ICC pushes again for DRS, BCCI says no

[1983-2011]

The ICC's Chief Executives Committee (CEC) has reiterated its commitment to the Decision Review System becoming mandatory in international cricket, recommending it to the Executive Board following fresh and successful testing of DRS technology. However, the BCCI - which has long opposed DRS - immediately responded by saying its stand remained unchanged, putting the proposal into serious doubt. For the record, the ICC also decided to include Hot Spot cameras as part of the mandatory requirements for the DRS; they had been made mandatory following the 2011 ICC conference in June, but were taken off the list in October. The recommendation to the ICC Board came with one rider: the application will be "subject to the Members' ability to finance and obtain the required technology." The CEC stated it was "satisfied" with the improvements made over the two key components of DRS technology. These include the new Hot Spot cameras as well as the independent ball-tracking research conducted by Dr Ed Rosten, a Cambridge University department of engineering expert in computer-vision technology. Rosten, the ICC said, had "tested the accuracy and reliability of ball-tracking in a recent Test series and concluded that the results were 100% in agreement with the outcomes produced from his assessments." All of this was undermined by the BCCI's statement, which came within a couple of hours of the ICC's decision. "The BCCI continues to believe that the system is not foolproof," it said. "It also sticks to its view that the decision on whether or not to use the DRS for a particular series should be left to the boards involved in that series." The reaction contradicted the wording of the ICC's release, which said recommendations by the CEC were said to be "unanimous". Yet it is understood that the CEC had been explained India's "unreadiness" to use the technology as a whole, and the matter would rest with the ICC Board when it meets on Tuesday and Wednesday. The BCCI have been the strongest opponents of the DRS, its president N Srinivasan saying that the system would only be supported when it was "100 percent error free." Srinivasan, who arrived in Kuala Lumpur by chartered flight, was not present at Monday's meeting - the BCCI was represented by secretary Sanjay Jagdale - but will be sitting in on the ICC Board when the CEC's recommendations are discussed. The member nations supporting the DRS are also believed to have told the ICC that they would like it to sort out the grey areas - over the nature, quantity and costs of the DRS - through the selling of centralised global DRS rights to a single sponsor. Most full member nations have indicated that they would like the ICC to take ownership of the DRS, as it has of neutral umpiring. It is a suggestion that will give the technology providers of DRS technology some solace, as the technology upgrade required to become part of the game's rule book is far more expensive and sophisticated than the original aim with which the technology was provided to cricket broadcasters: to merely be part of the television-watching experience. The ICC cricket committee's suggestion pertaining to the lbw regulation under DRS has also been approved. Under the LBW rule, the 'margin of uncertainty' regarding the point of impact with the batsman will be the same as that provided for the point of impact with the stumps. The CEC has also endorsed recommendations regarding the Powerplays and passed them on to the executive board for its approval. These involve bowling Powerplays to be restricted to the first 10 overs and a batting Powerplay of five overs chosen and completed before the start of the 41st over. Similarly, a maximum of four fielders are to be allowed outside the 30-yard circle in the non-Powerplay overs and the number of permitted short-pitched balls should increase from one per over to two. The CEC supported the promotion of day-night Test cricket, "with the approval of both participating teams" and with the usage of a "suitable ball" as recommended by the cricket committee. The CEC stated that both Test and ODI cricket should push for "extra context" through the promotion of the ICC's World Test Championship, which is currently struggling to find support in the broadcast industry, and a full qualification process for the 2015 ICC Cricket World Cup, which must tackle opposition to lower-ranked Full Member nations looking for automatic entry into a 10-team World Cup. The ICC CEC is made up of chief executives of the 10 Full Member nations, and three associate member representatives. The CEC meetings are chaired by the ICC Chief Executive and can include the ICC president and the chairman of the ICC cricket committee, in this case Clive Lloyd. The ICC's Executive Board, which will study these recommendations, comprises the chairman or president of each of the 10 Full Member nations, plus three elected Associate Member representatives, the ICC President who chairs proceedings, the ICC Vice-President, the chief executive and then by invitation, the ICC principal advisor. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/569949.html

[Lord]

pathetic

[Crookbond]

BCCI pushes for IPL, ICC says no :shot:

[Marut]

So ICC not equals BCCI?

[Clarke]

The CEC stated it was "satisfied" with the improvements made over the two key components of DRS technology. These include the new Hot Spot cameras as well as the independent ball-tracking research conducted by Dr Ed Rosten, a Cambridge University department of engineering expert in computer-vision technology. Rosten, the ICC said, had "tested the accuracy and reliability of ball-tracking in a recent Test series and concluded that the results were 100% in agreement with the outcomes produced from his assessments."

Game Set Match. But then the BCCI (and some of the country) is run by a bunch of ignorant hacks with their own priorities. Why bother with the facts or the truth when you can afford to park a plane at the venue's airport :finger:

[ganeshran]

Boards who shout at the top of their throats about why DRS is needed, quietly shy away from implementing it when it hits their pockets. then they whine in public about how ICC should pay for the technology. BCCI should support DRS but shouldnt really finance DRS for other boards/series, If they are that serious about DRS, let them put their money where their mouth is.

[Ultimate_Game]

Boards who shout at the top of their throats about why DRS is needed, quietly shy away from implementing it when it hits their pockets. then they whine in public about how ICC should pay for the technology. BCCI should support DRS but shouldnt really finance DRS for other boards/series, If they are that serious about DRS, let them put their money where their mouth is.

Yes, BCCI shouldn't put money for DRS implementation across the board. I wouldn't want BCCI to subsidize DRS for say SL-Pak series Let Loins and Pakis pay for the cost. But at the same time BCCI has to have DRS for India's games, especially at hme. India has a spin based attack and India's bowlers need all the help they can get, and arguably DRS should help them much more than the likes of Eng, Aus or SA. It's one thing to not pay or subsidise the usage of DRS across the board but another point altogether when you simply bury your head in sand and don't have DRS even at home against likes of Eng and Aus. It ends up harming India in the long run as we will struggle to win at home without DRS as opposing batsmen would get plenty of LBWs in their favor while facing our spin attack.

[cricketrulez]

Game Set Match. But then the BCCI (and some of the country) is run by a bunch of ignorant hacks with their own priorities. Why bother with the facts or the truth when you can afford to park a plane at the venue's airport :finger:

Talk about gullible! all you have is a statement from a no name expert. Did they even do any testing? how was the testing done? who controlled what? ICC should make that data available to public if they want to convince BCCI. If the evidence is as strong as suggested then making it available tot he public will really put pressure on BCCI to support DRS. Unitil than ICC should STFU!

[Clarke]

Talk about gullible! all you have is a statement from a no name expert. Did they even do any testing? how was the testing done? who controlled what? ICC should make that data available to public if they want to convince BCCI. If the evidence is as strong as suggested then making it available tot he public will really put pressure on BCCI to support DRS. Unitil than ICC should STFU!

What's your inference from the limited information in the article ? They just pulled out a name of a Cambridge professor & the geniuses @ BCCI provided scientific evidence to counter that ? I'll simply accept what the article says for now, that a professor of one of the best univs worldwide has done research on the topic and the BCCI spews out the same old garbage in a couple of hours. You are free to disagree on that but its not like they produced TOI verbage "respectable sources from a reputed institution" for me to be gullible in accepting what's stated. FYI, this *testing* isn't something that popped out of nowhere: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/553178.html

[cricketrulez]

What's your inference from the limited information in the article ? They just pulled out a name of a Cambridge professor & the geniuses @ BCCI provided scientific evidence to counter that ? It is still a statement from a professor from Cambridge and nothing more I'll simply accept what the article says for now, that a professor of one of the best univs worldwide has done research on the topic and the BCCI spews out the same old garbage in a couple of hours. You are free to disagree on that but its not like they produced TOI verbage "respectable sources from a reputed institution" for me to be gullible in accepting what's stated. I'll be convinced when they produce test data to the public. Anything short of that is voodoo FYI, this *testing* isn't something that popped out of nowhere: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/553178.html

The last link you provided has no information about the testing protocol. where are thy going to test it how are the going to test it? how are they going to decide if it is acceptable? It simply states that they plan to implement independent testing. This brings up another question. why did they opt to use it in the first place w/o independent testing?

[Clarke]

The last link you provided has no information about the testing protocol. where are thy going to test it how are the going to test it? how are they going to decide if it is acceptable? It simply states that they plan to implement independent testing. This brings up another question. why did they opt to use it in the first place w/o independent testing?

Testing protocol :hysterical: What else would you like, source code to ensure it wasn't a conspiracy by ICC ? As per your last question, you should have bothered to read.

How do you respond to the accusation that you should have arranged independent testing before implementation? We were satisfied with the testing we did. We tested the accuracy as far as we could, and to an extent it showed that the technology was at least accurate and reliable enough for it to be used in the manner that we have used it. A lot of people have misgivings about DRS because they are misled by what they see on TV or from their particular angle of sight. People see a replay on TV and say, "That looks as if it was hitting leg stump." But then Hawk-Eye shows it just missing and you say to yourself, "That just cannot be." But what people don't realise is that the camera for the slow-motion replay might not have been behind the bowler's arm. There are three cameras in a row and the one used for slow-motion replays is one of the ones on the side. So, often the picture you see on your TV screen is slightly misleading. The Hawk-Eye cameras are set-up and calibrated perfectly to ensure they provide accurate results. We need to provide the evidence to prove that [people] should trust the evidence provided by the ball-tracking technology, not what they might see on television.

[cricketrulez]

Testing protocol :hysterical: Have you never heard of that term? Do you always blandly accept whatever you are told? What else would you like, source code to ensure it wasn't a conspiracy by ICC ? Since you are willing to take their word, how do you think they tested it? As per your last question, you should have bothered to read.

You mean this word salad? "We were satisfied with the testing we did. We tested the accuracy as far as we could, and to an extent it showed that the technology was at least accurate and reliable enough for it to be used in the manner that we have used it" If they were confident enough to implement it why not release the test and test results? Read this thread on RSC. JZF did a pretty good job http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/c9722097a771fb68/c89c0144efb3f3ca?lnk=gst&q=cricketrulez#c89c0144efb3f3ca

[SLICKR392]

Lol..I still remember Harper's interview in Star Cricket where he was blaming the accuracy of hawkeye and before he could finish talking about it...they cut it off and never talked about it in Cricket extra or whatever that pre/post match show was. Sneeko is the best IMO...but it takes time. If there is a slight nick and the hot spot fails to show, thus the umpires gives it Out or Not Out, it will (and has) [Dravid's dismissal] end up becoming a huge controversy.

[Cabinet96]

Boards who shout at the top of their throats about why DRS is needed, quietly shy away from implementing it when it hits their pockets. then they whine in public about how ICC should pay for the technology. BCCI should support DRS but shouldnt really finance DRS for other boards/series, If they are that serious about DRS, let them put their money where their mouth is.

But many boards just can't afford it. Sri Lanka couldn't even pay their players, how an earth should they be expected to pay for DRS? I've read articles that indicate the ICC get quite a big profit every year, therefore, surely they should be the ones who have to pay for it? There's no point the ICC saying they want in mandatory if A) Not every team can afford it because the ICC won't fund it and B) If they back down simply because India are against it.

[Clarke]

Have you never heard of that term? Do you always blandly accept whatever you are told?

I have a certain level of trust from certain institutions. Do you test effin everything out there to believe anything ? Like the laws of quantum mechanics ? When exactly do you trust the numbers published when you dispute them as you do below ? Why do you accept umpires who do not pass through a trial by fire before they are selected on the elite panel ? Right next to the hawkeye ? That's one test for which i really wanna see the results.

Since you are willing to take their word, how do you think they tested it?

I would guess comparing the actual path of a delivery vs the projected path by the technology.

You mean this word salad? If they were confident enough to implement it why not release the test and test results? Read this thread on RSC. JZF did a pretty good job

So MCC ~ corrupt fools who got all their math & ethics wrong and JZF is our savior who is actually unsure about the math. What's the crux of your argument ? There's strong likelyhood of a conspiracy here wherein they're hoping to shove a faulty & expensive piece of junk down the throat of all cricket boards & fans and they're all dumb to adopt it, except for the BCCI ? One can easily use Cambridge University to push forward their agenda ? Sony Corporation doesn't understand tech to acquire hawk eye & so the same goes with the ATP to use it ?

[cricketrulez]

But many boards just can't afford it. Sri Lanka couldn't even pay their players' date=' how an earth should they be expected to pay for DRS? I've read articles that indicate the ICC get quite a big profit every year, therefore, surely they should be the ones who have to pay for it? There's no point the ICC saying they want in mandatory if A) Not every team can afford it because the ICC won't fund it and B) If they back down simply because India are against it.[/quote'] ICC is a non profit organization. they distribute available funds to smaller boards. If they pay for DRS they would have less money to distribute. how does that help the smaler boards? SO Icc is going to hit the bigger boards (read BCCI) So you are correct. Money is a big unspoken issue why BCCI is against it.

[cricketrulez]

I have a certain level of trust from certain institutions. Good for you. I for one don't trust the salesman's pitch if he can't show me proof of his claims Do you test effin everything out there to believe anything ? If I'm going to pay for it, you bet your ass. do you buy a car w/o test driving it? Do you buy any electronics w/o multiple independent reviews Like the laws of quantum mechanics ? I make a living experimentally testing/verifying claims made by quantum mechanics. When exactly do you trust the numbers published when you dispute them as you do below ? If and when they provide prof of their claims. Has HE or ICC shown any proof their claims? LAst check their testing was done using bowling machines. frickin bowling machines Why do you accept umpires who do not pass through a trial by fire before they are selected on the elite panel ? Right next to the hawkeye ? That's one test for which i really wanna see the results. Did you see he world cup semifinal at all? As far as human vs software for interpretting visual data read this post by in RSC by Bharat. https://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/d2a735236f61fa8b/e59e2eda3e95e0ea?lnk=gst&q=cricketrulez#e59e2eda3e95e0ea The guy works for siemens medical imaging and had to use human interpretations to teach the software what to look for. Here is the money quote (How did we solve it? Used a machine learning based approach, having expert echocardiographers contour over a 1000 different echo images, and having our system learn how to draw the border based on image processing primitives, coupled with tracking over the video to correct errors. This was major research, and while the Hawkeye folks may have done it, I haven't seen anything like it. See check out http://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-082.pdf if anyone want gory details.) In case you questioning his credentials, read this. http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_r-bharat-rao-named-inventor-of-the-year_1008377 I would guess comparing the actual path of a delivery vs the projected path by the technology. So why not show that information to the public? It has been about 4 years of fighting about this! So MCC ~ corrupt fools who got all their math & ethics wrong and JZF is our savior who is actually unsure about the math. JZF did the legwork and was able verify that quoted accuracy from sales brochure is far from acceptable. He presented this information for every one to see. what do you have from MCC/ICC or HE? What's the crux of your argument ? There's strong likelyhood of a conspiracy here wherein they're hoping to shove a faulty & expensive piece of junk down the throat of all cricket boards & fans and they're all dumb to adopt it, except for the BCCI ? Bingo! the audience get a nice little graphic and they fall for it hook line and sinker. given how little needs to be done ICC/HE/MCC needs to do to shut the skeptics up and the fact that they haven't done it in 4 years makes me question their motives. One can easily use Cambridge University to push forward their agenda ? Sony Corporation doesn't understand tech to acquire hawk eye & so the same goes with the ATP to use it ?

1) ATP doesn't use predictive aspect. they only rely on what actually happened and not what might have happened. There is also the aspect of how far the measurements were made from, what frame rates are used. Add to the fact the inherent differences of the impact of the calls on the game. you are comparing apple and oranges. You have to agree that ICC/MCC/HE have released very little proof to shut the critics up. that said, I'll grant that money aspect is a major reason why BCCI has not agreed to mandatory DRS (not that they can't afford it. they don't want to subsidize it for the rest of the boards). I don't blame them for it

[Precambrian]

I am quite sure if needed we can find a universal sponsor for UDRS. 100,000 USD a match right? 50 tests on avg played in a year = 5 million USD per year. Also by universally adopting this, ICC can bargain for discounts as well, so the cost should come down.

[cricketrulez]

I am quite sure if needed we can find a universal sponsor for UDRS. 100' date='000 USD a match right? 50 tests on avg played in a year = 5 million USD per year. Also by universally adopting this, ICC can bargain for discounts as well, so the cost should come down.[/quote'] try telling that to SL and Pak.They had drs when they played Eng becos Eng/english tv channels paid for it. when they played/playing each other no drs becos of funding. ICC has $70 million to distribute per year to all boards. If they pay for udrs they wil have less money to distribute to cricket development. If it is that easy to find sponsos why the hell is every board waiting to play bcci to cancel their debts?

[ganeshran]

I am quite sure if needed we can find a universal sponsor for UDRS. 100' date='000 USD a match right? 50 tests on avg played in a year = 5 million USD per year. Also by universally adopting this, ICC can bargain for discounts as well, so the cost should come down.[/quote'] Universal sponsors won't work. What if they are in competition with the broadcaster's sponsors? Each broadcaster would have to find their own sponsors for the technology and this is what the boards are finding it difficult.