reviews are not restricted, then we will see actual cases of dissent which the writer is talking about earlier rather than polite reviews of decisions.

7. There are other teething issues that need to be discussed, for they have the potential to turn matches. In a World Cup game, India challenged an lbw call because the umpire's signal of leg-byes eliminated the only thing they thought could come in the way of the lbw: an inside edge. The replays showed an inside edge, the umpire went on to change leg-byes to runs, but India were docked one review, even though the umpire's error, established through replays, was what made them go for it.

It's simple - the umpire should wait to give his decision on leg byes till the team has decided whether they are going to review the decision. And once the umpire has made such a signal, it should be too late for the team to review it. If it is indeed a howler, the team would have noticed it and are not hedging their bets based on the umpire's signal.

8. During another World Cup game, Abdur Razzak was given out lbw before he successfully reviewed the call, but while the ball was counted, the four leg-byes weren't, which is the current regulation. The team was deprived of a scoring opportunity by an umpiring decision, which was proved to be wrong. In tennis, such points are played again, and fairly so. The ICC is lucky that incident occurred at a relatively innocuous time. Imagine a similar situation with two runs required off the last ball of the World Cup final.

That's the only valid argument in the entire article - and something which can be easily addressed by having a uniform regulation defined for the situation.

[Ram]

^ Great post! A must read for all those sceptical of technology! Btw - ICC has clarified saying the DRS costs about $5000/day and a max of $25,000/test. That sounds a lot more plausible and believable. Shah was quoting a sum of $60,000/day. $60,000? WTF! Are they hiring the Queen to operate the cameras? :WTF:

[Silva]

Anybody find it odd that the richest board in the world is the only one complaining about the price?

[kabira]

There is no problem with hawkeye, it does better and consistent job than any human eye can do. Only issue is interpretation. Umpire gives not out to Cook against Zaheer Khan, we review it, and its found that just clipping hte leg stump, so on field umpire decision stands. Now Sehwag is given out against Anderson. he reviews it, its found its just clipping the leg stump, so on field umpire decision stands.. now thats where its inconsistent. Both the situation is same here. only differnce is umpire's perception. The whole idea is to get rid of that perception and use technology. So both should be either out or not out. I would say Not out, since benefit of doubt should always go to the bowler

[yoda]

BCCI + Dhoni + Sachin are just plain stupid. There are just 2 umpires who are better than Hawkeye and we all know who they are. To argue against Hawkeye just because it is not 100% is about as dumb as it gets.