BCCI may be forced to accept DRS

[adi B]

bcci is a sh1thole !!

[Muloghonto]

About time India adopts UDRS... I think one of the reasons why India rejects DRS is because of their lack of understanding of the concept behind it. I remember MS Dhoni once saying in an interview that he wanted the game to be accepting of Human errors and didn't want machines to do decision making. DRS is not about replacing humans with machines.. DRS is a DEFERRAL SYSTEM.. it actually EMPOWERS the players..by giving them an option to go above the authority of on field umpires and get a 2nd opinion if you will. BCCI's excuses for not taking them up are real lame... sure the technology may not be fully perfect.. but so wasn't rocket technology when Apollo 13 went up to the moon... but it's the closest we have to a perfect technology at the moment. How many times is hawkeye gonna be used in real close situations where the teams are gonna have unused DRS option left for them to even trigger it in the first place?? Lame Lame BCCI

People who are unqualified nitwits should steer clear of passing verdict on technological aspects of the game. Far too many of your types exist, keen to shoot off their mouth while not even knowing how competent the technology itself is. There is absolutely no evidence that the DRS system, which relies on projecting the path of deliveries in the case of the lbw, is actually accurate enough to compete with human proficiency. Certainly, DRS has been *proven* to be flawed enough to show a distinctly different range of trajectories for balls that have completed its path to the wicketkeeper but we use DRS to simulate its path from the point of pitching. Ie, DRS cannot claim to be a superior solution when it demonstrably fails in its predictive aspect. Umpires are part of the game. They make mistakes. So do the players. The argument that we need perfect umpires is as assinine as saying we need perfect catchers, perfect batsmen, etc. If players are allowed to change the course of the game by making a mistake, so is the umpire. Just like how we criticize players for making a critical error, so should we for umpires. But the whole idea that umpires have to be perfect or else it is taking away from the game is nothing more than half-baked idiocy. Supplementing umpires with technology is as assinine as supplementing human players with robots in a team.

[King Khan]

I'm ok with everything about DRS except forced to accept part. :hitler:

[NareshK]

DRS should be used only for eliminating howlers and not close decisions which should left to the umpires. If they make mistakes with close decisions, fair enough. That's part of the game. We dont get 100 % accuracy with technology in any case. We dont need Hotspot or Hawk Eye to eliminate howlers. Just a tv replay would do. But English commentators and ex-cricketers are hell bent on BCCI accepting Hot spot and Hawk eye, so that they have to pay the companies providing this technology. The money for using this technology in test series involving Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies, New Zealand etc. has to come from ICC for which major revenue comes from BCCI. Imagine having to pay for this technology 20-30 years or however long cricket is played. I think some of ex cricketers, commies are also getting paid by these companies to put more pressure on BCCI through media. Everybody wants a pie of the money BCCI is making.

[ganeshran]

BCCI should accept DRS without Hawkeye/Hotspot only to eliminate howlers 1) LBW decisions in case ball pitching outside leg/deflection on inside edges 2) clear deflections for appeals on edge

[Debutant]

DRS should be used only for eliminating howlers and not close decisions which should left to the umpires. If they make mistakes with close decisions, fair enough. That's part of the game. We dont get 100 % accuracy with technology in any case.

What exactly is the difference between a howler and a close call. Suppose a ball is pitched outside the leg stump and it goes on to hit the batsman's pads. Now if the ball is just 0.2 mm outside the leg stump, is it a howler or a close call. Consider another situation like edges. How much deflection will be considered as close and how much a howler. There will be situation where one team thinks its a howler whereas the other team will think its a close call. It again comes down to what the umpire thinks. I think the best option is player's review. Here the decision, which is a howler or not is on the players.

[Crookbond]

What exactly is the difference between a howler and a close call. Suppose a ball is pitched outside the leg stump and it goes on to hit the batsman's pads. Now if the ball is just 0.2 mm outside the leg stump' date= is it a howler or a close call. Consider another situation like edges. How much deflection will be considered as close and how much a howler. There will be situation where one team thinks its a howler whereas the other team will think its a close call. It again comes down to what the umpire thinks. I think the best option is player's review. Here the decision, which is a howler or not is on the players.

What is the difference? Common sense. For the highlighted, DRS may not give that precision. Even if it does; it is a close call. In edges, the key is hotspot and not deflection.

[FischerTal]

BCCI threaten to terminate FTP agreement if forced to use DRS in bilateral series' The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) staunch opposition to the Decision Review System (DRS) is unmoved. Reports suggest that they threatened to “unilaterally” terminate the Future Tours Programme (FTP) if the system is enforced in a bilateral series involving India. Mail Today reported that a few documents of the ICC suggest that the BCCI President N Srinivasan said that the DRS could be a part of the reason if India do not stick to the FTP agreement. According to the document, “Mr. Srinivasan explained that the BCCI’s position was that it wished to retain the right to unilaterally terminate the FTP agreement: (a) in the event of certain financial or structural changes emanating from the implementation of certain recommendations from the Woolf Report; and (b) should it be required to use DRS in any bilateral matches.” The FTP stipulates the tours for each country over an eight year period, so that there is a balance and the teams face each other evenly at home and away. The current FTP started from 2012 and ends in 2020. Currently, the DRS is being used in the ICC Champions Trophy 2013.

