The Outsider Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 It's a great system if used for the purpose of eliminating howlers. It's not the systems' fault that it is being abused to check every chindi decision, in the process eliminating the reviews.
jf1gp_1 Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Nothing wrong with DRS as long as its used with a bit of common sense. If you need to review a video more than once in slow motion to figure out what happened its a pretty good indicator there is some doubt; benefit of doubt goes to batsman, its that simple.
zep1706 Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Check the replay in the following video from 6:00 to 6:15. There is absolutely no way that ball pitched in line, in fact it probably pitched about 1.5 inches outside leg. Massive hawkeye fail. And there was hardly any spot on the hotspot in the Michael Clarke dismissal. But there was a definite sound so he probably did hit it. r-byyJlRxjM
Cricketics Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 They need to use "snicko" for this and not hot spots. So much about money being spent on technology, how about that money be thrown on the right technology to bring the correct decision.
zep1706 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 They need to use "snicko" for this and not hot spots. So much about money being spent on technology' date=' how about that money be thrown on the right technology to bring the correct decision.[/quote'] Snicko can't be used as of now, because it takes a long time to produce any result. That's why you always see it after 3-4 minutes.
Por Favor Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 TV replay is sufficient to eliminate howlers. Rest of the decisions should be left to umpires. If marginal decisions dont go your way, its no big deal. Teams should accept that and move on. Hawk eye, Hot spot just complicate the game further, create more controversies and they are not improving decision making. +1 :two_thumbs_up:
zep1706 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 +1 :two_thumbs_up: I have been saying that for more than 2 years now. Not sure what's the problem with that.
King Tendulkar Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Is the BCCI correct, is their flaws in technology? I really am starting to doubt hawkeye as being gospel. So many decisions are being based on hawkeye saying it has clipped a stump and bail. Is it really that accurate in predicting? I really doubt it is. Hotspot mucked up against Trott cos was busy showing a replay. Its acknoledged that hotspot sometimes does not pick up faint nicks. Is BCCI correct, is it actually flawed? Suddenly no enemy india not inloved. Both aussies and english maoning non stop over technology
G_B_ Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Check the replay in the following video from 6:00 to 6:15. There is absolutely no way that ball pitched in line' date=' in fact it probably pitched about 1.5 inches outside leg. Massive hawkeye fail. [b']And there was hardly any spot on the hotspot in the Michael Clarke dismissal. But there was a definite sound so he probably did hit it. agree. I still cant see a specific spot where clarke hit the ball. If its on sniko then fair enough. But it shows the flaws of hot spot. If sniko is not part of the official DRS set then IMO Clarke can count himself unlucky. Either make sniko part of the DRS set or dont have it at all. Something similar happened on the Dravid dismissal when HotSpot showed nothing and he was given out on sniko which was not part of the official regulation.
thongale Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 It's a great system if used for the purpose of eliminating howlers. It's not the systems' fault that it is being abused to check every chindi decision, in the process eliminating the reviews.+1
Crookbond Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 agree. I still cant see a specific spot where clarke hit the ball. If its on sniko then fair enough. But it shows the flaws of hot spot. If sniko is not part of the official DRS set then IMO Clarke can count himself unlucky. Either make sniko part of the DRS set or dont have it at all. Something similar happened on the Dravid dismissal when HotSpot showed nothing and he was given out on sniko which was not part of the official regulation. I would rather argue that it shows the flaws of snickometer which empirically has been one of the most unreliable technologies to make a decision and hence, its absence from the DRS technologies. Even stump microphones are allowed ahead of snicko.
G_B_ Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 I would rather argue that it shows the flaws of snickometer which empirically has been one of the most unreliable technologies to make a decision and hence' date=' its absence from the DRS technologies. Even stump microphones are allowed ahead of snicko.[/quote'] so why was clarke given out when hot spot was inconclusive?
putrevus Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 You have to give it Cook he has used his reviews judiciously where Clarke was so eager he abused system. That said I still have lot of problem with this umpire's call nonsense.
Crookbond Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 so why was clarke given out when hot spot was inconclusive? The hot spot showed a "spot" and that is conclusive evidence. FYI - even if you argue it was "inconclusive" it should be the umpire rapped up for the decision and not the technology. I say this despite not being in favor of DRS.
G_B_ Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The hot spot showed a "spot" and that is conclusive evidence. FYI - even if you argue it was "inconclusive" it should be the umpire rapped up for the decision and not the technology. I say this despite not being in favor of DRS. i just dont see a spot. Cant somebody please post a video of that incident? cant see the one posted in this thread as its not there in the UK
Pagalpanti Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 I always felt this umpires call business to be ridiculous. The 3rd umpire is qualified enough to give decision based on his own judgement from the evidence. DRS is fine but the application part the ICC have got horribly wrong. Moreover instead of limiting it to 2 reviews per innings, they should rather allow 4 reviews for a game. A team can choose to use them all in 1st innings (if needed) or not. The whole point of DRS was to remove howlers, well Broad decision just made a mockery of it.
Crookbond Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 i just dont see a spot. Cant somebody please post a video of that incident? cant see the one posted in this thread as its not there in the UK I have access to Star Sports.com which you may not have as you are based out of UK. However, here's an article from Cricinfo. Aleem Dar checked the ball had carried to Matt Prior cleanly before giving Clarke out but, having confirmed that with the TV umpire, Clarke utilised Australia's final review. Hot Spot showed the tinniest of marks. http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/651107.html Btw, this is the reason I am against the use of DRS. The very fact claims made like 95% better LBW errors etc. makes no sense as there are no publicly available evaluation benchmarks.
CSK Fan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 so why was clarke given out when hot spot was inconclusive? Because the original decision was out. If it had been not out, the evidence IMO, was not enough to overturn the umpire's decision
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