I salute Dhoni and BCCI

[King Tendulkar]

What howlers? Some maybe but its also being used to decide 50/50 calls like what hawk eye says is gospel. Look at hughes dissmissal 2nd innings. Umpire thinks pitched outside leg, hawk eye reckons it pitched in line by smallest fraction possible. Not a howler at all, in fact umpire may be right and hawk eye wrong in this minutest call. Yet hawkeye is used to overturn the most 50/50 call ever.

[bulbul]

What howlers? Some maybe but its also being used to decide 50/50 calls like what hawk eye says gospel. Look at hughes dissmissla 2nd innings. Umpire thinks pitched outside leg, hawk eye reckons in pitched in line by smallest fraction possible. Not a howler at all, in fact umpire may be right and hawk eye wrong in this minutest call. Yet hawkeye is used to overturn the most 50/50 call ever.

That's not Hawkeye mistake , it's 3rd umpires mistake :cantstop:

[Crookbond]

Did you miss a big IF in front of my statement? Of course, in Hughes case it is not a howler - I was talking about clear ones like Chris Rogers.

[King Tendulkar]

Did you miss a big IF in front of my statement? Of course' date=' in Hughes case it is not a howler - I was talking about clear ones like Chris Rogers.[/quote'] But hawk eye was still used to overturn Hughes dissimal which was not howler at all , in fact umpire may have been correct. So the myth that DRS is being used soley to overturn the howlers , is a myth that cannot be contuined to be preached

[King Tendulkar]

That's not Hawkeye mistake ' date=' it's 3rd umpires mistake :cantstop:[/quote'] Nothing to do with 3rd umpires. As soon as lbw referred, hawkeye completeley takes over and we all wait including 3rd umpire for its verdict. The almighty hawk eye said it pitched a fraction in line, so we all bow donr to its verdict and obey. As hawk eye is deadly accurate and cant be wrong

[bulbul]

Nothing to do with 3rd umpires. As soon as lbw referred, hawkeye completeley takes over and we all wait including 3rd umpire for its verdict. The almighty hawk eye said it pitched a fraction in line, so we all bow donr to its verdict and obey. As hawk eye is deadly accurate and cant be wrong

Rule says more than 50% portion of ball need to over the line to overturn umpires call [i am not sure though] If boards have objection for specific rules they shoud discuss in ICC meeting and change it . Its not like machines control the game,

[cowboysfan]

Nothing to do with 3rd umpires. As soon as lbw referred, hawkeye completeley takes over and we all wait including 3rd umpire for its verdict. The almighty hawk eye said it pitched a fraction in line, so we all bow donr to its verdict and obey. As hawk eye is deadly accurate and cant be wrong

hawkeye is the same for both teams,its the least of the problem for the UDRS.

[moniker]

Well if there is no evidence it is accurate. Why are we all putting our faith in it to be accurate and trusting its verdicts?

Why should we put our faith on the on field umpire? He is going to visualize and predict how the ball would have traveled, it's just prediction. For other forms of dismissals the event has happened in real life, there's no prediction, so maybe we can count on the umpire's eyesight or hearing to take the decision. Hawk eye provides an alternative prediction to that of the umpire, and I don't think there's any harm in using it for eliminating outright howlers.

[Crookbond]

But hawk eye was still used to overturn Hughes dissimal which was not howler at all , in fact umpire may have been correct. So the myth that DRS is being used soley to overturn the howlers , is a myth that cannot be contuined to be preached

I agree with you yaar. What I meant to say that IF it is used for howlers ONLY; it will be a near-perfect system else there will be controversies.

[Haarkarjeetgaye]

i think the biggest issue is that umpires dont know DRS rules themselves or they get it sucked from the queen

[Prakat]

The only problem with the Howler-based principle is that once we have a standard of quality in placee our tolerance for howlers decrease. This is evident already. The most glaring example is seen in run outs. When the batsman is sliding in his bat it is liable to jump and lose contact with the ground by an inch or so. But the batsman is OUT nowadays if the bat leaves the ground by a few centimeters for a fraction of a second when the bails are dislodged. Even when the bat has been slid in over the crease legally and definitely. How is a batsman supposed to control micro-movements of his bat when he is running in full tilt.

[Prakat]

^ if you looked at it with a slightly more macro view the run has been completed the moment the bat crossed the crease and the ball is dead before it breaks the bails.

[goose]

How can anyone that's lived through an era of Steve Bucknor, Asoka de Silva, and Tendulkar knock the DRS? Seriously? DRS gets rid of the howlers but changes the odd 60/40 call too. The side that loses out in the 60/40 calls feels hard done by but it's a price worth paying to get rid of the shockers.

[G_B_]

at least increase the number of reviews. from 2 to 4. I heard a good suggestion on BBC radio. How about you refresh the reviews after 80 over? IE 2 reviews per 80 overs of the match for batting and bowling side. I also dont believe that Cook used the review because he was good at it in the end. He thought match is going to finish so might as well use the review. Anderson hardly appealed for it. Clarke as well, it was not a chindi review. The ball was hitting the stumps. Just that it was not hitting the stumps head on to overturn the umpire's call. So your talking about millimeters in getting the right call. This ashes series is going to be littered with poor umpiring calls. Reason being of the umpires in the elite umpires panel 4 are from england and 4 are from Aus. Leaving only 4 neutral umpires for the ashes. While core technology of the DRS maybe ok, they need need work on the framework around the DRS and the protocol. I would personally axe sniko. Its not part of the DRS system and has no part being there. Simple. Hotspot and Hawkeye. If nothing shows on Hotspot thats the end of it.

[Crookbond]

Snicko is ONLY shown for viewers entertainment - the 3rd umpire does not see the snicko.

[G_B_]

axe that as well then. There is too much confusion IMO. As a viewer I would like to see what the third umpire sees. Simple. If the umpire did not have sniko then Haddin was clearly not out and the third ump has messed up badly.

[Crookbond]

The viewers need to raise that Snicko issue with their broadcasters. Also, you are free to not believe snicko particularly when IT IS ERRATIC as told in the past 10000 times. With or without the Snicko, Haddin was OUT. There was a clear audio on the stump microphone and the ONLY thing the bat could hit was the ball. In addition, there was a mark on the bat *after* the ball passed the bat.

[G_B_]

The viewers need to raise that Snicko issue with their broadcasters. Also, you are free to not believe snicko particularly when IT IS ERRATIC as told in the past 10000 times. With or without the Snicko, Haddin was OUT. There was a clear audio on the stump microphone and the ONLY thing the bat could hit was the ball. In addition, there was a mark on the bat *after* the ball passed the bat.

I agree sniko is erratic. The issue is confusion of whats available to the umpire and whats not from a viewing perspective. Simple. I disagree on the haddin issue. That spot appeared before the ball went past the bat IMO. I just viewed the highlights on channel 5 and mark nicholas there said that sniko was used to aid the umpire in confirming his decision. Now i dont know how true that is.

[Crookbond]

I agree sniko is erratic. The issue is confusion of whats available to the umpire and whats not from a viewing perspective. Simple. I disagree on the haddin issue. That spot appeared before the ball went past the bat IMO. I just viewed the highlights on channel 5 and mark nicholas there said that sniko was used to aid the umpire in confirming his decision. Now i dont know how true that is.

Both Cricinfo and Cricbuzz back up my statement - in addition, many posters here agree too. Btw, Nicholas is wrong - AFAIK Snicko is not part of the DRS.

[FischerTal]

so much discussion :aha: i open the great threads on ICF