SOurce: http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricket-articles/BCCI-threaten-to-terminate-FTP-agreement-if-forced-to-use-DRS-in-bilateral-series/27822

[panther]

Harder to fix matches with DRS, only reason why BCCI has not accepted it.

[FischerTal]

Harder to fix matches with DRS' date=' only reason why BCCI has not accepted it.[/quote'] shakoor rana......nuff said :two_thumbs_up:

[Debutant]

What is the difference? Common sense. For the highlighted, DRS may not give that precision. Even if it does; it is a close call. In edges, the key is hotspot and not deflection.

Whose common sense. Eventually the decision comes back to the umpires. Now its on the players, which I think is better. I think you missed the point. My point was whether players should review umpire's decision or third umpire should have the authority to change on field umpire's decision if he thinks its a howler.

[Debutant]

Harder to fix matches with DRS' date=' only reason why BCCI has not accepted it.[/quote'] You must be from Lahore

[Crookbond]

Whose common sense. Eventually the decision comes back to the umpires. Now its on the players, which I think is better. I think you missed the point. My point was whether players should review umpire's decision or third umpire should have the authority to change on field umpire's decision if he thinks its a howler.

The umpire's common sense. To answer your question - the 3rd umpire should change it if he thinks its a howler. I want decision making to remain with the umpires; the players can play - just like old times.

[Debutant]

The umpire's common sense. To answer your question - the 3rd umpire should change it if he thinks its a howler. I want decision making to remain with the umpires; the players can play - just like old times.

Then why only howlers, why not close calls as well. In case of edges, suppose one edge is not given by the umpire. Batting team may think it was a close call whereas bowling team may think it was a howler and it is unfair not to change the decision. Don't you think this will create more controversies.

[Crookbond]

Then why only howlers' date=' why not close calls as well. In case of edges, suppose one edge is not given by the umpire. Batting team may think it was a close call whereas bowling team may think it was a howler and it is unfair not to change the decision. Don't you think this will create more controversies.[/quote'] To turn a decision IF there is enough evidence from the 3rd umpire - close calls, howlers IDC. But, this would mean that close calls aren't over turned. The examples you are giving are howlers not close calls because there would be (in form of Hotspot or similar technology) enough evidence to rule it out. FYI - I am vehemently against Hawk Eye's predictive path mechanism. It's as good (or even bad) than human eyes.

[nikred]

Then why only howlers' date=' why not close calls as well. In case of edges, suppose one edge is not given by the umpire. Batting team may think it was a close call whereas bowling team may think it was a howler and it is unfair not to change the decision. Don't you think this will create more controversies.[/quote'] If people are having conflicting opinions on a decision it can't be a howler. Some examples of howler : 1) Catch of a bump ball. Like that video someone posted of Ganguly's wicket in that Chennai Test against Pak. That was a howler. Only an idiot would think its out after watching the replays. 2) Daylight visible between bat ball for a caught behind. 3) Big no-ball. Anything that's obvious from the video replays, but the decision gven otherwise are, howlers.

[Debutant]

To turn a decision IF there is enough evidence from the 3rd umpire - close calls, howlers IDC. But, this would mean that close calls aren't over turned. The examples you are giving are howlers not close calls because there would be (in form of Hotspot or similar technology) enough evidence to rule it out. FYI - I am vehemently against Hawk Eye's predictive path mechanism. It's as good (or even bad) than human eyes.

Then why not all the decisions by the third umpire itself, be it howler or close call. The on field umpires will be there to give wides and carry the sweaters or caps of the players :dontknow:

[Debutant]

If people are having conflicting opinions on a decision it can't be a howler. Some examples of howler : 1) Catch of a bump ball. Like that video someone posted of Ganguly's wicket in that Chennai Test against Pak. That was a howler. Only an idiot would think its out after watching the replays. 2) Daylight visible between bat ball for a caught behind. 3) Big no-ball. Anything that's obvious from the video replays, but the decision gven otherwise are, howlers.

The problem is teams will feel unfairly treated if some decisions are changed by the third umpire and some are not. Now its all upon the players. If they think its a howler, great challenge it. If they think its very close, then just go with the umpire's decision. What is the problem?? Its quite exciting actually.

[Clarke]

Umpires are part of the game. They make mistakes. So do the players. The argument that we need perfect umpires is as assinine as saying we need perfect catchers' date=' perfect batsmen, etc. [b']If players are allowed to change the course of the game by making a mistake, so is the umpire. Just like how we criticize players for making a critical error, so should we for umpires. But the whole idea that umpires have to be perfect or else it is taking away from the game is nothing more than half-baked idiocy. Supplementing umpires with technology is as assinine as supplementing human players with robots in a team.

It can then turn into a gamble and not as much a game of skill.

[SLICKR392]

Fix that crap first. :headshake: