DRS - DO we really need hifi technologies?

[urbestfriend]

We have been told by ICC that UDRS is there to eradicate howlers and it is not that useful for 50-50 kind of dismissals. After watching last few tests against Australia where none of predictive hawk-eye , snicko or hotspot are available, I am convinced that you dont need these hifi technologies, that are not 100% accurate anyways, for using DRS for eliminating howlers. There were few howlers in third test like Pujara's first innings, Hughes second innings and Pujara's second innings catch that could have been overturned with normal technologies available like television visuals and Strike Zone ( imaginary mat between stumps ) and a little bit of common sense from third umpires. So why at we need other hifi technologies and ICC is insisting on these ? I feel BCCI has no problem with this as these are time tested and these suffice for most situations. In other conditions where third umpire has not enough evidence to overturn, we can always go with on-field umpire's decision. Lets consider what constitute a howler and what is not. 1) Given out LBW for an inside edge - A normal visual feed is enough to determine this, we can always see if there is a deviation etc 2) Given out LBW when pitched on leg stump / Impact is out side the kine of stumps : Third umpire can overturn only if strike zone suggests umpire is wrong, and go with umpire if some part of the ball is in line with the stump or impact. 3) Not given out for a plumb LBW decision: Here third umpire can use visual feed to determine if this was hitting the middle and off/ middle and leg. If there are some doubt, third umpire can go with on-field umpire 4) Given out caught when not hit: Easily TV visual feed is enough to determine the same 5) Given not out when batsman has hit: A TV visual/sound from stumps mic is enough to make a decision. All in all , I am more or less convinced that a normal TV visual / sound and Strike zone technologies which are used by all cricket broadcasters are enough for DRS. I am also sure BCCI will have no problem using these technologies for DRS.

[Crookbond]

NO - we don't need DRS technologies and I completely endorse your opinion.

[Precambrian]

Without DRS success % - 92 With DRS success % - 96 Incremental cost to achieve 4% increase in efficiency = 60,000 USD per day, which is greater than the cost of 3 umpires and match referree put together. Just does not make any sense to me.

[Mahaa Raavana]

Very,very good points sir...:hatsoff: If the ICC had any common sense this is what they should have done.The mat and the usual audio,video feeds would have been enough to over turn howlers. Even bankrupt boards like SLC can afford these and uniform DRS could have been implemented easily...

[IKnowU]

Without DRS success % - 92 With DRS success % - 96 Incremental cost to achieve 4% increase in efficiency = 60,000 USD per day, which is greater than the cost of 3 umpires and match referree put together. Just does not make any sense to me.

When boards poorer then BCCI can afford it.....then its a shame on them that they see it as cost over benefit. :headshake:

[urbestfriend]

Without DRS success % - 92 With DRS success % - 96 Incremental cost to achieve 4% increase in efficiency = 60,000 USD per day, which is greater than the cost of 3 umpires and match referree put together. Just does not make any sense to me.

Using technologies definitely make sense because on-field umpires are error-prone. can never expect them to get it right all the time. We need to accept there could be howlers which can alter the result of the match and this is depressing for a normal TV viewer. But we can get the best out of existing cheaper technologies rather than going for expensive advanced technologies which are not 100% accurate anyways. If ICC brings uniformity in terms of DRS with the help of cheaper technologies , it goes a long way in establishing a sense of fairness with the sport for an average spectator.

[Crookbond]

Without DRS success % - 92 With DRS success % - 96 Incremental cost to achieve 4% increase in efficiency = 60,000 USD per day, which is greater than the cost of 3 umpires and match referree put together. Just does not make any sense to me.

The best thing - these accuracies have no basis. It makes no sense to have these accuracies into account. Just in case - you can't see the benefits of DRS by comparing accuracies. Those 4% decisions might have cost 10 times more than the difference you're making it out to be.

[BeautifulGame]

Just saw Dave Richardson's interview with Simon doul in neo at tea time eng vs NZL .Very good one Said India never forgot the trial exp in Srl when half baked tech was used. Apparently Sehwag was given out due to a faulty hawk eye predictor( I don't really remember tbh).Even Kumble still against it very much apparently. Said our opposition to DRS mainly stems from that series. Although said the technology has come leaped and bounds he isn't much confident of convincing anytime soon unfortunately.

[Trichromatic]

Agree with OP. Most of the mistakes can be avoided with the help of TV replays only.

[bharat297]

I think DRS is fine but it should be taken out of the hands of the players. The 3rd umpire is watching every ball anyway. If he sees a howler, then he has about 30sec-1min which is ~ the time it takes for a batsman to leave the field or a bowler to walk back to his mark, to overturn the decision. If he can't make up his mind in that time, then clearly it wasn't a howler and the umpire decision can stand. Simple! Take it out of the hands of the players and everyone wins.

[Precambrian]

When boards poorer then BCCI can afford it.....then its a shame on them that they see it as cost over benefit. :headshake:

that argument makes no sense. Just because BCCI has got moer money, doesn't mean they have to splurge and show off that in inefficient projects like this. I have no doubts whatsoever that UDRS improves decision making, but my question is that whether it is actually cost-beneficial at this point in time. Clearly it is not.

[Small_town_boy]

With lbw decisions it will certainly improve the efficiency .... But as far as the nicks go I doubt it (like everyone), it is still a half baked one... Also I think the 3rd umpire must be given more responsibilities or power...in the sense that when the onfield umpire makes an error (miss a no ball, inside edge while judging lbws)...the 3rd umpire must help the onfield umpires to get the decision right ...irrespective of whether the team has asked for a review or not.... But prob with this is it kills lot of time and may cause lot of frustration for players ..

[Precambrian]

Using technologies definitely make sense because on-field umpires are error-prone. can never expect them to get it right all the time. We need to accept there could be howlers which can alter the result of the match and this is depressing for a normal TV viewer. But we can get the best out of existing cheaper technologies rather than going for expensive advanced technologies which are not 100% accurate anyways. If ICC brings uniformity in terms of DRS with the help of cheaper technologies ' date=' it goes a long way in establishing a sense of fairness with the sport for an average spectator.[/quote'] Fair enough! Things like clear inside edges / ball pitching outside pitch map etc can be addressed by existing technology and must be adopted. But hawkeye predictive path, hotspot (probably the most overrated technology to come out in recent times), snicko etc have their inhibitions and must be binned.

[Precambrian]

The best thing - these accuracies have no basis. It makes no sense to have these accuracies into account. Just in case - you can't see the benefits of DRS by comparing accuracies. Those 4% decisions might have cost 10 times more than the difference you're making it out to be.

Can you explain?

[Crookbond]

Can you explain?

There is NO ground truth for DRS LBW decisions. The Hawk Eye says this should be the predictive path but it doesn't necessarily suggest the path it gives is correct. Also, in favor of Hawk Eye you can't calculate the effective of DRS by accuracies - it's much more subjective. It has to a weighted sum of the correct decisions minus the incorrect decisions.

[Precambrian]

There is NO ground truth for DRS LBW decisions. The Hawk Eye says this should be the predictive path but it doesn't necessarily suggest the path it gives is correct. Also, in favor of Hawk Eye you can't calculate the effective of DRS by accuracies - it's much more subjective. It has to a weighted sum of the correct decisions minus the incorrect decisions.

Agree.

[CG]

DRS Should be used for howlers like bat pad l.b.w or pitching outside legstump.

[I6MTW]

Why don't the other umpires do what Erasmus does? Refer to the third umpire when in Doubt? This is better than DRS.

[thongale]

1) Given out LBW for an inside edge - A normal visual feed is enough to determine this, we can always see if there is a deviation etc - No, not enough. Deviation is too slight some times, and some times there is deviation without a nick. 2) Given out LBW when pitched on leg stump / Impact is out side the kine of stumps : Third umpire can overturn only if strike zone suggests umpire is wrong, and go with umpire if some part of the ball is in line with the stump or impact. - Yeah! 3) Not given out for a plumb LBW decision: Here third umpire can use visual feed to determine if this was hitting the middle and off/ middle and leg. If there are some doubt, third umpire can go with on-field umpire - No, balls bouncing over the stumps are notoriously difficult to judge. 4) Given out caught when not hit: Easily TV visual feed is enough to determine the same - Once again no, deviations can occur without nicks. 5) Given not out when batsman has hit: A TV visual/sound from stumps mic is enough to make a decision. -????

[putrevus]

Why don't the other umpires do what Erasmus does? Refer to the third umpire when in Doubt? This is better than DRS.

what happens if umpire does a Bucknor he is too lazy to call third umpire even when it is out, Aleem Dar was about to do what Bucknor did in Sydney 2008 in first innings regarding Shane Watson, he was in but just in and it but Mr Idiot Dar had to be pressured into going for replay.