ICC pushes again for DRS, BCCI says no

[cricketrulez]

I am all for UDRS. But reading this regarding testing based on 14 deliveries!! Is that a joke?? And the propaganda to say it was tested by Cambridge University :shakehead: I really come to think someone has an agenda (and financial interests) to push through this Hawkeye system.

Bingo!

[cricketrulez]

Here is post from Random Aussie on "board that cannot be named". He is far from a BCCI fan. Actually he is the exact opposite and he and I have had strong sometimes nasty disagreements. but I couldn't have put it any better. "I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few. But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce. The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense." since I have been banned from that board for rubbing it in over the Asif drug affair I can't tip my hat for RA over there. But here is a tip of the hat here at ICF!

[The Outsider]

Does anyone know what's the hitch in implementing DRS without Hawk Eye? Just having Hot Spot (when available), slow motion replays, and a visual mat on the pitch showing where the ball pitched and hit would eliminate most of the terrible decisions anyway.

[ganeshran]

Does anyone know what's the hitch in implementing DRS without Hawk Eye? Just having Hot Spot (when available), slow motion replays, and a visual mat on the pitch showing where the ball pitched and hit would eliminate most of the terrible decisions anyway.

Even Hotspot is not needed IMO, the pitch mat and slow mo would be far cheaper, less contentious and most probably acceptable to all. If an edge is so faint that only hotspot picks it up and there is no visible deflection or clear sound, would it even come under the category of a howler that the DRS claims to prevent.

[goggi]

Even Hotspot is not needed IMO' date=' the pitch mat and[b'] slow mo would be far cheaper, less contentious and most probably acceptable to all. If an edge is so faint that only hotspot picks it up and there is no visible deflection or clear sound, would it even come under the category of a howler that the DRS claims to prevent.

This is what saddens me at the shear incompetence and lack of practicality at ICC and all the national boards! It's like there is no common sense applied during these ICC meetings. Everyone from ECB, CA, BCCI to PCB is run by douchebags. And the pinnacle is reached at ICC, an organization of idiots.

[cricketrulez]

This is what saddens me at the shear incompetence and lack of practicality at ICC and all the national boards! It's like there is no common sense applied during these ICC meetings. Everyone from ECB, CA, BCCI to PCB is run by douchebags. And the pinnacle is reached at ICC, an organization of idiots.

I think the key is the financial aspect you talked about. use of existing video replays fro DRS will eliminate howlers, however will not give the opportunity to carry out financial shenanigans.

[Clarke]

Does anyone know what's the hitch in implementing DRS without Hawk Eye? Just having Hot Spot (when available), slow motion replays, and a visual mat on the pitch showing where the ball pitched and hit would eliminate most of the terrible decisions anyway.

That was the case with our 2011 Eng tour IIRC. Did we pick on a decision or two to basically kill the idea entirely ?

[cricketrulez]

That was the case with our 2011 Eng tour IIRC. Did we pick on a decision or two to basically kill the idea entirely ?

HE was definitely not there. BCCI doesn't want HE and don;'t want HS to be mandatory because they read "mandatory" as code word for get BCCI to pay for every one. Case in point, SL and Pak had DRS when they played Eng. becos Eng payed for it. when SL and Pak play they don't have it becos neither one can afford to pay for it. Pak I can understand not having enough funds becos Ind hasn't played them. what was SL's excuse?

[cricketrulez]

Here is the reply from Dr. Rosten. I'd be happy to talk about the ball tracking once I get the go ahead from the ICC. In the mean time, I've been asked to direct all enquiries to Colin Gibson at the ICC (colin.gibson@icc-cricket). If you would like, I can contact you when I can talk about the work. Regards, -Ed

[carnish]

This is great news.. now send a reply to Colin Gibson asking the same stuff and see whom he redirects you to.. this is unending.. we all know the howlers HS produces and HE is proved to be inaccurate ... so no pointing asking anyone about anything .. NO DRS :BCCI:

[goggi]

This is quite a scandal. ICC and the usual suspects ramming down fans' throat a UDRS that is not robustly tested. We get being told it's full proof, it's 100% accurate, etc. I believed it, but not now, salaa sub joot.

[MCcricket]

Greig has yorked himself over DRS The BCCI is in the right over the DRS; the ICC has been wrong from day one but doesn't want to admit it Martin Crowe June 28, 2012 Comments: 73 |Login via | Text size: A | A From the outset the DRS system has been flawed in design and execution, and has continued to disappoint © Getty Images Related Links News : DRS won't be forced on India - Richardson News : Greig implores India to govern for the world game News : Tony Greig Cowdrey Lecture: The full transcript News : ICC pushes again for DRS, BCCI says no Players/Officials: Martin Crowe | Tony Greig Sites: Cricinfo ICC Site Tony Greig's Cowdrey Lecture was full of firm strokes, mixed with some seaming medium pace deliveries. A fine all round performance, as always. However, when it came to the DRS he yorked himself. Greig's rebuke of the BCCI is easily delivered these days, but not necessarily courageous. The BCCI has every right to take its stance; more to the point, its stance is the only one with courage. From the outset the DRS system has been flawed in design and execution, and has continued to disappoint. In fact, it got to the point this year when the creator of Virtual Eye, Ian Taylor from Dunedin, cried out loud that, with the players criticising the system so much, he thought it was time for the DRS to start again, to go back to the drawing board. This was a truly honest moment and I for one stood and applauded Taylor. As the techno, he was actually saying this was too hard in its present form and therefore was in effect potentially removing his company from the work. It was a significant revelation, one at which the BCCI would have been seen nodding its approval and feeling some justification. But not the ICC, it carried on blindly. Now, we hear that further guessing is going on with different variations to the number of challenges for Tests and ODIs. What could possibly be the rationale of having two unsuccessful challenges per innings for Tests and one for ODIs? Back in 2007, when the DRS was first discussed, the advice to the ICC was to run with a player challenge system as tennis does, using Hawkeye's actual path for all line calls and super-slo-mo cameras for edges and catches. There would be only one unsuccessful challenge on offer due to the complexity of umpiring compared with tennis, which requires only a simple in or out call. One unsuccessful challenge would be enough to remove the howler, the bad mistake, the error that every umpire makes now and then and especially under tired duress. When this happens the players simply step in and say 'We'd better check that please'. The decision gets reversed and the challenge system carries on. Greig's rebuke of the BCCI is easily delivered these days, but not necessarily courageous. The BCCI has every right to take its stance; more to the point, its stance is the only one with courage Naively, though, the ICC started with three unsuccessful challenges (one assumes because that's what tennis had), then a year later realised its error and dropped it to two, now it has realised its folly once more and dropped it again to one. Bravo! But why not for Tests? This is a time when the ICC must look for uniformity in all forms and on all networks. Instead, it confuses all by hedging. The BCCI isn't the most flexible but surely it would agree to some use of technology? Surely it would agree to the DRS if the predictive path was abolished, as Taylor suggested it should. Surely the BCCI would agree to the DRS if there was only one unsuccessful challenge available instead of this 50-50 nonsense that goes on when captains and batsmen know they have at least one challenge to gamble with. All the gamble does is expose the technology far too often. Last week the ICC said Ed Rosten, a Cambridge professor, had given ball-tracking technology the 100% tick. Yet Ian Taylor, the creator of Virtual ball tracking says it isn't 100%. Whom shall we believe? The inventor, of course, not the professor. The BCCI, including Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble, is in the right. Surely all it wants is for the system to be trimmed right back. But the ICC doesn't want to admit it has been wrong on this from day one. The stalemate continues. Martin Crowe is a former New Zealand captain Exactly says how I feel about ICC AND drs , lol what a joke and bigger joker Greig

[Crookbond]

Goal-line technology given go-ahead The most interesting piece of news

Meanwhile, FIFA intends to put Hawk-Eye and GoalRef to the test at the Club World Cup in Tokyo in 2013, with a view to using it at next year's Confederations Cup and the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke said world football's governing body would pay for the systems - around ŽÂ£160,000 per Stadium - and leave them in place in the stadiums used during all three tournaments.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1123004/goal-line-technology-given-go-ahead?cc=4716

[Cricket Tragic]

Does anyone know what's the hitch in implementing DRS without Hawk Eye? Just having Hot Spot (when available), slow motion replays, and a visual mat on the pitch showing where the ball pitched and hit would eliminate most of the terrible decisions anyway.

Agree with this. However Hot Spot has failed so many times. It's time to get Snicko working quickly after a dismissal. They are working on it now.

[goggi]

FIFA intends to put Hawk-Eye and GoalRef to the test at the Club World Cup in Tokyo in 2013, with a view to using it at next year's Confederations Cup and the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.

ICC does this anyways, they are ahead of FIFA in this manner. FIFA will not be funding the technology for domestic leagues and UEFA competitions and so on. Which makes sense, and makes sense why should ICC fund DRS for bi-lateral series. ICC have done all they can do. BCCI is the issue, and boards who can't afford it are the issue. Surely if WICB and NZC can afford it, then all the major Test playing nations should be able to afford it.

[JaFanatic]

^but your pcb cant afford it:hysterical::hysterical:

[Vijay.Sharma]

Here's an update from Warren (the creator and owner of Hot Spot) on RSC

Guys, Finally got some time to check out your latest comments and add some of my own. Overall, I am happy that most of your comments seem positive about Hot Spot 2.0 and that most realise the product has improved significantly. So far in the UK we have found that we have needed a couple of modifications to the new cameras in order to get better results from the colder more overcast conditionals compared to the warmer-brighter conditions in Aus earlier in the year. We now have a couple of defined thresholds that will define what settings we use in certain conditions. So far in the UK this season there has only been one unexplainable incident that I believe the new cameras may have missed. This was in an earlier ODI match (Rose Bowl) where Ian Bell said he made contact with the ball but the new cameras showed nothing. The West Indies didn't end up using DRS to review this incident though. On the positive side, there have been several times where the Hot Spot has shown very good results for faint edges that I am 100% certain we would not have received on the older cameras. In fact, there have been two situations whereby we have shown hot spots on faint edges that we have never seen before. The first being Swann during the Nottingham test against the West Indies where he was absolutely adamant that he hadn't hit the ball and stood his ground until the 3rd umpire reversed the call. Hot Spot showed a very clear and distinctive mark. The second incident was another Ian Bell faint edge where he walked after being given out LBW without even realising that he had gotten an inside edge. To my knowledge, this is the first time we have ever seen this over the past 5-6 years. I am therefore happy in my own mind that Hot Spot 2.0 is a very substantial improvement from version 1.0. Its still not perfect but it is several percent better than this time last year. As most of you will know the final 5-10% of a products development and improvement is always exponentially the most difficult. The final aspect of Hot Spot 2.0 that I am very positive about is that the new cameras can pick up very faint edges that the standing umpire just cannot discern. A couple of the elite umpires have already admitted this fact to me personally. In a strange sort of way, I need to thank the BCCI for giving the Hot Spot a good kick-in-the-guts last year as it has made me take a good-hard-look at the product from every conceivable angle in order to extract the improvement we have been looking for. Hopefully they recognise the improvement in the Hot Spot and realise the ball is now in their court. Regards Warren Brennan

[goggi]

^^^ Unfortunately, nothing is going to convince the prats at BCCI, all evidence of improvements will be blocked by their corrupted big egos. I pray we get the wrong end of stick big time in one of the coming series.

[Pagalpanti]

Agree with this. However Hot Spot has failed so many times. It's time to get Snicko working quickly after a dismissal. They are working on it now.

The problem is Snicko isn't a 100% as well. IIRC one of RD's decision last Eng tour, Snicko and Hotspot had different results. And it was quite clear Snicko got it wrong. Imo technology should be used but only by umpires, if they are in doubt why not just refer it to 3rd ump. And don't leave it to hawk eye or 50-50 decision. Just use stump line and make a judgement. After all thats what they are there for.

[Vijay.Sharma]

^^^ Unfortunately, nothing is going to convince the prats at BCCI, all evidence of improvements will be blocked by their corrupted big egos. I pray we get the wrong end of stick big time in one of the coming series.

If I am not mistaken the BCCI are ok with Hot Spot. Their problem is with the following: a. xEye b. if DRS is made mandatory, who pays for it?