MechEng Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Hahaha what an embarrassment England have been! At least when India were best, except for SA we hammered left right center every team which toured home and NEVER lost a series. We also played decent cricket in SA. We were at the top for 2 years and our number one ranking was being questioned!? HOW SURPRISING! Granted the fact that we were not in the league of the Steve Waugh's Australians or Clive Lloyd's Windies, but we were a competitive side and number one rightfully. These Englishmen got a pounding in UAE against good (not great) spin bowling from Ajmal and lost to SA at home and still no one questioning whether they deserved number one or not? Now for DRS, Umpire Rod Tucker has ensured that as long as DRS will be used in England matches, England will ALWAYS have the upper hand as seen in Kallis' UNFAIR dismissal and giving Anderson not out wrongfully......Why should the BCCI pay for such technology when the 3rd umpires are umpiring against The Spirit Of Cricket? Poor Tucker....his night has been ruined by Philander's great bowling.
BeautifulGame Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 WHen was Anderson given not out wrongfully ?
MechEng Posted August 20, 2012 Author Posted August 20, 2012 WHen was Anderson given not out wrongfully ? My bad, it was Prior and not Anderson.
Trichromatic Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 My bad' date=' it was Prior and not Anderson.[/quote'] :hmmm: Prior's decision was not part of DRS. Wasn't it regular 3rd umpire decision we have been seeing in test cricket for more than 10 years? There was probably only 1 decision can be debated. Kallis's one and during that evidence was not wrong, rather umpire's interpretation was wrong.
Ultimate_Game Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 :hmmm: Prior's decision was not part of DRS. Wasn't it regular 3rd umpire decision we have been seeing in test cricket for more than 10 years? No matter what, Eng had rub of the green with umpiring and DRS in general. Alviro Peterson and Kallis were not out in 1st innings, Kallis was again not out in the 2nd innings followed by Prior getting benefit of doubt. If alll decisions had been correct SA would have hammered English.
MechEng Posted August 20, 2012 Author Posted August 20, 2012 And DRS is expensive, 10,000$ per Test match which makes it 40,000$ for a 4 match series. This is equal to the salary of a middle class American family.
ganeshran Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 DRS is needed without hawkeye and hotspot. Just reverse the decision if the impact is outside, or ball is pitching outside leg or there is no visible deflection. DRS was never intended to get the very marginal calls correct - that can be left the discretion of the umpires, its only the blatantly wrong decisions that need to be corrected. That being said, most of the close umpiring calls went England's way despite DRS rules. Kallis dismissal was absurd.
jairamesh Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 DRS is needed without hawkeye and hotspot. Just reverse the decision if the impact is outside' date= or ball is pitching outside leg or there is no visible deflection. DRS was never intended to get the very marginal calls correct - that can be left the discretion of the umpires, its only the blatantly wrong decisions that need to be corrected. That being said, most of the close umpiring calls went England's way despite DRS rules. Kallis dismissal was absurd. Exactly. Not only will it be affordable but end any arguments over the predictive side of the system. And rather than Hotspot, I have found snicko more accurate and reliable. It's surprising why no-one within ICC is pushing for a simplified DRS system based on hi-resolution cameras and the mat. Some vested interests pushing Hawkeye and Hotspot through.
Crookbond Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 DRS is needed without hawkeye and hotspot. Just reverse the decision if the impact is outside' date=' or ball is pitching outside leg or there is no visible deflection. [b']DRS was never intended to get the very marginal calls correct - that can be left the discretion of the umpires, its only the blatantly wrong decisions that need to be corrected. That being said, most of the close umpiring calls went England's way despite DRS rules. Kallis dismissal was absurd. +1 It is used more as a tactic these days for marginal decisions than outrageous errors.
King Tendulkar Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 OP spot on in terms of lack of credit we got for being no 1 and exagerrated praise england got.
Spiderguy252 Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Don't care about DRS, but if the series has made a mockery of England - which it has, it's fine with me.
daryl1985 Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 No matter what' date=' Eng had rub of the green with umpiring and DRS in general. [b']Alviro Peterson and Kallis were not out in 1st innings, Kallis was again not out in the 2nd innings followed by Prior getting benefit of doubt. If alll decisions had been correct SA would have hammered English. Peterson did not call for an appeal in time. Irrelevant in terms of DRS debate.
vvvslaxman Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Eventually Indian spinners need DRS assistance.
Zap_Brannigan Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Peterson did not call for an appeal in time. Irrelevant in terms of DRS debate. It is. It essentially boils down to the 2 decisions that are allowed. If they had a proper system in place such that the decisions are taken out of the hand of the players, he wouldnt be out. I am pretty sure that having just 1/2 decisions and making players decide are a couple of reasons that BCCI/sachin/dhoni dont want the DRS is place.
Trichromatic Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 It is. It essentially boils down to the 2 decisions that are allowed. If they had a proper system in place such that the decisions are taken out of the hand of the players, he wouldnt be out. If it was taken out of the hand of players then why would umpires tried to review it on their own when batsman walked? :dontknow: Bowler appealed, umpire thought it was out, batsman thought same. They would have never gone upstairs in this case unless it was a no-ball.
daryl1985 Posted August 21, 2012 Posted August 21, 2012 It is. It essentially boils down to the 2 decisions that are allowed. If they had a proper system in place such that the decisions are taken out of the hand of the players, he wouldnt be out. I am pretty sure that having just 1/2 decisions and making players decide are a couple of reasons that BCCI/sachin/dhoni dont want the DRS is place. But UDRS was introduced to eradicate the howlers from the game. You don't expect Umpires to make a host of howlers throughout the match and if they do and teams use their appeals wisely then howlers will be eradicated from the game. The Petersen decision was by no means a howler. It looked out in real time and the batsman himself thought he was out otherwise he would not have initially walked off.
vvvslaxman Posted August 21, 2012 Posted August 21, 2012 If only UDRS had existed.. India would have won the 1997 test in West Indies. Sidhu was out off of huge noball in both innings. Tendulkar was out off of a noball in the first.
vamos_rafa Posted August 21, 2012 Posted August 21, 2012 OP is Spot on with his remarks on India's stint as the numero uno team.
LilleeoftheNile Posted August 21, 2012 Posted August 21, 2012 We had DRS for every dismissal in our (australian) domestic season last year. Was a thing of beauty and definitely the way to go.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now