Let's talk about the DRS

[Sid]

Hotspot picked the nick' date=' Billy[b'] Bowden missed it. Just goes to show no amount of technology can win over incompetence.

Doctrove :--D

[kabira]

Common Sense should have prevailed. Definately there was a nick, and BOD should go to batsman. But I think common sense is not common

[Gunner_Mania]

Nope' date=' nothing conclusive. I saw it, and yes commies were talking about it, but nothing conclusive enough. But in replays it looked pretty obvious. Also in snicko.[/quote'] You say nothing conclusive and then you say in replays it is obvious. Which one is it? Billy Bowden as a 3rd umpire should have picked up that hotspot nick in replays when it was obvious.

[ZodiaC]

You say nothing conclusive and then you say in replays it is obvious. Which one is it? Billy Bowden as a 3rd umpire should have picked up that hotspot nick in replays when it was obvious.

Hotspot didn't confirm the edge conclusively enough, though the replays showed deflection and the sound which made it pretty obvious that he nicked it.

[DomainK]

Thats okay. We can manage with a few mistakes. At least we dont see as many howlers as we used to see before. As I said before, it's not about eliminating all mistakes, but it's about minimizing them. We have already reduced the number of mistakes and we should be happy about that.

[Sachin=GOD]

Hotspot is the way forward and should be used in all series'. It looks like at the moment there does'nt seem to be much opposition to it from the players also.

[Ram]

Its ironical to see people (not referring to anyone in particular here, but the general crowd) question the validity of the Hot-spot, just because it doesn’t pick ALL of the edges. The remarkable thing is not that it doesn’t pick some of the tiny nicks, it is that we even have a technology that can enable us to detect upwards of 90% of all edges. The complexity of the technology that goes into making this a reality is staggering and lost on so many of the onlookers. If the only complaint people have against technology is that it is right only 95% of the time, then that is a complaint technology can live with. When someone like MSD questions the UDRS because he feels it is not right all of the time, I am not sure it is an opinion that is thrust upon him by some others, but they’re his own. But who ever feels that way, probably have a intelligence deficit in understand matters of technology. I am sure their opinion on UDRS, hot-spot and Snick would change if they just spent 30 mins talking with the guys who came up with gimmicks.

[cowboysfan]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T2GhXgDsGg]YouTube - Dougie's Hot Spot[/ame] /thread

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Vettori to Chigumbura, OUT, Captain gets captain first ball. Or has he? Elton reviews a potentially controversial lbw decision. Tossed up on middle, back of a length and it straightens. Here's the catch - Elton has charged a mile out of his crease. Ok, may be not a mile, but 2.5 metres for sure. The replays say it pitched on the line of the stumps, hit in front of middle as Elton misses the chip to the leg side. The potentially questionable predictive powers of Hawk-Eye (since he was well out of the crease) say it was hitting leg stump. It is back to umpire Erasmus, and he, like Billy Bowden the other day, sticks to his decision. Only, this time, it is out. where is the consistency? guy was miles down the pitch, and hawkeye showed that it was hitting leg. if u apply the rules of DRS, shouldnt this be not out? adulteration of technology,indeed

[Sid]

It was out becoz onfield umpire had given it out :haha:

[vvvslaxman]

basically EGO factor plays a big part. "I am always right" mentality of umpires. Learn from Harper :cantstop: We had something called Darrel Review System in the match between canada and Pakistan. He swallowed his pride and reversed his decision every single time.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

if the final decision, right or wrong, stands with onfield umpire, THEN WHY HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY at all!! technology is supposed to review incorrect decisions, there was a lot of doubt on this one as chigumbura was miles down the pitch. its clear that umpires havent got a clue how to use technology

[yoda]

When all sport can use technology without much controversy, leave it to Cricket to screw it up with all this extra BS of 2.5 m and whatever. LOL!

[DomainK]

Manny, there is consistency. In both decisions, the review could persuade the umpire to change his decision since the batsman was way too forward for hawk eye to predict correct. If the batsman is more than 2.5 meters away from the wicket, the decision goes back to the on field umpire.

[The Outsider]

How difficult is it to understand that Hawk Eye as a predictive tool loses it's accuracy as the distance to travel till impact with the stumps increases? You might say, why 2.5 meters and not 2.7 or 2.3, but then why is drinking legal at 21 and not at 22 or 19?

[ZodiaC]

Manny' date=' there is consistency. In both decisions, the review could persuade the umpire to change his decision since the batsman was way too forward for hawk eye to predict correct. If the batsman is more than 2.5 meters away from the wicket, the decision goes back to the on field umpire.[/quote']

How difficult is it to understand that Hawk Eye as a predictive tool loses it's accuracy as the distance to travel till impact with the stumps increases? You might say' date=' why 2.5 meters and not 2.7 or 2.3, but then why is drinking legal at 21 and not at 22 or 19?[/quote'] Yeah this.

[vvvslaxman]

Even though consistency is there still we cannot ignore the fact that UDRS was absolutely helpless on both occasions. So basically if a batsman is 2.5 meter outside the crease UDRS should not be used. So any time a review goes upstairs. THird umpire has to see if the batsman is 2.5 meter outside the crease. If he is outside the crease everything is out of the window. It is upto onfield umpire to make the call.

[yoda]

How difficult is it to understand that Hawk Eye as a predictive tool loses it's accuracy as the distance to travel till impact with the stumps increases? You might say' date=' why 2.5 meters and not 2.7 or 2.3, but then why is drinking legal at 21 and not at 22 or 19?[/quote'] Is there a write up on why this technology loses it's accuracy in Cricket specifically when compared to other sport like Tennis where it is used without any extra BS?

[coffee_rules]

But the 2.5 m rule should only be used as a guideline. UDRS should still be used to remove any doubt if they had initially. They should change the decision, when the predictive tool shows it is hitting low on the middle stump, even after the impact shows it to be 2.5 m away from stump. The CHigumbera decision was ridiculous to be called out originally and Bell's too to be called not out. Yuvraj bowling a dart, pitching well short, was not turning and was going to hit middle stump. If the umpire had given not out, he could have used the replay to change his decision. The 2.5m rule that leaves the final decision to the umpire and they being egotistic uses it to their advantage. That is my rant.

[kabira]

its fine if ball is hitting leg or off, or even just clipping balls, then we can say there is doubt/error. But what if ball is hitting freaking middle of middle stump..What then? What doubt is there??