Let's talk about the DRS

[Lord]

they should use both.its ridiculous they dont use Snicko even wen its there.

[The Outsider]

they should use both.its ridiculous they dont use Snicko even wen its there.

Snicko takes a long time to process though. It's not practical to wait 5-10 minutes. Wonder why vortex is not demanding independent third party studies and reports for his favorite Hot Spot. :winky:

[asterix]

This is a conspiracy by HE Cartel.. :hitler: PS: No technology is accurate and we have to consider allowances.

[Ram]

Hotspot+Hawkeye+Snicko are probably as good as we can get, in terms technology aids to umpiring. Of course they wont be a 100% accurate, but when is technology that depends on predictive analysis ever flawless? There will be occasions when technology contradicts reality, but is the norm and not the exception. Assuming you have already reconciled with the use of technology in umpiring, people shouldn’t really be complaining about the accuracy of hawkeye/hotspot. For them, the only things that is left for them is to probably wire the batsmen with polygraphs and measure the neuron reactions every time its thought they nicked/gloved a ball. :D Hopefully, we can some technology aide that will relieve the umpires of the burden of watching out for front-foot no-balls. I sincerely believe that umpiring errors will be significantly cut, if it wasn’t upto the umpires to check for no balls and then immediately focus their attention to the action at the striking end.

[ZodiaC]

Snicko takes a long time to process though. It's not practical to wait 5-10 minutes. Wonder why vortex is not demanding independent third party studies and reports for his favorite Hot Spot. :winky:

:giggle: Hawk eye has been reasonably accurate, unlike hot spot, which is as good as paki batsmen in picking thin edges. It seems to be seriously flawed from what I've seen so far. Seriously ICC need to reconsider the usage of hotspot.

[ZodiaC]

Hopefully, we can some technology aide that will relieve the umpires of the burden of watching out for front-foot no-balls. I sincerely believe that umpiring errors will be significantly cut, if it wasn’t upto the umpires to check for no balls and then immediately focus their attention to the action at the striking end.

Good point. I second it too.

[thevortex]

Snicko takes a long time to process though. It's not practical to wait 5-10 minutes. Wonder why vortex is not demanding independent third party studies and reports for his favorite Hot Spot. :winky:

Oh, I unflinchingly ask for that too, Outsider :). The day they implement a system where the output of Hot Spot decides the fate of a batsman, you can rest assured I will raise a hue and cry. This is nothing new. We dont have technology which is error-free. Lets just accept it and move on. We need the UDRS. And we must all remember that these tools such as Hawkeye and Hot Spot are just that - tools. If not these, then there would be more. Idle passion on these tools rather than the system are, in my opinion, totally misplaced. Lets better the tools instead of trying to defend them above and beyond their imperfections.

[Clarke]

I have my doubts about hotspot. The second referral that England used for a caught behind against Haider seemed to show a minute deflection in slow motion while hotspot showed nothing. Not sure why some of the mistakes of the umpires and the system are blatantly ignored while others are discussed at length.

[nballa]

hotspot will not work in india. i believe it works on the principle of heat detection. but when its surrounded by 40 degree heat all the way around it will go bonkers.

[Serani]

It works fine in Australia which is pretty hot.

[The Outsider]

Oh, I unflinchingly ask for that too, Outsider :). The day they implement a system where the output of Hot Spot decides the fate of a batsman, you can rest assured I will raise a hue and cry.

Huh? Hot Spot is already being used in decision making.

This is nothing new. We dont have technology which is error-free. Lets just accept it and move on.

Yeah, technology is not error free and efforts must be made to improve it. However, on all evidence it is much better than the umpires.

[thevortex]

Huh? Hot Spot is already being used in decision making. Yeah, technology is not error free and efforts must be made to improve it. However, on all evidence it is much better than the umpires.

HotSpot's use in decision making is not that of a decision maker. Hawkeye though - in certain situations - virtually and literally makes the decisions. Right there, there is a difference. But the point is this. UDRS is important. Just get over individual tools. If they are not there, then let newer, better tools come on. We deserve the best. Our game deserves the best. There is absolutely no point getting hung over one or two tools.

[saneindian]

HotSpot's use in decision making is not that of a decision maker. Hawkeye though - in certain situations - virtually and literally makes the decisions. Right there, there is a difference. But the point is this. UDRS is important. Just get over individual tools. If they are not there, then let newer, better tools come on. We deserve the best. Our game deserves the best. There is absolutely no point getting hung over one or two tools.

The start of use of one simple innovation in 1992 (the TV umpire) changed cricket so much. Initially the cameras used were not of the greatest quality, yet on so many occassions it helped take the correct decision. There were times when this technology was found to be imperfect, yet the fact that it helped improve the %age of correct decisions being made made watching cricket a better experience. SImilarly despite all their faults, new age technology like hawkeye and hotspot are helping in improving the entire deciison making process of giving a batsman out. Its adding a new dimension to the game and deserves to be used everywhere in all forms of the game. If they can continue to improve the technology to help it become error proof , fantastic, it's anywayd doing good to the game.

[DomainK]

The start of use of one simple innovation in 1992 (the TV umpire) changed cricket so much. Initially the cameras used were not of the greatest quality, yet on so many occassions it helped take the correct decision. There were times when this technology was found to be imperfect, yet the fact that it helped improve the %age of correct decisions being made made watching cricket a better experience. SImilarly despite all their faults, new age technology like hawkeye and hotspot are helping in improving the entire deciison making process of giving a batsman out. Its adding a new dimension to the game and deserves to be used everywhere in all forms of the game. If they can continue to improve the technology to help it become error proof , fantastic, it's anywayd doing good to the game.

Good post. Some of us need to be less paranoid about the small deficiencies. Technology can not eliminate all errors, but it can minimize errors to a a great extent which is otherwise impossible. Thats good enough. The attempt here is not to be perfect but to be better.

[b555]

and most of all make matches more competitive

[ZodiaC]

Good post. Some of us need to be less paranoid about the small deficiencies. Technology can not eliminate all errors' date=' but it can minimize errors to a a great extent which is otherwise impossible. Thats good enough. The attempt here is not to be perfect but to be better.[/quote'] Yep, that's allright, but in some instances, the nick is quite evident but hotspot fails to pick it. Like Nasser says, if ad stickers prevents hotspot from picking the edge, then it's a massive flaw, don't you think?

[panesarv]

It makes 1 or 2 bad decisions, which is okay in my opinion. There will always be times when the edge is so slight that no one can tell, in some cases, maybe not even the batsman.

[thevortex]

The start of use of one simple innovation in 1992 (the TV umpire) changed cricket so much. Initially the cameras used were not of the greatest quality, yet on so many occassions it helped take the correct decision. There were times when this technology was found to be imperfect, yet the fact that it helped improve the %age of correct decisions being made made watching cricket a better experience. SImilarly despite all their faults, new age technology like hawkeye and hotspot are helping in improving the entire deciison making process of giving a batsman out. Its adding a new dimension to the game and deserves to be used everywhere in all forms of the game. If they can continue to improve the technology to help it become error proof , fantastic, it's anywayd doing good to the game.

I think in an old thread I have dealt with any sort of comparisons between these 'new-age' technologies such as Hawkeye and Hot Spot with the original common-sensical technologies like the introduction of the 3rd umpire with TV replays. There is just no comparison. The TV showed the reality. It just slowed it up. That is NOT the same as inventing reality. Or making a guess at it. This is why I still say out of the two I would still prefer Hot Spot over Hawkeye. Players do too.

[Feed]

Though India comprehensively lost their tri-series match against Sri Lanka here, they were distinctly unlucky to be at the receiving end of at least four dodgy decisions on Sunday. More... India at receiving end of four dodgy decisions Press Trust of India 22 August 2010 (Dambulla) | Though India comprehensively lost their tri-series match against Sri Lanka here, they were distinctly unlucky to be at the receiving end of at least four dodgy decisions on Sunday. While Yuvraj Singh, the lone Indian batsman who put up a semblance of a fight with 38, appeared to be the worst case, Suresh Raina, Dinesh Karthik and Virender Sehwag were the other batsmen who got dubious decisions. While television replays in the case of Yuvraj LBW decision showed the ball would have missed the stump, the decisions on the other three batsmen were not conclusive enough. Of the four decisions that come under the scanner, three were given by local umpire Kumar Dharmasena, while Pakistani Asad Rauf gave one. Former India Test player Arun Lal, who was at the commentary box when Raina was given out caught behind, said, "We did not hear any sound and there was none in the snickometer also." His co-commentator Ranil Abeynaike, a former Sri Lankan player, also said that the Indians were unlucky. "They were unlucky. They have been affected by some bad decisions of the umpires. But what can you do," he said. At the post-match press conference, asked about the umpiring decisions, Sri Lankan captain Kumar Sangakkara said if any side wants to get a fair deal then Decision Referral System should be applied in every match. "The only reason I believe why we did not have referral system throughout the Test series and through this series was because India did not want the referrals. If everything has to be fair use technology. Make it even. The ICC should make DRS compulsory in all matches," he said.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --