DRS ROW: Michael Vaughan slams BCCI AND Sachin , wants firm ICC stand with India

[ethan hunt]

Former England captain Michael Vaughan says the International Cricket Council must take a firm stance with India over mandatory video technology.

The ICC want the Decision Review System used in all international matches but the Indian Cricket Board is opposed.

"The BCCI continues to believe that the system is not foolproof," they said.

But on BBC Radio 5 live's Tuffers and Vaughan show, Vaughan said: "The ICC has to show authority and say to India this is happening, get used to it."

The DRS was first introduced in a Test match between New Zealand and Pakistan in November 2009 but it remains at the discretion of boards hosting matches, with both teams having to comply.

Sri Lanka opted to use the technology during their home series against England, but not for the current series against Pakistan, prompting criticism from Pakistan coach Dav Whatmore.

India refused to allow it for last summer's series in England, in which they failed to win a Test or one-day international, and are expected to dismiss it again when they host England for four Tests, five ODIs and a Twenty20 international from November-January.

But Vaughan said: "I think it works wonderfully well around all the different formats. England, in particular Andrew Strauss, have got used to it and is very clever with it.

"It's there to get rid of the blunder. Over time it has proven to be very, very good. India need to get with the real world and get on with it because they're ruining it.

"They are almost a little bit egotistical and saying 'you can't tell us what to do' and I think it's about time the ICC said 'you've got to listen to us because it's going to happen'."

"Sachin [Tendulkar] doesn't like it and Sachin is a massive player in the Indian dressing room and with the Indian hierarchy. He is probably telling them it's not good for the game and I guess they're just going what with he thinks.

"I think the ICC has to stamp down and say 'I'm afraid India it's going to be mandatory, the DRS will be in place for every single series that you play in, get on with it.'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/18591921

[Sherlock]

ICC telling the BCCI what to do........can't see it happening.

[AlizeeFan]

"Sachin [Tendulkar] doesn't like it and Sachin is a massive player in the Indian dressing room and with the Indian hierarchy. He is probably telling them it's not good for the game and I guess they're just going what with he thinks.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/18591921

Gg207-oWS_A

He changed his mind.

he already has, see the above video I posted. It's from a reliable source too, cricinfo.

I don't think it's got much to do with the players reservations of it at all. Only one that's perhaps against it now is Dhoni.





India was responsible for canning the scheduled 2013 Test championship.

Not exactly.

The delay comes because of a lack of "support and consent" from the ICC's broadcast partner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/15728803

'Without the support and consent of the ICC’s broadcast partner, ESPN Star Sports, the financial implications on the members and the development of the game would be significant.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2061474/Test-Championship-wont-happen-2013.html#ixzz1yxouEwIF


It's good that they are writing and speaking whatever comes in their dream.

[attock]

Wow, India has got some power. They will never go against India........

[AlizeeFan]

ICC telling the BCCI what to do........can't see it happening.

I guess ICC would have done what BCCI doesn't want if all other boards were ready to stand against ignorant BCCI.

DRS is not being forced because other boards wants to keep BCCI happy so that they can keep their cricket alive even after robbing fans.

[withlovefrom vizag]

The DRS was first introduced in a Test match between New Zealand and Pakistan in November 2009 but it remains at the discretion of boards hosting matches, with both teams having to comply.





Wrong,DRS was first used in IND-SL series where huge number of decisions are wrong.

[Random Aussie]

Yawn, DRS is a useless system. Why should BCCI accept a substandard system?

[James]

I agree with Vaughan.

But it's another thread with dreadful potential

[LegCutter]

But, but there's no technology greater than the human eye!

[Sherlock]

It's good that they are writing and speaking whatever comes in their dream.


Yet you seem ignorant of the fact what the BCCI said in that video :)

It's not Sachin's fault, I agree with you there, but the BCCI are more powerful than you or I realise.

[adwords]

Yawn.. and here we go again

Raji - Maninder :-) kidhar ho, bahar niklo

[Sherlock]

Yawn, DRS is a useless system. Why should BCCI accept a substandard system?

https://forums.playfire.com/_proxy/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsforum.com%2Fimages%2Fgif%2Fn ot%2520sure%2520if%2520serious%2Fgrand%2Falain_del on_gif.gif&hmac=a16b9d49bc4aed87dab18f1e22a12b10

[James]

But, but there's no technology greater than the human eye!

You don't understand...cos Sachin's eye meanwhile...that is gr8r than human :sachin

[Random Aussie]

I agree with Vaughan.

But it's another thread with dreadful potential

I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few.

But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce.

The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense.

[Lara400]

Has the defence brigade arrived yet?

[eradicator]

What a coincidence . Vaughan bashes BCCI , SRT and entire Pakistan agrees with with him . How unpredictable that is !!!

[King Cobra]

Yet another typical Sachin/Bcci/India bashing thread under the guise of a genuine discussion .

It was the evil due of Sachin and Bcci because of whom the Great Invincible Pakistani team lost the test against SL .

[Sherlock]

What a coincidence . Vaughan bashes BCCI , SRT and entire Pakistan agrees with with him . How unpredictable that is !!!

Fixed :)

But do you blame them?

This current series with SL has more than emphasised what many wanted before. Nothing has changed, if the BCCI do indeed reject the UDRS than they'll have their haters, be it from Pakistan or other countries.

Why point to Pakistani fans only is very ignorant of you and shows what you know.

[Random Aussie]

Has the defence brigade arrived yet?

They are coming :nonstop:

[cricketindiafan]

Will Vaughan and Co slam their own cricket boards for crawling before the BCCI?

BCCI gets enough slack from all quarters, its time someone pointed out how the other powerful boards are bending over backwards to let the BCCI decide what the ICC should be doing.

[Swaraj!!]

I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few.

But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce.

The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense.

Makes sense.

Would like the situation much better if the players were not brought into it altogether. The best form of implementation would be for all three umpires to work in tandem on all major decisions without need for player referrals. I don't like the 2 per innings limitation either. What!! just because a couple of guys were idiots, wrong decisions should not be eliminated any further?

Not that we can predict what stance BCCI will take even on this form. The whole situation is bad all around currently from all angles.

Technology Angle: All for it. It helps, even if not completely 100%. Just define the scope well enough.
Implementation: Like I mentioned above, once the invocation of the technology is moved off the players, the glaring mistakes and furores should come down and hopefully the BCCI concerns.
Finance: I don't see any solution for this. Most home boards will not be able to afford this currently. Who will pay for them. Maybe the ICC should cough up a contract for vendors similar to "you give us 1000 units at reasonable bulk rate, or nothing". But really, this is an ICC thing. Problem is no one even dares to even table this proposal in opposition to BCCI.

[James]

They are coming :nonstop:




Hears valid criticism of Indian cricket on Internet




RUSHES TO DEFEND AT ALL COSTS :nonstop:

[kungfu90]

I just called my friends Maninder and Rajiv. Will be posting here soon.

[Moh@n]

Fixed :)

But do you blame them?

This current series with SL has more than emphasised what many wanted before. Nothing has changed, if the BCCI do indeed reject the UDRS than they'll have their haters, be it from Pakistan or other countries.

Why point to Pakistani fans only is very ignorant of you and shows what you know.

These haters are better known as blind haters. They don't realise that BCCI being against the DRS does not stop other countries from using DRS.

Pay for it and use it. Is that so hard to figure out?

[dani2k]

I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few.

But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce.
The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense.

Spot on. Instead of helping the age old adage 'Benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman', here the benefit goes to the umpire which is a joke.

I am all for technology, but the decisions that come out of it should make sense. For example - If a lbw decision is reviwed and if say 60% (or 75% or 90% or whatever is defined as a constant) of the ball is projected to hit leg stump, the decision stays. Anything less and the batsman is not out.

In todays case if the ball brushes the stump and the umpire has given it not out - it stays not out (umpires call) . If he has given it out, it is out. Where is the consistency?

[Pete Rose]

Spot on. Instead of helping the age old adage 'Benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman', here the benefit goes to the umpire which is a joke.

I am all for technology, but the decisions that come out of it should make sense. For example - If a lbw decision is reviwed and if say 60% (or 75% or 90% or whatever is defined as a constant) of the ball is projected to hit leg stump, the decision stays. Anything less and the batsman is not out.

In todays case if the ball brushes the stump and the umpire has given it not out - it stays not out (umpires call) . If he has given it out, it is out. Where is the consistency?

Depends on the stats to be honest. If DRS introduction has reversed more howlers than reverse marginal decisions, then its worth it.

[dani2k]

A marginal decision can turn a match on its head as much as a howler does. The aim here is to improve the overall decision making of the game and make it easier to understand and follow rather than make it complex and subject to interpretation. That is not going to help anyone.

I dont like the term UDRS to start with - it gives an impression that the umpire is always being scrutinized. Name it much more generic like a fair decision system. Would lessen the pressure on the umpires improving their performance

[trogger]

I dont like the term UDRS to start with - it gives an impression that the umpire is always being scrutinized. Name it much more generic like a fair decision system. Would lessen the pressure on the umpires improving their performance

The umps don't care what you call it...they want it...they get a heck of a lot more scrutiny without drs.

Ask bucknor a fine umpire who gave long service to the game but he has one shocker against a team with political clout(india) and suddenly he's the anti christ and his years of high quality umpiring mean zilch.

[speed]

how dare you criticise sachin.

[dani2k]

The umps don't care what you call it...they want it...they get a heck of a lot more scrutiny without drs.

Ask bucknor a fine umpire who gave long service to the game but he has one shocker against a team with political clout(india) and suddenly he's the anti christ and his years of high quality umpiring mean zilch.

The umpires want it because it serves them well - they can get away with marginal calls even if they have given two completely different decisions for identical appeals (in the same test). The question is - is it fair for the players concerned, the game and the viewer? Whose interest should be protected here - the umpires or the players and the viewers (for whom the game exists)

Let us get away with the "umpires are human too" crap - they are being paid well and they better learn to give accurate decisions - If not why not we do away with human umpires and go with pure technology?

[Bullet Drive]

To reduce the howlers and only the howlers the 3rd umpire should be brought into play to see inside edges etc.

[ftbno1]

I believe hotspot is enough to remove howlers.The howlers can be inside edge given lbw or edge given not out(or vice versa).Line decisions of lbw should be left with umpires as they are mostly marginal.

[velu]

I believe hotspot is enough to remove howlers.The howlers can be inside edge given lbw or edge given not out(or vice versa).Line decisions of lbw should be left with umpires as they are mostly marginal.

and it should be Vaseline proof :asif

[Gilly]

A lot of misinformation about how the ICC voted on the DRS issue.

Yes it was only the BCCI that didnt want to use DRS so the vote to use DRS was 8-1.

But when the vote for compulsory use of the DRS, several countries backed the BCCI on the issue of not making it compulsory.

[Namak_Halaal]

This is what Cricket needs:

http://www.inertiaunlimited.com/

X-Mo is a high speed HD camera that can shoot at up to 5280 fps (frames per second) at 720 resolution and over 2500 fps at 1080 resolution. There is absolutley no up conversion and actual pixel for pixel sensor/output resolution. The camera can be used live and provide real-time replays.

[ads101]

Thin vaughan's silly bringing Tendulkar into this.

But it's hard to come up with valid argument against UDRS. UDRS isn't perfect, neither are umpires. Dunno why people against it complain it isn't 100% accurate. But it's more accurate than solely using umpires. For example just look at the recent test, UDRS would have prevented so many umpire errors by overturning their decisions. It definitely would have been useful.

If something bring greater accuracy, why refuse it? Yes it would be nice to have better umpires, but we have to be realistic. Even the best umpires would have greater accuracy with udrs overturning some of their wrong decisions.

It would also try and squash rumours or attempts at umpires fixing/bias.

[Zeeraq]

Spot on. Instead of helping the age old adage 'Benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman', here the benefit goes to the umpire which is a joke.

I am all for technology, but the decisions that come out of it should make sense. For example - If a lbw decision is reviwed and if say 60% (or 75% or 90% or whatever is defined as a constant) of the ball is projected to hit leg stump, the decision stays. Anything less and the batsman is not out.

In todays case if the ball brushes the stump and the umpire has given it not out - it stays not out (umpires call) . If he has given it out, it is out. Where is the consistency?

I agree with you, though i want DRS but Umpire shouldn't decide everything , there should be consistency in it.

[the Great Khan]

The Defenders of Bharat have arrived!!! anyone got a theme tune for them yet??

[testcricketisbest]

Let us examine why Pommies want DRS.They have got the most benefit using DRS.

I may be wrong but most of 50-50 calls are going in favor of England since its inception.

If there is LBW appeal and ball is clipping the bails and umpires gives it out it is out but if umpires gives it not out it is not out.

Just my view it looks like Pommies have been getting too many favorable LBWs for their bowlers and Umpires it seems have decided not to rule their batsmen out LBW and on referral that same clipping the bails which is giving their bowlers wickets is now being negated for their batsmen.

So they are enjoying double benefit so it is natural they are making huge fuss about it.Unless ICC sorts this out DRS cannot be effective.

How can one clipping the bail be out and one clipping the bail be not out, so again we are back on umpire's decision.

[chuck]

I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few.

But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce.

The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense.

This. While we are at it - take the replays away from broadcaster to an ICC official. It can make a big difference whether you show the impact a frame before or after. Also, ensure controls so that it's tamper proof.

[Down2Earth]

bcci ruining everything again, some things just never change. they'll obviously oppose anything that would damage their players' batting average

[doctordamor]

Typical BS from vaughn and english media, stop blaming BCCI cuz blames lies with AUS, SA and eng all powerful boards they could have forced the vote, they stays silent thus allowing BCCI to dictate. If u allow a bully to bully then u r also responsible.

[zzebie]

A lot of misinformation about how the ICC voted on the DRS issue.

Yes it was only the BCCI that didnt want to use DRS so the vote to use DRS was 8-1.

But when the vote for compulsory use of the DRS, several countries backed the BCCI on the issue of not making it compulsory.
I think your comments should be re posted. Hope people in this thread are reading this.

[Senman]

It seems to be a big business bashing BCCI, there ought to be a poll on who is next :)))

Crusaders are coming out in full force with hamster icons :)))

[DarthSImian]

It seems to be a big business bashing BCCI, there ought to be a poll on who is next :)))

Crusaders are coming out in full force with hamster icons :)))

Look out. There's a post against BCCI.
Let's all try to make the idiotic observations seem as legitimate criticisms :D

[velu]

Vaughan included sachin's name just for the sake controversy :))) :)))

[khanz141]

Let us examine why Pommies want DRS.They have got the most benefit using DRS.

I may be wrong but most of 50-50 calls are going in favor of England since its inception.

If there is LBW appeal and ball is clipping the bails and umpires gives it out it is out but if umpires gives it not out it is not out.

Just my view it looks like Pommies have been getting too many favorable LBWs for their bowlers and Umpires it seems have decided not to rule their batsmen out LBW and on referral that same clipping the bails which is giving their bowlers wickets is now being negated for their batsmen.

So they are enjoying double benefit so it is natural they are making huge fuss about it.Unless ICC sorts this out DRS cannot be effective.

How can one clipping the bail be out and one clipping the bail be not out, so again we are back on umpire's decision.

You are assuming the umpires are biased...
The opposing team can do the same.

[Lethalweapon]

bcci ruining everything again, some things just never change. they'll obviously oppose anything that would damage their players' batting average

Sehwag made a 201* with DRS on a bowler friendly pitch in 2008.
lol.

[Buffet]

Vaughan is good in trolling :)

I think most of the howlers can be eliminated by simply using replays. Also Random Aussie put forward a good point about having consistency in decisions. Right now, two same situations will gets different decision based on first decision by an umpire.

Any format of DRS( or whatever be the name) will improve decisions for sure but ICC should iron out inconsistencies and may be use simple replay without having this referral from players. 3rd umpire should intervene if there is stupid decision by umpire. Keeping it simple will eliminate 90% of bad decisions and simple replay will not burden any board with huge costs.

I don't understand why there is so much talk about using some controversial technology when we can use replays with help of third umpire without involving players to improve decisions. Goal should be to have least number of bad decisions and I don't think players involvements help here.

[James]

'Pommies want DRS' because it increases the frequency of correct umpiring decisions in international cricket games. Pretty straightforward argument really.

[James]

Moreover DRS probably helped Pakistan more than it did England in their recent series. So the inane 'England want DRS so they can win more games with their white umpires and establish a tighter grip on the universe' Indian cricket fan argument comes a cropper pretty quickly.

[Geordie Ahmed]

Moreover DRS probably helped Pakistan more than it did England in their recent series. So the inane 'England want DRS so they can win more games with their white umpires and establish a tighter grip on the universe' Indian cricket fan argument comes a cropper pretty quickly.

Spot on

Whilst DRS does not change marginal decisions it removes the howlers and I think that is only good for the game, it is certainly better than the alternative where we see awful umpiring performances

[Saurav]

Vaughan is a certain attention seeker.earlier alleged Laxman of using vaseline

[spaceshot]

^ Limelight is an addictive thing.
Including prominent players will def get the storm kicked up to keep his name circulating for few days.

[Lethalweapon]

Moreover DRS probably helped Pakistan more than it did England in their recent series. So the inane 'England want DRS so they can win more games with their white umpires and establish a tighter grip on the universe' Indian cricket fan argument comes a cropper pretty quickly.


which fan is this? is it one of the comments in the thread?who told you that that person is an Indian? I agree with that person though.
Your overrated spinner getting Dravid out TWICE with the help of a faulty hotspot , THAT WAS DUBIOUS , DON'T SEE THE ASIANS GETTING THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT THERE.
YOUR PACERS DO BENEFIT FROM DRS MORE THAN ANYONE. you siting one series doesn't bury the 'argument'.

[Lethalweapon]

Spot on

Whilst DRS does not change marginal decisions it removes the howlers and I think that is only good for the game, it is certainly better than the alternative where we see awful umpiring performances

DRS AND marginal decisions - BCCI IS UNHAPPY ABOUT THE WORKING OF DRS THERE.

[786warrior]

Guys there's no point getting worked up - we had a Drs strike here last week and it didn't achieve anything!!!

[freelance_cricketer]

Him taking Tendulkar's name is quite cheap really.

It's ok for us fans to assume that Tendulkar's the one controlling Indian cricket. We make many such loose assumptions on internet forums without any proof and cannot be held responsible for those. A former international captain on the other hand naming him directly in the media is just not on. Only proves the point that Michael Vaughan was and still is an attention seeker and an obvious troll.

[James]

God, this Lethalweapon guy is just awful.

[Senman]

Is he planning a book release? its strange it is strikingly similar to the things Gilchrist said/done before he launched his book. Hmmm.........

:))) the first thing he will do before launching the book in India is calling SRT and apologize and make a publicity out of that :)))

[cricketjoshila]

The man is not even fit to tie Tendulkar's shoe laces and on top of that he is making false accusations.Like the crying though.LONG LIVE BCCI....LOL:P

[James]

Vaughan's a huge fan of Tendulkar actually and was willing him onto the hundredth hundred. Vaughan is a fine pundit, and considered it one of his most humbling experiences to play against Tendulkar and take his wicket. The nasty remarks of Sachinistas and Indian cheerleaders do not constitute an argument against Vaughan's comments.

[cricketjoshila]

Vaughan's a huge fan of Tendulkar actually and was willing him onto the hundredth hundred. Vaughan is a fine pundit, and considered it one of his most humbling experiences to play against Tendulkar and take his wicket. The nasty remarks of Sachinistas and Indian cheerleaders do not constitute an argument against Vaughan's comments.

Vaughan is the worse pundit.Half of his comments are lies.

[James]

Vaughan is the worse pundit.Half of his comments are lies.

This is excellent critical and mathematical analysis. Please post more.

[mastermind_quad]

Oye Michael....:D

read below.

A lot of misinformation about how the ICC voted on the DRS issue.

Yes it was only the BCCI that didnt want to use DRS so the vote to use DRS was 8-1.

But when the vote for compulsory use of the DRS, several countries backed the BCCI on the issue of not making it compulsory.

I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few.

But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce.

The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense.

[freelance_cricketer]

Vaughan's a huge fan of Tendulkar actually and was willing him onto the hundredth hundred. Vaughan is a fine pundit, and considered it one of his most humbling experiences to play against Tendulkar and take his wicket. The nasty remarks of Sachinistas and Indian cheerleaders do not constitute an argument against Vaughan's comments.

Being one of the finest modern day captains, he must be a good analyst. I do not doubt his knowledge of Cricket. Just that i felt there was no need to target Tendulkar in an article regarding BCCI's policies when there is no proof of him being the main decision maker in Indian Cricket. Tendulkar just like Vaughan is an influential Cricketer and gives his two cents about the game time to time. Sometimes probably BCCI does take his suggestions seriously and do what he says, many times they ignore as well like the one about modifying 50 overs Cricket. In the end it is always BCCI's call and only they should be held responsible for it.


So if my post gets deleted, i don't know which mod did it but i have a suspicion on someone, say you :yk and i say ''Oh this Whippy guy is always deleting my posts.''
This wouldn't be great on my part and you'd surely take offense to it.


Same's the case here. Vaughan is an influential person unlike the hundreds of reporters and thousands of internet forumers. He must be bit careful while naming people, that too of the stature of Sachin Tendulkar.

[Lethalweapon]

God, this Lethalweapon guy is just awful.

For me most of your posts regarding India are awful.
You attribute a comment from a Pakistani to Indian fans. - in this very thread.
You present your Opinions (specially about India) as facts.
you have been very consistent with both things.
Btw, I think Vaughan has been England's best player of spin for a long time , better than likes of even Thorpe.

[withlovefrom vizag]

the fact is common sense doesnt exist in icc and ecb....just a 3rd umpire intervention in false decisions is enuff

[Senman]

@James

You are not able to accept the comments of Sachin fans on Vaughan, how can you expect Sachin fans to accept what he said based on assumptions? does Vaughan has any proof Sachin is the man behind BCCI's decision? Either he is incredibly naive or trolling or going to launch a book pretty soon :P

[Senman]

Being one of the finest modern day captains, he must be a good analyst. I do not doubt his knowledge of Cricket. Just that i felt there was no need to target Tendulkar in an article regarding BCCI's policies when there is no proof of him being the main decision maker in Indian Cricket. Tendulkar just like Vaughan is an influential Cricketer and gives his two cents about the game time to time. Sometimes probably BCCI does take his suggestions seriously and do what he says, many times they ignore as well like the one about modifying 50 overs Cricket. In the end it is always BCCI's call and only they should be held responsible for it.


So if my post gets deleted, i don't know which mod did it but i have a suspicion on someone, say you :yk and i say ''Oh this Whippy guy is always deleting my posts.''
This wouldn't be great on my part and you'd surely take offense to it.


Same's the case here. Vaughan is an influential person unlike the hundreds of reporters and thousands of internet forumers. He must be bit careful while naming people, that too of the stature of Sachin Tendulkar.


oops sorry mate didn't see this and posted the same message :), well explained.

[cricketjoshila]

I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few.

But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce.

The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense.

Most howlers will be removed by Replays and snicko.But ICC is somehow bent on pushing the Hawk Eye.God know why.

[testcricketisbest]

You are assuming the umpires are biased...
The opposing team can do the same.

very much true so the rule has to be clear.clipping the bails should be either out or not out and should not depend on umpires original call.

how can the same path be out one time and not out another time.

DRS should be used for howlers alone and all others calls should have no ambiguity and should have clear ruling either way.

[Lethalweapon]

Most howlers will be removed by Replays and snicko.But ICC is somehow bent on pushing the Hawk Eye.God know why.

What about HOWLERS WITH DRS
In Eng v WI,2nd odi, CH Gayle lbw b Swann 53 51 103.92
14.4 88.2 kph, flat delivery, not much turn and there's a big lbw appeal ... it's given but Gayle immediately reviews it. Swann was pleading, imploring for that decision and Tony Hill gave it after an age. There's definitely bat involved but was it pad first? There's no doubt the ball was going on to hit. It's practically impossible to tell if the ball squeezed on to the pad via the bat or the other way around. Perversely, the crowd probably don't want him to go ... but he has to, as the decision is upheld!
WHY WAS THIS DECISION UPHELD?
This resulted in a collapse.
Dravid was robbed 3 times on the England tour, and Whippy says DRS DOES NOT FAVOUR ENGLAND?

[LegCutter]

What about HOWLERS WITH DRS
In Eng v WI,2nd odi, CH Gayle lbw b Swann 53 51 103.92
14.4 88.2 kph, flat delivery, not much turn and there's a big lbw appeal ... it's given but Gayle immediately reviews it. Swann was pleading, imploring for that decision and Tony Hill gave it after an age. There's definitely bat involved but was it pad first? There's no doubt the ball was going on to hit. It's practically impossible to tell if the ball squeezed on to the pad via the bat or the other way around. Perversely, the crowd probably don't want him to go ... but he has to, as the decision is upheld!
WHY WAS THIS DECISION UPHELD?
This resulted in a collapse.
Dravid was robbed 3 times on the England tour, and Whippy says DRS DOES NOT FAVOUR ENGLAND?

LOL! That's your example of an howler? When the decision was impossible to make with UDRS, the call goes back to the umpire, simple.

Does anyone, anyone, possibly think that you'll get more howlers with UDRS than with umpires? Seriously? Jeez man it may not be a perfect technology but it's a billion times better than the bat-eyed umpires we've got there on the field.

[Lethalweapon]

LOL! That's your example of an howler? When the decision was impossible to make with UDRS, the call goes back to the umpire, simple.

Does anyone, anyone, possibly think that you'll get more howlers with UDRS than with umpires? Seriously? Jeez man it may not be a perfect technology but it's a billion times better than the bat-eyed umpires we've got there on the field.

That is ridiculous. this dismissal is dubious. why should Gayle pay if the technology is inconclusive? Bravo criticised this in the press and was fined.
If this happens to a Pakistani batsman (imagine Misbah), don't see many Pakistani fans will be happy with that.

[Lethalweapon]

LOL! That's your example of an howler? When the decision was impossible to make with UDRS, the call goes back to the umpire, simple.

Does anyone, anyone, possibly think that you'll get more howlers with UDRS than with umpires? Seriously? Jeez man it may not be a perfect technology but it's a billion times better than the bat-eyed umpires we've got there on the field.

and yes, DRS decisions have been talking points after the day's play in most of the series. that [B]I think is no different to the normal talks about umpiring decisions.
Last match was rare where umpires decisions favoured one team much more.

[speed]

no need for Vaughan to bring srt into this.

[Namak_Halaal]

The truth is if it wasn't for DRS then Pakistan wouldn't have whitewashed England 3-0.

[cricketjoshila]

The truth is if it wasn't for DRS then Pakistan wouldn't have whitewashed England 3-0.

Disagree.English bowlers do nothing in Asian conditions.Ajmal is world class and Rehman a very good spinner.Thats more than enough to beat the Englishmen.

There is a reason they have won may be 1-2 series againist a major Asian country in last 20 odd years in Asia.

Also ever wondered why no English batsman has avged 50+ at the end of his career in almost 55 years.Almost since the time Subcontinental tours became regular.

[shaykh1985]

Lol for boxing fans this isn't too dissimilar from the mandatory drug testing issue...

At no point in a sport should the governing body be dictated to...

[Green Leopard]

Disagree.English bowlers do jackass in Asian conditions.Ajmal is world class and Rehman a very good spinner.Thats more than enough to beat the Englishmen.

There is a reason they have won may be 1-2 series againist a major Asian country in last 20 odd years in Asia.

Also ever wondered why no English batsman has avged 50+ at the end of his career in almost 55 years.Almost since the time Subcontinental tours became regular.

not entirely true, 2 Saffers are doing it for them, hehe

[Ironcat]

I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few.

But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce.

The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense.
Not sure I follow. Someone wanna enlighten me?

[khurramjamil]

If the UDRS is a useless system then the 3rd umpire is useless too, the hawk's eye is also useless and the hotspot is a product of a programmed software which just shows random results ... ok BCCI lets go play cricket in the 15th century!!!

[Random Aussie]

It seems to be a big business bashing BCCI, there ought to be a poll on who is next :)))

Crusaders are coming out in full force with hamster icons :)))

The irony is you dont seem to grasp that the hysterical overreaction from Maninder and Raji, the Defenders of Bharat to anything remotely critical of India, is the reason why these threads have so much life.

Start a thread saying bashing PCB and Pak fans will say yes, so what. Therefore no thread. Bash BCCI and the army comes running....therefore the threads.

:nonstop:

[Random Aussie]

The other irony is most Indian fans dont even like the BCCI. But if someone non Indian is critical, then vee must defend BCCI and our nations honour!

[cricketworm]

Real Criticism against BCCI is barely printed and discussed among fans. Most of the fans troll the wrong stuff, and wrong troll-stuff is being defended by India fans.

Real issues like amount of game India plays, over burn for players playing pointless ODis, overdoing of sponsors, giving fans hell of experience when they visit stadium, by making high-class sitting arrangement, better TV coverage, not bowing down to broadcasters and sneak series out of no where, better exposure for Ranji tournament, better pitches for Ranji (domestic games) (not allowing Ranji team to prepare pitch that suits their strength), Improve commentary team, having better selectors etc etc.

But most of these issues are never discussed, and BCCI is blamed for stuff that every single board is interested in. Making money? Seriously? There is rarely proper content of criticism. Talking about BCCI has become obsession in media world. Why? Because they have the money and they will share with you, only if they see profit in it. And this is rule for every single board.

[AutoCrat]

The irony is you dont seem to grasp that the hysterical overreaction from Maninder and Raji, the Defenders of Bharat to anything remotely critical of India, is the reason why these threads have so much life.

Start a thread saying bashing PCB and Pak fans will say yes, so what. Therefore no thread. Bash BCCI and the army comes running....therefore the threads.

:nonstop:

RA, I think the main grouse for many Indians here is the unfair targeting of BCCI for all the ills of modern day cricket, football, hockey and fencing. As you yourself mentioned there is so much disagreement is many aspects of UDRS which have to be sorted out, several boards against making it mandatory, every option to use it on mutual consent and still somehow BCCI is responsible for Pakistan's loss. Don't you think its not even funny anymore? I will defend Justin Bieber if this BS is dished out to him. :moyo

[cricketworm]

If I remember correctly, there was no DRS for Pak.-England ODI series. It was something like either they will have it for test series or ODI series.

So, again, even if BCCI agrees with DRS in future, there is NO guarantee that there will be DRS for all countries and all the series, because of financial situation. So, with agreement with DRS by India is not equal to DRS everywhere. Also, remember there are very limited hotspot cameras for cricket.

[Random Aussie]

RA, I think the main grouse for many Indians here is the unfair targeting of BCCI for all the ills of modern day cricket, football, hockey and fencing. As you yourself mentioned there is so much disagreement is many aspects of UDRS which have to be sorted out, several boards against making it mandatory, every option to use it on mutual consent and still somehow BCCI is responsible for Pakistan's loss. Don't you think its not even funny anymore? I will defend Justin Bieber if this BS is dished out to him. :moyo

I dont get it. No offence but it seems incredibly insecure.

If people want to bag CA, go ahead, I dont take it personally and why should I? I dont need to defend anything or everything Australian to the world but it seems many Indian fans feel this need to defend anything Indian at all costs.

Which is why we have so much fun with y'all :nonstop:

[cricketjoshila]

not entirely true, 2 Saffers are doing it for them, hehe



i said ended their careers.KP still doesn avg 50.its 48.who is the other saffer?

[dani2k]

Not sure I follow. Someone wanna enlighten me?

See post #25.

[AutoCrat]

I dont get it. No offence but it seems incredibly insecure.

If people want to bag CA, go ahead, I dont take it personally and why should I? I dont need to defend anything or everything Australian to the world but it seems many Indian fans feel this need to defend anything Indian at all costs.

Which is why we have so much fun with y'all :nonstop:

That's all fine, but wonder why the stance "No DRS in PAk - SL match because of BCCI" is not amusing to you? The BCCI is a corporate goon but this is taking it too far for fun. :butt

[Looney]

I dont agree with Vaughan. DRS was introduced to do away with howlers, hence the current outcry about the Pak SL test which had a few.

But it is actually used tactically by teams to challenge marginal calls leading to the Heisenberg issue where an appeal can be potentially out and not out, from the same set of replays, depending on what the original umpiring decision was. Its a farce.

The ICC should fix the system before demanding boards adopt it, then they could probably get a sponsor for it too. Sponsor will not want to be associated with a system that doesnt make sense.

Agree with you there but I still don`t think it is any more useless than many umpires we have in the elite panel .

[cricketindiafan]

Vaughan has so much faith in DRS and yet when it didn't go in favor of the English team, he called VVS Laxman a cheat by using vaseline to ensure faint edges did not get detected!

Should have been dragged to the court and sued for defamation.

[Ironcat]

Spot on. Instead of helping the age old adage 'Benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman', here the benefit goes to the umpire which is a joke.

I am all for technology, but the decisions that come out of it should make sense. For example - If a lbw decision is reviwed and if say 60% (or 75% or 90% or whatever is defined as a constant) of the ball is projected to hit leg stump, the decision stays. Anything less and the batsman is not out.

In todays case if the ball brushes the stump and the umpire has given it not out - it stays not out (umpires call) . If he has given it out, it is out. Where is the consistency?
This is an umpire decision REVIEW system - not a decision MAKING system. That's how all the parties have wanted it to be. They want the "umpires" to be the judge, with this system aiding them and ONLY taking out the "howlers".

A howler is not when a ball is brushing stumps and the umpire has said hitting OR missing. A howler is when it is hitting and the umpire has said it is missing. Or when it is missing when the umpire has said it is hitting.

The system has the prefect capability to make decisions on its own - but the powers that be have decided not to use it that way.

[SwingNSeam]

The other irony is most Indian fans dont even like the BCCI. But if someone non Indian is critical, then vee must defend BCCI and our nations honour!

:))

[dani2k]

When you use technology, use a bit of common sense to arrive at the correct decision regardless of who made it so that it benefits the most important parties involved - the players and the viewers.

When I watch a match I do it for the players exhibiting their skills, not to watch an umpire. You have the technology in hand that gives you an objective input, but instead of taking an objective decision based on that input, you add another variable namely "umpires call" to dilute its effect thereby making it subjective again. Does it make any sense?

I dont agree to the the aim of the URDS - to eradicate "Howlers". The aim should be to improve the game (and decision making in particular) for all the stake holders involved. Other wise we will alienate the viewing public who wont understand the game and the players who could get completely different decisions because of errors in human judgement. All this for what - "for not wanting to offend the umpires and making him feel that his call is final". Ridiculous!

Think about a case where a young batsman making his debut (or somebody making a comeback) getting a rough decision based on an "umpires call" verdict in a crucial innings. How will he feel if an opponent gets the benefit of the doubt in the same test for the same call and goes on to make a century? What if the player gets dropped in the next match because of that wrong decision? Now whose interest do you want to protect? The players or the umpires?

[Ironcat]

When you use technology, use a bit of common sense to arrive at the correct decision regardless of who made it so that it benefits the most important parties involved - the players and the viewers.

When I watch a match I do it for the players exhibiting their skills, not to watch an umpire. You have the technology in hand that gives you an objective input, but instead of taking an objective decision based on that input, you add another variable namely "umpires call" to dilute its effect thereby making it subjective again. Does it make any sense?

I dont agree to the the aim of the URDS - to eradicate "Howlers". The aim should be to improve the game (and decision making in particular) for all the stake holders involved. Other wise we will alienate the viewing public who wont understand the game and the players who could get completely different decisions because of errors in human judgement. All this for what - "for not wanting to offend the umpires and making him feel that his call is final". Ridiculous!

Think about a case where a young batsman making his debut (or somebody making a comeback) getting a rough decision based on an "umpires call" verdict in a crucial innings. How will he feel if an opponent gets the benefit of the doubt in the same test for the same call and goes on to make a century? What if the player gets dropped in the next match because of that wrong decision? Now whose interest do you want to protect? The players or the umpires?
I'm not sure what your point is.

Umpires only:
Marginal cases and howlers = both poor decisions

Umpires + DRS:
Marginal decisions still poor, but howlers eliminated

DRS only:
Marginal decisions corrected, howlers eliminated

So, it is clear as day and light that DRS has improved the umpiring system. If your point is that we should replace the umpires with DRS, then I couldn't agree more. And, for that, BCCI/anyone opposing DRS does get shafted correctly.

[Random Aussie]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Umpires only:
Marginal cases and howlers = both poor decisions

Umpires + DRS:
Marginal decisions still poor, but howlers eliminated

DRS only:
Marginal decisions corrected, howlers eliminated

So, it is clear as day and light that DRS has improved the umpiring system. If your point is that we should replace the umpires with DRS, then I couldn't agree more. And, for that, BCCI/anyone opposing DRS does get shafted correctly.

Perhaps, if you accept the premise that the system is supposed to have zero errors.

And its an arguable point whether it has improved the game. I think it is to the detriment of the game, all this standing around waiting for a review on every little thing. One of the most exciting things in cricket is the bowler bowls, everyone appeals and its out!
Now the bowler bowls, everyone appeals, we all stand around and wait 2 minutes to check was it a no ball, was it in line, was it a clean catch etc etc etc. Takes a lot of the enjoyment out of it for me personally.

I prefer to just accept umpires make mistakes, instead of trying to eradicate 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1000000 decisions that are wrong.

[Ironcat]

Perhaps, if you accept the premise that the system is supposed to have zero errors.

And its an arguable point whether it has improved the game. I think it is to the detriment of the game, all this standing around waiting for a review on every little thing. One of the most exciting things in cricket is the bowler bowls, everyone appeals and its out!
Now the bowler bowls, everyone appeals, we all stand around and wait 2 minutes to check was it a no ball, was it in line, was it a clean catch etc etc etc. Takes a lot of the enjoyment out of it for me personally.

I prefer to just accept umpires make mistakes, instead of trying to eradicate 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1000000 decisions that are wrong.
Zero errors? I'm not sure if you caught the first SL vs Pak test match. Those were errors on a :nonstop:.

As for "enjoying the appeal" aspect, that is an entirely different argument and your personal opinion. For me, there is no enjoyment in ruining a game with umpiring comedy coupled with all that appealing tamasha.

[Random Aussie]

Zero errors? I'm not sure if you caught the first SL vs Pak test match. Those were errors on a :nonstop:.

As for "enjoying the appeal" aspect, that is an entirely different argument and your personal opinion. For me, there is no enjoyment in ruining a game with umpiring comedy coupled with all that appealing tamasha.

I meant that you have to accept the premise that umpiring decisions should be 100% correct. Which I don't.

[shahrukh619]

Its funny how indian players areagain udrs, but when ever its availible, they would use it immediately. Who remembers the semi final where teenda used it

[spaceshot]

Its funny how indian players areagain udrs, but when ever its availible, they would use it immediately. Who remembers the semi final where teenda used it

There is a difference between being against something and boycotting it altogether.

[LegCutter]

That is ridiculous. this dismissal is dubious. why should Gayle pay if the technology is inconclusive? Bravo criticised this in the press and was fined.
If this happens to a Pakistani batsman (imagine Misbah), don't see many Pakistani fans will be happy with that.

The umpire had already given Gayle out, jeez. If there was no DRS, then Gayle would be out. With DRS, Gayle was still out.
I honestly dont see what you're whining about.

Anyway, nothing's going to be changed. Every dog and his grandma knows that DRS is the way to go. I'm sure Indians fans realize this too, but as it's an issue of Pakpassion vs BCCI, then the Indian users here must defend their ''country's" honor at all costs.

[Senman]

The irony is you dont seem to grasp that the hysterical overreaction from Maninder and Raji, the Defenders of Bharat to anything remotely critical of India, is the reason why these threads have so much life.

Start a thread saying bashing PCB and Pak fans will say yes, so what. Therefore no thread. Bash BCCI and the army comes running....therefore the threads.

Its not a user commenting on BCCI but Michale Vaughan critcizing BCCI and SRT, recipe for disaster. I am more concerned about M.Vaughan in Twitter and FB, the amount of abuse he is currently getting from SRT fans :)))

:nonstop:

Any issue will have its own defenders and criticizers, do you agree? India is the second most populous country, its enjoying broadband connectivity boom hence lot of users. There are those who ignore this thread and there are those who comment on it, because of the vast number of users you are getting annoyed, understandable but unavoidable unless there is a limit in allowing Indian users.

Also they don't just shout something without content, if they have a valid point I would consider it as a valuable defending, you can ponder it instead of outrightly rejecting them because they were posted by Indians.

[shortbread]

If the English players, Vaughan, Greig, ECB swear by the DRS why dont they put money where their mouth is?!!

Sponsor the DRS for the Lanka-Pak series, c'mon ECB can easily afford that. It will show that they can do something about it rather than the whining!!

Everyone knows bcci cant be moved and they give a rats a$$ about who swears or comlains about them. Well in that case move on, look for the next solution. Yelping outside bcci's gates is not going to change anything.

C'mon ECB show some balls and make a brave move!!

[Executioner]

there is a saying, a person can become filthy rich if they spend less. So BCCI's plot here is to simply waste as less money as possible by avoiding DRS

Smart

[Senman]

there is a saying, a person can become filthy rich if they spend less. So BCCI's plot here is to simply waste as less money as possible by avoiding DRS

Smart

Honestly I think its power struggle at the top and BCCI is losing media war :) its not as sophisticate as CA or ECB. BCCI officials should get lessons from ECB, look how they completely hidden the whole saga of Stanford under the rug and have the audacity to ask BCCI to be a responsible sportsbody :)))

[Bublu Bhuyan]

What's with this 'probably' stuff? So according to Vaughn, just because Sachin, back in 2008, gave DRS a thumbs down, that's the reason why BCCI opposes it till this day .... what a joke!

[SID_ZONE]

These haters are better known as blind haters. They don't realise that BCCI being against the DRS does not stop other countries from using DRS.

Pay for it and use it. Is that so hard to figure out?

This. Simple solution. Don't know why Pak fans are b!tching about BCCI when PCB's broadcast partners couldn't afford DRS (obviously because of dip in profit)

[James]

What's with this 'probably' stuff? So according to Vaughn, just because Sachin, back in 2008, gave DRS a thumbs down, that's the reason why BCCI opposes it till this day .... what a joke!

Sachin and the other Indian players who spoke out against DRS have huge influence in the country. It's not an obscene suggestion from Vaughan at all.

[spaceshot]

Sachin and the other Indian players who spoke out against DRS have huge influence in the country. It's not an obscene suggestion from Vaughan at all.

Unless there is a 100% surety, one with international reckoning (Vaughan) should not go public with such suggestions.
Normal protocol.

[James]

Unless there is a 100% surety, one with international reckoning (Vaughan) should not go public with such suggestions.
Normal protocol.

What is '100% surety'? In that case pundits should not comment unless it is to say that the world is round.

Analysis and opinion is just that.

[spaceshot]

The final say lies with BCCI.
If they listen to a player, then they are the ones who is stupid. And by extension, if anybody else thinks player is even worthy of a mention in deriding the board, well then he is looking for his 2 mins of glory.

If fashionable to drag ST in such things as has been evident of late.

[James]

I am more concerned about M.Vaughan in Twitter and FB, the amount of abuse he is currently getting from SRT fans :)))

Only thing hilarious about this is the evidence it puts forward for the IDIOT theory. Vaughan is an expert debater, he knows how to push the buttons of insecure teenagers.

[Proud To Be A Pakistani]

Seems like the discussion is about UDRS any more. Its about who said vs against who .... mighty sachin can't be commented about :p booooo. Well simple case of not offending BCCI, no system can be foolproof but that doesn't mean if you have system you can't start using it to improve it better than seeing 10 wrong desicions in space of 4 days of cricket. !!!

[Proud To Be A Pakistani]

This. Simple solution. Don't know why Pak fans are b!tching about BCCI when PCB's broadcast partners couldn't afford DRS (obviously because of dip in profit)


lol mr. smartass , its not our home series and to impliment UDRS both boards have to agree in current sri lanka series. Sri lanka has opted out of UDRS and who's running that board we all know.

[spaceshot]

Sri lanka has opted out of UDRS and who's running that board we all know.


Only speculations and we have a motormouth providing fodder for more troll.
Either bring out a source regarding who influenced SL on opting out of DRS or simply shut up.

[Senman]

Only thing hilarious about this is the evidence it puts forward for the IDIOT theory. Vaughan is an expert debater, he knows how to push the buttons of insecure teenagers.

You mean M.Vaughan is putting forward an idiot theory for future bragging rights :P good on him.
Yes I agree he seems to be an expert alright, no more like a magician, no no more like a mind readerrrrrrrrrr................


Seriously James, you are actually falling for the trap you are arguing against. Don't take our views on M.Vaughan as personal and defend him with hamster icons :)))

[Buffet]

Only thing hilarious about this is the evidence it puts forward for the IDIOT theory. Vaughan is an expert debater, he knows how to push the buttons of insecure teenagers.

You are right, he is good in trolling :). Has done few times earlier as well. Teenagers will react and it's fine but most people would stop paying any attention to him even if he has some good points.

[RexRex]

"he is probably telling them it's not good for the game and i guess they're just going what with he thinks."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/18591921


:13: ... Troll !

[Ironcat]

This. Simple solution. Don't know why Pak fans are b!tching about BCCI when PCB's broadcast partners couldn't afford DRS (obviously because of dip in profit)
DRS is an umpire decision review system. Just like umpires (incl. third umpires) are ICC's responsibility, anything else needed to make that decision is also ICC's responsibility.

When you bring in DRS, you are asking boards to shell out money for something that should come out of ICC's coffers. So, ICC must:
(1) Share more revenues with the boards;
(2) Charge them less subscription fees;
(3) Fund the DRS on its own; or
(4) Train/Educate its umpires better to provide accurate decisions.

Simples.

[hipster]

The purpose of DRS is to eliminate howlers (i.e. the ones similar to the SL vs Pak test match, for instance) - and it does that effectively I'd say. As for the whole umpires call thing - it makes sense too, since the purpose of DRS is to merely eliminate howlers, and taking into account the margin of error, however slight or even non-existent it might be, of technology. My only quibble with DRS is that a team shouldn't lose their review for marginal decisions - although to be fair it makes sense since teams would think twice before utilizing the review, and adds a whole new dimension to the game.

I'd love DRS opponents to explain me this - despite it alleged flaws, if its pros outweigh cons by a great margin, then why on earth would you oppose it in first place?

[Lethalweapon]

The purpose of DRS is to eliminate howlers (i.e. the ones similar to the SL vs Pak test match, for instance) - and it does that effectively I'd say. As for the whole umpires call thing - it makes sense too, since the purpose of DRS is to merely eliminate howlers, and taking into account the margin of error, however slight or even non-existent it might be, of technology. My only quibble with DRS is that a team shouldn't lose their review for marginal decisions - although to be fair it makes sense since teams would think twice before utilizing the review, and adds a whole new dimension to the game.

I'd love DRS opponents to explain me this - despite it alleged flaws, if its pros outweigh cons by a great margin, then why on earth would you oppose it in first place?

The umpires give more OUTS when DRS is there (Swann benefitted from this) and rely on technology to help them in marginal ones.
without DRS those marginal ones are given not out,.
UMPIRES THEMSELVES USE DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS FOR DECISION MAKING.
so MARGINAL DECISION OUTCOMES ARE NOT THE SAME IN both cases.

[Pure Evil]

Only thing hilarious about this is the evidence it puts forward for the IDIOT theory. Vaughan is an expert debater, he knows how to push the buttons of insecure teenagers.

Vaughan/Naseer will do anything which will keep the Indian fan interested. If they were actually any good they would have had something of value to add rather than a loosely created point list of India-bashing forum posts from PP :P

Vaughan is as good an expert as Sidhu is. But then Sidhu aint a Pom and no wonder you wont rate him :D

[Ironcat]

The umpires give more OUTS when DRS is there (Swann benefitted from this) and rely on technology to help them in marginal ones.
without DRS those marginal ones are given not out,.
UMPIRES THEMSELVES USE DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS FOR DECISION MAKING.
so MARGINAL DECISION OUTCOMES ARE NOT THE SAME IN both cases.
You have any proof of this?

[Random Aussie]

Any issue will have its own defenders and criticizers, do you agree? India is the second most populous country, its enjoying broadband connectivity boom hence lot of users. There are those who ignore this thread and there are those who comment on it, because of the vast number of users you are getting annoyed, understandable but unavoidable unless there is a limit in allowing Indian users.

Also they don't just shout something without content, if they have a valid point I would consider it as a valuable defending, you can ponder it instead of outrightly rejecting them because they were posted by Indians.

I am not getting annoyed i am highly amused. :nonstop:

[ads101]

The umpires give more OUTS when DRS is there (Swann benefitted from this) and rely on technology to help them in marginal ones.
without DRS those marginal ones are given not out,.
UMPIRES THEMSELVES USE DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS FOR DECISION MAKING.
so MARGINAL DECISION OUTCOMES ARE NOT THE SAME IN both cases.
In these situations where umpires aren't giving these out before UDRS, these are actually out. Just the umpires weren't giving it because it was difficult to prove. Now it's not with UDRS.

If you're out "marginally" you should be out. You shouldn't really be let off as you can't prove it.

UDRS has been great for spinners, where batsmen used to play with less fear knowing that planting their foot in front was rarely going to get them out. That shouldn't have been the case in the past, and that's something good UDRS is doing, it's making the game a lot fairer for spinners. Batsmen even now still get the benefit of doubt mostly in situations when they are often out.

You might lament the "outs" given that aren't out, but are given out by the umpires as they think UDRS will probably prove it out. But those are a very small number. It's certainly outweighed by the mistakes and the batsmen that will be given wrongly out by the umpires without UDRS.

As hipsters says, difficult to argue against UDRS when the positives clearly outweigh the disadvantages. The excuse being given is it's not 100% accurate. When something better comes along, we'll replace UDRS with it. If we wait for something 100% accurate, we'll probably never get a system that is 100% accurate. All we can try to do is get the most accurate system we can. And if UDRS improves accuracy (which again I see little evidence contrary to this), why refuse it?

[LethalSami]

The umpires give more OUTS when DRS is there (Swann benefitted from this)

is it b/c they are actually OUT and is the right decision.



and rely on technology to help them in marginal ones.
without DRS those marginal ones are given not out,.
UMPIRES THEMSELVES USE DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS FOR DECISION MAKING.
so MARGINAL DECISION OUTCOMES ARE NOT THE SAME IN both cases.

so ball just nicking the stumps is Marginal. and if you go and read the cricket rules, No matter if 100% of the ball is hitting the stumps or 1% of the ball is hitting the stumps....It is OUT.

and stop crying, Swanny didn't get any help from DRS. Its just that the right decisions were made.

[mastermind_quad]

Only thing hilarious about this is the evidence it puts forward for the IDIOT theory. Vaughan is an expert debater, he knows how to push the buttons of insecure teenagers.

Sachin and the other Indian players who spoke out against DRS have huge influence in the country. It's not an obscene suggestion from Vaughan at all.

Naah James ...don't try to defend Michael.... that was a very lame point by Mr Michael to put forward.

Seams like you demonstrating the IDIOT theory quite well....

[hipster]

The umpires give more OUTS when DRS is there (Swann benefitted from this) and rely on technology to help them in marginal ones.
without DRS those marginal ones are given not out,.
UMPIRES THEMSELVES USE DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS FOR DECISION MAKING.
so MARGINAL DECISION OUTCOMES ARE NOT THE SAME IN both cases.

I would like to know on what basis you made the assertion that umpires are more aggressive with DRS - is it mere conjecture or do you have some evidence to back that up? Either way that assertion, even if you consider it as a con, does not outweigh the massive pros of DRS.

[Lethalweapon]

is it b/c they are actually OUT and is the right decision.





so ball just nicking the stumps is Marginal. and if you go and read the cricket rules, No matter if 100% of the ball is hitting the stumps or 1% of the ball is hitting the stumps....It is OUT.

and stop crying, Swanny didn't get any help from DRS. Its just that the right decisions were made.

Really? That is ridiculous , who made that rule? Great bowlers don't need such Gimmicks to take wkts. I'm glad I have only rated Steyn and no one else as great bowler now.
Bowlers have a lot of time take wkts. but batsman have one delivery to get out. Batsman always get the benefit of the doubt.
I want to see reactions of Pak fans if Pakistani Batsman suffer such marginal decisions(where only 1% of the ball hit the stumps), don't see many of them being too happy.
Swanny did get a lot of help from DRS. He himself admitted it, It is strange you don't know this.

[Lethalweapon]

In these situations where umpires aren't giving these out before UDRS, these are actually out. Just the umpires weren't giving it because it was difficult to prove. Now it's not with UDRS.

If you're out "marginally" you should be out. You shouldn't really be let off as you can't prove it.

UDRS has been great for spinners, where batsmen used to play with less fear knowing that planting their foot in front was rarely going to get them out. That shouldn't have been the case in the past, and that's something good UDRS is doing, it's making the game a lot fairer for spinners. Batsmen even now still get the benefit of doubt mostly in situations when they are often out.

You might lament the "outs" given that aren't out, but are given out by the umpires as they think UDRS will probably prove it out. But those are a very small number. It's certainly outweighed by the mistakes and the batsmen that will be given wrongly out by the umpires without UDRS.

As hipsters says, difficult to argue against UDRS when the positives clearly outweigh the disadvantages. The excuse being given is it's not 100% accurate. When something better comes along, we'll replace UDRS with it. If we wait for something 100% accurate, we'll probably never get a system that is 100% accurate. All we can try to do is get the most accurate system we can. And if UDRS improves accuracy (which again I see little evidence contrary to this), why refuse it?
Marginally means the margin should be over 50%.
There are many decisions and NOT very few like you say which are marginal, a batsman could lose his career because of such decisions.

[Lethalweapon]

You have any proof of this?

I would like to know on what basis you made the assertion that umpires are more aggressive with DRS - is it mere conjecture or do you have some evidence to back that up? Either way that assertion, even if you consider it as a con, does not outweigh the massive pros of DRS.

That has been said many times by many people and experts including umpires themselves, umpires are more willing to give 'out', which I don't agree with.

[Namak_Halaal]

Look, it's a known fact Tendulkar was the first ever victim of TV replays/3rd Umpire, so it doesn't come as a surprise why Tendulkar has objected to DRS all this time, until now, when the time of retirement is nearing and no other records are pending. Of course It's no big secret BCCI were hell bent on protecting and preserving the next best thing to happen to India after Gandhi.

BCCI's objection to DRS has nothing to do with accuracy but more to do with Izzat and insecurity.

[cricketworm]

I can bet that Namak has the most obsession with SRT than any hardcore Sachin fan.

At least I can guarantee in this forum, he is by far well ahead of next hardcore Sachin-fanboy. Sorry, R_R, F_C you are losing. Move over Sachin for once. Trust me, cricket is not just about Sachin.

[Ironcat]

That has been said many times by many people and experts including umpires themselves, umpires are more willing to give 'out', which I don't agree with.
Like I said, if you can prove it, I'll be more happy to chug along. Which umpire has said the above when?

Under the DRS scrutiny, umpires want to give correct decisions - not hasty ones. They are being scrutinized, after all.

First test against SL - No DRS:

Taufeeq given out too soon
YK given out too soon
Ajmal given out too soon
etc.

What happened to that "hesitation"?

[Saurav]

I can bet that Namak has the most obsession with SRT than any hardcore Sachin fan.

At least I can guarantee in this forum, he is by far well ahead of next hardcore Sachin-fanboy. Sorry, R_R, F_C you are losing. Move over Sachin for once. Trust me, cricket is not just about Sachin.

exactly.

[cricketworm]

Objection against DRS came since 2008 series in Lanka, where Ball tracking tech. was very pathetic. 9 decisions went against MSD. Since, then ball tracking tech. was never trusted. Just because Sachin has openly admitted in press, that he doesn't trust Ball tracking tech. just like his fav. Roger Federer, who also doesn't like that.

After that, Sachin has admitted that he would rather trust Hotspot, which is more accurate than Hawkeye. Change the rules or change the tech. for Hawkeye, you will see BCCI accepting DRS, with or without Sachin's say. (btw. partial system with Hotspot was accepted against England, but hotspot didn't turn out to produce correct decisions at the end either, due to rules surrounding DRS, i.e. Dravid's dismissal)

[Namak_Halaal]

I can bet that Namak has the most obsession with SRT than any hardcore Sachin fan.

At least I can guarantee in this forum, he is by far well ahead of next hardcore Sachin-fanboy. Sorry, R_R, F_C you are losing. Move over Sachin for once. Trust me, cricket is not just about Sachin.

This is not about me.

Weren't you sending a letter to the head of BCCI after the way he treated his son?

[Namak_Halaal]

Objection against DRS came since 2008 series in Lanka, where Ball tracking tech. was very pathetic. 9 decisions went against MSD. Since, then ball tracking tech. was never trusted. Just because Sachin has openly admitted in press, that he doesn't trust Ball tracking tech. just like his fav. Roger Federer, who also doesn't like that.

After that, Sachin has admitted that he would rather trust Hotspot, which is more accurate than Hawkeye. Change the rules or change the tech. for Hawkeye, you will see BCCI accepting DRS, with or without Sachin's say. (btw. partial system with Hotspot was accepted against England, but hotspot didn't turn out to produce correct decisions at the end either, due to rules surrounding DRS, i.e. Dravid's dismissal)

What was Tendulkar's thought on Hawkeye after the 2011 WC SF?

[cricketworm]

This is not about me.

Weren't you sending a letter to the head of BCCI after the way he treated his son?

It is always about you and your love for SRT.

[cricketworm]

What was Tendulkar's thought on Hawkeye after the 2011 WC SF?

No idea. And don't care. I personally don't think ball tracking system can ever work, as in Tennis they use it when till ball pitches, and cricket is the only sport where they use it AFTER it pitches. Creates lots of margin of errors.

[Namak_Halaal]

It is always about you and your love for SRT.

Oh I thought it was about love for men.

MV sure knows what he is talking about.

The truth is crystal clear.

;)

[Namak_Halaal]

No idea. And don't care. I personally don't think ball tracking system can ever work, as in Tennis they use it when till ball pitches, and cricket is the only sport where they use it AFTER it pitches. Creates lots of margin of errors.

LOL. Now you have no idea and don't care. If this is the case why are you posting in this thread about DRS?



MV is spot on.

[cricketworm]

Btw. Holding, Kallis, even KP started questioning ball tracking system. Lots of players and some umpires around the world don't trust DRS, and think there is need of improvement, but you will see only Indian players objecting making headlines.

[cricketworm]

LOL. Now you have no idea and don't care. If this is the case why are you posting in this thread about DRS?



MV is spot on.

At least, I know what I am talking about. At least, I know few reasons of BCCI objecting DRS, other than lame trolling with no content.

[Ironcat]

Btw. Holding, Kallis, even KP started questioning ball tracking system. Lots of players and some umpires around the world don't trust DRS, and think there is need of improvement, but you will see only Indian players objecting making headlines.
For the bolded part, can you give us any source where they have expressed their opinions as you state above?

For the underlined part, name for us which "lots of" players (other than a handful of Indians) don't trust DRS.

[cricketworm]

For the bolded part, can you give us any source where they have expressed their opinions as you state above?

For the underlined part, name for us which "lots of" players (other than a handful of Indians) don't trust DRS.

Kallis
http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-south-africa-2012/content/story/556811.html

Holding

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/522155.html

KP

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/kevinpietersen/9059975/Kevin-Pietersen-shows-his-fury-after-being-given-out-by-the-umpire-decision-review-system.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/story/531324.html

Taufel

http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/story/530864.html

I am sure there are many players who don't trust DRS especially, Ball tracking tech. but you will never see them speak out in media, due to criticism by Media.

There are lot of board members and players who has problem with funding but only few will admit it in press. <<-- main reason for DRS not to be implemented mandatory everywhere.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/570285.html

[Namak_Halaal]

At least, I know what I am talking about. At least, I know few reasons of BCCI objecting DRS, other than lame trolling with no content.

You know what you are talking about? Remind us again why you mentioned Roger Federer when ball tracking in Tennis and Cricket are applied differently? Because Roger and Sachin are buddies?

When DRS benefits Indian players you play the "I do not know & I do not care" card.

That’s how weak and hypocritical your argument is.

As for content, I provided you with the reason why Sachin opposed any form of referal given he was run out thanks to TV replays! Now don't pretend Tendulkar had no influence on BCCI or his team.

[Namak_Halaal]

Btw. Holding, Kallis, even KP started questioning ball tracking system. Lots of players and some umpires around the world don't trust DRS, and think there is need of improvement, but you will see only Indian players objecting making headlines.

That's because they are the sole hypocrites when it comes to DRS.

[Sherlock]

I would rather have DRS than not.

Just having the security knowing if the umpires have blundered then we have a chance to rectify it.

[cricketworm]

You know what you are talking about? Remind us again why you mentioned Roger Federer when ball tracking in Tennis and Cricket are applied differently? Because Roger and Sachin are buddies?

When DRS benefits Indian players you play the "I do not know & I do not care" card.

That’s how weak and hypocritical your argument is.

Because same technology is used in cricket the way they use it in Tennis. They got the 'same' idea from tennis, that only two per innings should be used in test. And if it's correct, then team doesn't loses that. All this are similar to Cricket.

So, point was that in tennis they use it till it pitches, after that it doesn't matter in tennis. And cricket is the only sport where they use it after it pitches, which creates even more margin of errors.

Really my argument was weak? Or you didn't want to understand or accept what I was trying to say.

Objecting DRS is helping indian players? Is that the best thing you come up with? That is called weak reason. India has suffered with Bad umpiring for years, don't players/BCCI already know the history! Why don't BCCI just buy all the umpires and win every single matches, if that was the case?

Stop trolling. I don't have anymore time to respond to your 'playing with words, lame arguments'.

[Lethalweapon]

For the bolded part, can you give us any source where they have expressed their opinions as you state above?

For the underlined part, name for us which "lots of" players (other than a handful of Indians) don't trust DRS.

You seem to be a blind supporter of DRS. you would have got your answer.
Foll. mentions the pros and cons of drs:
http://www.economist.com/node/21546875
just having the technology in place has made the on-field umpires more likely to give a batsman out.3
Because umpires need to be confident that an LBW appeal fulfils all of these difficult criteria, they have historically been conservative when it comes to giving batsmen out.

[Lethalweapon]

That's because they are the sole hypocrites when it comes to DRS.

what a joke, India never changed their stand about the hawkeye. they agreed for hotspot but Dravid becoming the victim of the faulty technology (thrice) made their stance stronger.
England was the one who showed hypocrisy when they got beaten by Pak. you should revise your post.
and yes India did not trust it even after that WC semi decision.

Ball tracking has never been considered perfect, reservations about it only came to the fore after the DRS came to into existence. it was just a helping tool for viewers till then.

[Namak_Halaal]

Because same technology is used in cricket the way they use it in Tennis. They got the 'same' idea from tennis, that only two per innings should be used in test. And if it's correct, then team doesn't loses that. All this are similar to Cricket.

So, point was that in tennis they use it till it pitches, after that it doesn't matter in tennis. And cricket is the only sport where they use it after it pitches, which creates even more margin of errors.

Well done, so I ask you again what’s the point of mentioning DRS with respect to Tennis given the application of the same technology is different?


Really my argument was weak? Or you didn't want to understand or accept what I was trying to say.

Your argument isn’t just weak it’s laughable.




Objecting DRS is helping indian players? Is that the best thing you come up with? That is called weak reason. India has suffered with Bad umpiring for years, don't players/BCCI already know the history! Why don't BCCI just buy all the umpires and win every single matches, if that was the case?

Learn to read English. I said when DRS benefits Indian players you play the "I do not know & I do not care" card. Why? We all know why.



Stop trolling. I don't have anymore time to respond to your 'playing with words, lame arguments'.

Trolling? Stop responding if you are about to cry. Face facts, Tendulkar doesn’t like any form of referral system given he was the first victim and ever since then has influenced the BCCI. MV also knows this hence the OP.

Funny, ever since WC 2011 SF Tendulkar started supporting DRS.

[Namak_Halaal]

what a joke, India never changed their stand about the hawkeye. they agreed for hotspot but Dravid becoming the victim of the faulty technology (thrice) made their stance stronger.
England was the one who showed hypocrisy when they got beaten by Pak. you should revise your post.
and yes India did not trust it even after that WC semi decision.

Ball tracking has never been considered perfect, reservations about it only came to the fore after the DRS came to into existence. it was just a helping tool for viewers till then.

Beta read the OP. Sachin did.

[spaceshot]

Sachin did.

Again, w.e Sachin does or thinks shdnt be taken as the official word of India/ BCCI



Funny, ever since WC 2011 SF Tendulkar started supporting DRS.

That's cuz the technology handlers paid him a visit and spent quite some time ironing out his doubts.



Tendulkar doesn’t like any form of referral system given he was the first victim and ever since then has influenced the BCCI. MV also knows this hence the OP.


Just a figment of your imagination.

[Namak_Halaal]

Again, w.e Sachin does or thinks shdnt be taken as the official word of India/ BCCI

To suggest Sachin had no influence over the BCCI or that Sachin was BCCI’s golden boy is the stuff of dreams.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/519312.html

Sachin Tendulkar: "I am not against DRS, but I feel it will be more effective with the support of the Snickometer and Hot Spot technology - June 16, 2011


That's cuz the technology handlers paid him a visit and spent quite some time ironing out his doubts.

Great, doesn’t change the fact he changed his mind.




Just a figment of your imagination.

Really?

The third umpire was conceptualized by former Sri Lankan Test cricketer, and current cricket writer Mahinda Wijesinghe [1] and debuted in Test cricket in 1992 at Kingsmead, Durban for the South Africa vs. India series. Karl Liebenberg and Cyril Mitchley were TV umpires in this match. Sachin Tendulkar became the first batsman to be dismissed (run out) by using television replays in the second day of the Test.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_umpire

Go do your homework before you challenge me on Tendulkar.

[Lethalweapon]

Beta read the OP. Sachin did.



It was not the OP but the 3rd post.
this article is dated 2010 not after WC.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hot-spot-gets-tendulkar-thumbs-up/653835/
don't try to fool people , BCCI NEVER supported Hawkeye after the experience in SL in 2008.
If SRT supported Hawkeye after the decision in the WC then what is your problem?
you and DRS supporters should be happy.

[Namak_Halaal]

It was not the OP but the 3rd post.
this article is dated 2010 not after WC.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hot-spot-gets-tendulkar-thumbs-up/653835/
don't try to fool people , BCCI NEVER supported Hawkeye after the experience in SL in 2008.
If SRT supported Hawkeye after the decision in the WC then what is your problem?
you and DRS supporters should be happy.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/519312.html

- June 16, 2011

Sachin supports DRS, after the WC, including Hawkeye, Hotspot, and Snicko.

I am not fooling anyone, but you are fooling yourself.

PS: There is no problem, the problem is you are not willing to accept Tendulkar's hypocrisy in the matter.

[Lethalweapon]

To suggest Sachin had no influence over the BCCI or that Sachin was BCCI’s golden boy is the stuff of dreams.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/519312.html

- June 16, 2011



Great, doesn’t change the fact he changed his mind.





Really?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_umpire

Go do you homework before you dare think about challenging me on Tendulkar.

How does that prove that SRT only opposed DRS because he was the the first victim of TV video replays?
You claim to know everything which goes in his mind like his selfishness and his opinions about various things?

[Namak_Halaal]

How does that prove that SRT only opposed DRS because he was the the first victim of TV video replays?
You claim to know everything which goes in his mind like his selfishness and his opinions about various things?

Bigger font doesn't change anything.

When Tendulkar got busted first by the first ever referral system of its kind, he hated it, and throughout his career influenced BCCI’s decision not to support any type of referral system, until that is, Tendulkar benefited from DRS in the WC SF 2011 when Tendulkar was given an extra life. Lo and behold, Tendulkar starts supporting DRS – towards the end of his career mind you.

Funny, while Tendulkar’s was playing throughout his career, DRS shouldn’t be supported, but when India won the WC, DRS is green to go, on the tail end of Tendulkar’s career. WC, 21 year dream in the making wasn’t it?

If this is not an act of selfishness and hypocrisy then I do not know what is.

[Lethalweapon]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/519312.html

- June 16, 2011

Sachin supports DRS, after the WC, including Hawkeye, Hotspot, and Snicko.

I am not fooling anyone, but you are fooling yourself.

PS: There is no problem, the problem is you are not willing to accept Tendulkar's hypocrisy in the matter.

I have no issues with those bad qualities of SRT. I have accepted it, his failures, selfishness and the recent pathetic innings he played in Ban. it is an issue for those who use the G word for him
I don't like defensive cricket hence I have been Dhoni's critic.

[Namak_Halaal]

I have no issues with those bad qualities of SRT. I have accepted it, his failures, selfishness and the recent pathetic innings he played in Ban. it is an issue for those who use the G word for him
I don't like defensive cricket hence I have been Dhoni's critic.

G word? What's that?

[Ironcat]

Kallis

Holding

KP
Kallis. Yes.

Holding. Yes.

KP. No. His reaction doesn't suggest he questions the technology. He has a history of providing such reactions against his dismissals - whether with or without technology.

I am sure there are many players who don't trust DRS especially, Ball tracking tech. but you will never see them speak out in media, due to criticism by Media.
You only have speculation to offer here. No proof. Everybody and their grandma in the last 14 days has asked for DRS. If anything, it entirely proves the bolded part above WRONG. We have players after players who want DRS to be part of the game. Just because a handful of Indians can't live in the 21st century doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't trust it.

There are lot of board members and players who has problem with funding but only few will admit it in press. <<-- main reason for DRS not to be implemented mandatory everywhere.
Your link simply proves that players want the technology They trust the DRS. The money question is an entirely different argument. You need to prove that "lots of" players do not trust the DRS.

[Ironcat]

You seem to be a blind supporter of DRS. you would have got your answer.
Foll. mentions the pros and cons of drs:
http://www.economist.com/node/21546875
just having the technology in place has made the on-field umpires more likely to give a batsman out.3
Because umpires need to be confident that an LBW appeal fulfils all of these difficult criteria, they have historically been conservative when it comes to giving batsmen out.
While I have provided proof in posts above, it's you who seems to be doing it blindly so far in this thread. As for that article, here is an excerpt from it:
DRS could have been expected to make them more conservative, since the onus can be passed on to the players to refer difficult calls to Hawkeye. In fact it appears to have upped their game: now that the technology can prove them wrong, they seem to feel increased pressure to get it right the first time. This has emboldened them to make tougher decisions.
There is no evidence that the umpires will not give you out as often without DRS. The only evidence that exists is that DRS will make the umpires to get it right the first time around - whether it is OUT or NOT OUT.

[Lethalweapon]

While I have provided proof in posts above, it's you who seems to be doing it blindly so far in this thread. As for that article, here is an excerpt from it:

There is no evidence that the umpires will not give you out as often without DRS. The only evidence that exists is that DRS will make the umpires to get it right the first time around - whether it is OUT or NOT OUT.

There are far too many DRS decisions which have become talking points after the day's play. an easy examples are the last Ashes OR Dravid becoming the victim of faulty hotspot thrice. those were not howlers.
I'm 100% sure it will continue to happen even if the DRS is universal specially when big series is on.
DRS backs up an umpire's decision (remember 'umpire's call'). there is a difference between backing someone and helping someone. you can back a wrong decision, isn't it? helping means you are rectifying the mistake NOT leaving it as is because it is the umpire's call.. does DRS really do it ?

[Ironcat]

There are far too many DRS decisions which have become talking points after the day's play. an easy examples are the last Ashes OR Dravid becoming the victim of faulty hotspot thrice. those were not howlers.
I'm 100% sure it will continue to happen even if the DRS is universal specially when big series is on.
DRS backs up an umpire's decision (remember 'umpire's call'). there is a difference between backing someone and helping someone. you can back a wrong decision, isn't it? helping means you are rectifying the mistake NOT leaving it as is because it is the umpire's call.. does DRS really do it ?
This point has already been addressed in post # 95:
This is an umpire decision REVIEW system - not a decision MAKING system. That's how all the parties have wanted it to be. They want the "umpires" to be the judge, with this system aiding them and ONLY taking out the "howlers".

A howler is not when a ball is brushing stumps and the umpire has said hitting OR missing. A howler is when it is hitting and the umpire has said it is missing. Or when it is missing when the umpire has said it is hitting.

The system has the prefect capability to make decisions on its own - but the powers that be have decided not to use it that way.

As for your having to make your way back into a series played a while ago to come up with an example, therein lies your answer. A total of 13 farcical decisions took place in the test played without DRS just last week. DRS isn't 100% accurate, but it's miles ahead of anything with just the umpires.

[cricketworm]

Kallis. Yes.

Holding. Yes.

KP. No. His reaction doesn't suggest he questions the technology. He has a history of providing such reactions against his dismissals - whether with or without technology.


You only have speculation to offer here. No proof. Everybody and their grandma in the last 14 days has asked for DRS. If anything, it entirely proves the bolded part above WRONG. We have players after players who want DRS to be part of the game. Just because a handful of Indians can't live in the 21st century doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't trust it.


Your link simply proves that players want the technology They trust the DRS. The money question is an entirely different argument. You need to prove that "lots of" players do not trust the DRS.

Ok. I am just making speculations. Let Indian players suffer from wrong decisions. Let matches involving India continue to have poor decisions.

If I remember correctly, I have had discussion about this already with you, and I remember I ended with something like 'what's the point of discussion' if merely top board can afford it.

ICC is free to find a way to finance it and make it mandatory. The only way ICC can make mandatory if they promise to fund it, which is not going to happen anytime soon. ICC can't force any board to accept DRS as they don't generate much amount of income from bilateral series.

PCB is free to use DRS whenever they want. So, again, people need to stop holding their breath for BCCI's approval. The funny thing is DRS was never tested in domestic tourny. neither was tested by ICC before even implanting it. Even after objections from BCCI, ICC is doing nothing much with it to make the system better. (please, don't tell me system is better, and I believe it, so you should to) So, since no-one wants to do anything about it, status quo is persisted by BCCI.

[spaceshot]

Go do your homework before you challenge me on Tendulkar.


I am not challenging you on Tendulkar cuz i know the hatred filled you will come out relentlessly back at rebuttals till you are able to sleep soundly at night.

What i meant when i said that its a figment of your imagination, is that your stand regarding ST not favoring any referral cuz he was the first person to be given out.


Now, there is a difference in reading english and comprehending english, and you lack the latter skill.
Couple that with your unsatiated urge to keep coming back with whatever contortion you can drum up mean you ll keep wasting time of people and end up being a senile person very soon in your life. And i got no intention to join in your deranged party.

[Namak_Halaal]

I am not challenging you on Tendulkar cuz i know the hatred filled you will come out relentlessly back at rebuttals till you are able to sleep soundly at night.

What i meant when i said that its a figment of your imagination, is that your stand regarding ST not favoring any referral cuz he was the first person to be given out.


Now, there is a difference in reading english and comprehending english, and you lack the latter skill.
Couple that with your unsatiated urge to keep coming back with whatever contortion you can drum up mean you ll keep wasting time of people and end up being a senile person very soon in your life. And i got no intention to join in your deranged party.

Nice story but nothing changes the fact SRT opposed DRS before the WC SF. His objection was the impetus to BCCI's refusal which the OP is based on because let's face it SRT is BCCI's golden boy.

Now if you have any weight to your point then you need to explain why SRT had a change of heart? Because his 21 year dream was fulfilled? How utterly selfish and hypocritical of him.

Use your imagination.

[Ironcat]

Ok. I am just making speculations. Let Indian players suffer from wrong decisions. Let matches involving India continue to have poor decisions.

If I remember correctly, I have had discussion about this already with you, and I remember I ended with something like 'what's the point of discussion' if merely top board can afford it.

ICC is free to find a way to finance it and make it mandatory. The only way ICC can make mandatory if they promise to fund it, which is not going to happen anytime soon. ICC can't force any board to accept DRS as they don't generate much amount of income from bilateral series.

PCB is free to use DRS whenever they want. So, again, people need to stop holding their breath for BCCI's approval. The funny thing is DRS was never tested in domestic tourny. neither was tested by ICC before even implanting it. Even after objections from BCCI, ICC is doing nothing much with it to make the system better. (please, don't tell me system is better, and I believe it, so you should to) So, since no-one wants to do anything about it, status quo is persisted by BCCI.
The discussion of how to finance DRS is a different argument. Here is what I said earlier in this thread:
DRS is an umpire decision review system. Just like umpires (incl. third umpires) are ICC's responsibility, anything else needed to make that decision is also ICC's responsibility.

When you bring in DRS, you are asking boards to shell out money for something that should come out of ICC's coffers. So, ICC must:
(1) Share more revenues with the boards;
(2) Charge them less subscription fees;
(3) Fund the DRS on its own; or
(4) Train/Educate its umpires better to provide accurate decisions.

Simples.
So, let's first agree that DRS is a better system and its costs need to come out of ICC's coffers. We can then all put our bright ideas on the table for how ICC should fund it.

As for voting, if ICC couldn't force this issue in its annual meeting, then ICC needs to be taken to task. If ICC says that lack of support from a key member led to this result, then that key member needs to be taken to task. Point is, the audit trail from there on is pretty straightforward.

[spaceshot]

Nice story but nothing changes the fact SRT opposed DRS before the WC SF. His objection was the impetus to BCCI's refusal which the OP is based on because let's face it SRT is BCCI's golden boy.

Now if you have any weight to your point then you need to explain why SRT had a change of heart? Because his 21 year dream was fulfilled? How utterly selfish and hypocritical of him.

Use your imagination.


I dont know if you read the posts properly or not.

I already have mentioned that the technology handlers sat down with him to explain how they go about taking their decisions and how the calculations are done. After that session, he showed his support for the technology.

Now, tell me how is that something of an aberration ?
Any person has a doubt regarding something, those doubts are cleared and the apprehension goes away.



Unless you dont want to see the posts or are too much interested in thinking pp is a substitute for a frontline and come out with pre planned notion of trying to blast people left right and center, the posts and normal conclusion be damned.. i dont think i would be making any effort in having any normal discussion with such a person.

Its no secret you hate most Indian stuff and that propels your posting culture as well and we see words like hypocrite being used too often besides other stuff, but if you think your way of posting will give you any edge.. then you ll dance alone.

[Namak_Halaal]

I dont know if you read the posts properly or not.

I already have mentioned that the technology handlers sat down with him to explain how they go about taking their decisions and how the calculations are done. After that session, he showed his support for the technology.

Now, tell me how is that something of an aberration ?
Any person has a doubt regarding something, those doubts are cleared and the apprehension goes away.



Wait - so some techie bods had a session with SRT and convinced him of DRS? Eureka! So how about a session with BCCI? Or is the BCCI not smart enough to understand the technicals behind DRS?

Utter utter nonsense to suggest Techies convinced SRT of DRS and not the WC SF.



Unless you dont want to see the posts or are too much interested in thinking pp is a substitute for a frontline and come out with pre planned notion of trying to blast people left right and center, the posts and normal conclusion be damned.. i dont think i would be making any effort in having any normal discussion with such a person.

Its no secret you hate most Indian stuff and that propels your posting culture as well and we see words like hypocrite being used too often besides other stuff, but if you think your way of posting will give you any edge.. then you ll dance alone.

It's no big secret why Indians are on PP. What's that? Why's that? You love Pakistan and it's people?

I would say follow SRT's example but you can kiss the notion goodbye.

PS: Was Roger Federer sitting in the same technical session too?

[cricketworm]

The discussion of how to finance DRS is a different argument. Here is what I said earlier in this thread:

So, let's first agree that DRS is a better system and its costs need to come out of ICC's coffers. We can then all put our bright ideas on the table for how ICC should fund it.

As for voting, if ICC couldn't force this issue in its annual meeting, then ICC needs to be taken to task. If ICC says that lack of support from a key member led to this result, then that key member needs to be taken to task. Point is, the audit trail from there on is pretty straightforward.

I want DRS for all the matches. Actually, better version for it.

Here is my criteria.

1) Give Full Power to 3rd umpire to interfere, that they can immediately, remove all clear cut howlers. (e.g. Taufel once gave/changed his decisions against Smith I think, by looking at the replays on big screen) So, if umpires have time to check the run-outs and random no-balls after batsman being bowled, then why can't they have 3rd umpire involvement for clear out.

2) For the marginal LBW decision, also use hi-tech slow-mo cameras, instead of sole cameras of Hawkeye/Virtual/eye. What this will do is, reduce cost for DRS marginally. Let 3rd umpire give authority to discuss that where the impact was and how high is the impact. Any trained and experienced umpire can predict that will that hit the stump or not. AND do NOT let ball show where it's going after the impact on the pad.

3) Invest in Hotspot camera. Don't borrow it from the company. Just buy the whole damn thing. I am sure there are other companies who can provide hotspot tech. not only NZ company. Once they invest in hotspot camera, ICC can easily managed to supply the camera for respective boards.


And the point about BCCI helping ICC to fund the DRS, well, it's never going to happen. BCCI will never fund anything unless, they see profit in it. ICC is basically, waiting for BCCI to chip in! It's not happening. No board will do that. BCCI is against ball tracking system and their silent oppose is that they just don't to pay for it. Some of the board members think that it's just pointless to pay for whole system for mere 2 decisions per inning.

I have said it many times, ICC is run by incompetent people. They have spent lots of $ for ACSU and it has done nothing! There are many good umpires in county and domestic tournament, but ICC is not being proactive in employing better umpires. It takes so many years for incompetent umpires to retire or get fired. Billy Doctrov and umpire like Erasmus! Umpires like Harper took so long before retiring.

ICC can clearly reduce cost of DRS so much by just adjusting the rules for DRS. Hotspot/Hawkeye/VirtualEye companies will never reduce their price. In fact, if they see cricket has no choice but to use this system, then I bet in future, borrowing price for these techs., will continue to rise!

Let's also clear few things,

1) BCCI not agreeing with DRS doesn't stop other countries to use it.
2) BCCI won't agree with current form of the DRS. If ICC was keen on improving the system, they would have already taken some step for it.
3) BCCI won't fund for DRS for other countries to use it.
4) Our innovative ideas will never work, because real cost and the deals between broadcasters and boards will never come to public.

And if oppose by BCCI force ICC to make system better, then people can thank BCCI who are bashing them at the moment. If it was just ego by BCCI members then they would have never agreed to partial DRS without Hawkeye against England initially.

[chacha kashmiri]

Michael vaughan has a personal agenda against india

[cricketworm]

Michael vaughan has a personal agenda against india

Troll Indians on twitter and press. Involve lots of viewers/followers from either side of countries, be busy, look busy, look smart, continue to be in people's mind, eventually --> get job as a cricket expert/commentator or get a call from some TV shows etc.

It's simple. Are you former cricketer? Want to be in news? Say something for India or against India. You are famous.

[justarslan]

HINDUstan is ruining cricket. They should be banned.

[Ironcat]

I want DRS for all the matches. Actually, better version for it.

Here is my criteria.

...

You and I and the rest of these forum members can have our own improvements to the system, but as it stands, it is clearly better than the umpires on their own. So, by all means, improve the system as much as you wish, but what you cannot do is play the game as you do today - i.e. umpires with naked eyes and 13 farcical decisions per test...

ICC can clearly reduce cost of DRS so much by just adjusting the rules for DRS. Hotspot/Hawkeye/VirtualEye companies will never reduce their price. In fact, if they see cricket has no choice but to use this system, then I bet in future, borrowing price for these techs., will continue to rise!
The Hawkeye technology, the one under "criticism" here, is now owned by Sony. Sony wants to bring it to the masses, i.e. baseball and others. At the heart of it, it is a simple setup of a few cameras and examination of frames, using which you can run a bunch of algorithms to predict what's going to happen next. All of this at a smaller scale can already be done with your smartphone these days, so expect that cost to go down.

ICC is not in the business of making decision review equipment. Companies such as Hawkeye have motivated specialists, who have the technical knowledge and the biggest incentive of them all (i.e. profits) to make this technology the best. Everyone should stick to what they do best, and that's best for everyone.

FYI, there is a very easy way to fix the ball prediction issues. If you don't have a minimum number of frames available after, say, the ball bounces, then don't make a decision with the technology. Or change your algorithms, A margin of error is always present in its use, but that margin is much less than humans doing it with their naked eyes.

Let's also clear few things,

1) BCCI not agreeing with DRS doesn't stop other countries to use it.
2) BCCI won't agree with current form of the DRS. If ICC was keen on improving the system, they would have already taken some step for it.
3) BCCI won't fund for DRS for other countries to use it.
4) Our innovative ideas will never work, because real cost and the deals between broadcasters and boards will never come to public.
1) If ICC as a group decides to do something, then all members must follow it. There cannot be differences among boards.
2) The current system is clearly better than the status quo, which is umpires with their naked eyes.
3) No one said that BCCI should fund it on its own. Everyone chips in together as they chip in for the elite panel, third umpires, etc.
4) Not really. I have had a simple suggestion on this in another thread, which I can repost here.
And if oppose by BCCI force ICC to make system better, then people can thank BCCI who are bashing them at the moment. If it was just ego by BCCI members then they would have never agreed to partial DRS without Hawkeye against England initially.
Like I said, the current technology is already better than the status quo. If, due to BCCI's opposition, we are left with having to face a farce such as that in the first Pak vs SL test, then ICC/BCCI must be bashed every day of the week, twice on the weekend.

[cricketworm]

You and I and the rest of these forum members can have our own improvements to the system, but as it stands, it is clearly better than the umpires on their own. So, by all means, improve the system as much as you wish, but what you cannot do is play the game as you do today - i.e. umpires with naked eyes and 13 farcical decisions per test...


The Hawkeye technology, the one under "criticism" here, is now owned by Sony. Sony wants to bring it to the masses, i.e. baseball and others. At the heart of it, it is a simple setup of a few cameras and examination of frames, using which you can run a bunch of algorithms to predict what's going to happen next. All of this at a smaller scale can already be done with your smartphone these days, so expect that cost to go down.

ICC is not in the business of making decision review equipment. Companies such as Hawkeye have motivated specialists, who have the technical knowledge and the biggest incentive of them all (i.e. profits) to make this technology the best. Everyone should stick to what they do best, and that's best for everyone.

FYI, there is a very easy way to fix the ball prediction issues. If you don't have a minimum number of frames available after, say, the ball bounces, then don't make a decision with the technology. Or change your algorithms, A margin of error is always present in its use, but that margin is much less than humans doing it with their naked eyes.


1) If ICC as a group decides to do something, then all members must follow it. There cannot be differences among boards.
2) The current system is clearly better than the status quo, which is umpires with their naked eyes.
3) No one said that BCCI should fund it on its own. Everyone chips in together as they chip in for the elite panel, third umpires, etc.
4) Not really. I have had a simple suggestion on this in another thread, which I can repost here.

Like I said, the current technology is already better than the status quo. If, due to BCCI's opposition, we are left with having to face a farce such as that in the first Pak vs SL test, then ICC/BCCI must be bashed every day of the week, twice on the weekend.

Could you please remove this from mind again for the 10th time, that convincing BCCI will not give DRS to all countries.

How on earth BCCI are responsible for farce decisions by umpires for SL-Pak match? Again, board don't hold their breath for BCCI's approval. And ICC didn't make it mandatory because they can't/don't want to fund for it. Not only BCCI (who has problem with technical reason), other country boards who opposed DRS due to finance. If you notice not all PAK. series had DRS with or without playing with India.

BCCI should be bashed for not having DRS for their own matches, not for random third party games.

[Ironcat]

Could you please remove this from mind again for the 10th time, that convincing BCCI will not give DRS to all countries.

How on earth BCCI are responsible for farce decisions by umpires for SL-Pak match? Again, board don't hold their breath for BCCI's approval. And ICC didn't make it mandatory because they can't/don't want to fund for it. Not only BCCI (who has problem with technical reason), other country boards who opposed DRS due to finance. If you notice not all PAK. series had DRS with or without playing with India.

BCCI should be bashed for not having DRS for their own matches, not for random third party games.
Oh, it will.

If there is no opposition to DRS (or its "improved" version), then that means all countries together must and will find a way to finance it. The suggestion I provided elsewhere was to fire the elite panel (current form of "DRS") and replace with a combo of low-cost umpiring admins and DRS. There are several other options available IF everyone is signed up to make it happen.

[Ironcat]

^^ And, BTW, I'd say the above regardless of whether it was BCCI opposing it or ECB or PCB.

[cricketworm]

Oh, it will.

If there is no opposition to DRS (or its "improved" version), then that means all countries together must and will find a way to finance it. The suggestion I provided elsewhere was to fire the elite panel (current form of "DRS") and replace with a combo of low-cost umpiring admins and DRS. There are several other options available IF everyone is signed up to make it happen.

It's not practical. Whole DRS system is way too costly. There are limited amount of cameras available for Hotspot, and in some of the countries, cameras won't even go there. The owner of Hotspot said no to ICC to send sophisticated cameras for World Cup in Subcontinent.

'Boards will find "a way" to finance it.' Easier to say than done. Many boards don't generate enough money. FYI, for Pak, DRS wasn't used for NZ series, SA series, WI series, obviously, no need to mention for Zimbabwe and Bangla, and now SL series. If PCB loves DRS and support it fully, then why on earth they didn't use it? It will continue to not be used till ICC finance it.

So, be practical in responding. BCCI's yes is not equal to DRS for all boards.

[cricketworm]

^ Pak. and SL not using DRS for many series and only when few countries are involved should give you an hint that system is indeed expensive.

[Ironcat]

It's not practical. Whole DRS system is way too costly. There are limited amount of cameras available for Hotspot, and in some of the countries, cameras won't even go there. The owner of Hotspot said no to ICC to send sophisticated cameras for World Cup in Subcontinent.

'Boards will find "a way" to finance it.' Easier to say than done. Many boards don't generate enough money. FYI, for Pak, DRS wasn't used for NZ series, SA series, WI series, obviously, no need to mention for Zimbabwe and Bangla, and now SL series. If PCB loves DRS and support it fully, then why on earth they didn't use it? It will continue to not be used till ICC finance it.

So, be practical in responding. BCCI's yes is not equal to DRS for all boards.
I think you need to start reading before typing away.

Pakistan as a board should not be funding DRS. ICC as an association should. Which part of this can you not understand? The problem with all those missing and present DRS examples you provide is simple: it's the boards that are funding it - not the ICC. The moment ICC takes over that responsibility, all matches will have DRS.

So, try again. If a rogue member such as BCCI starts to oppose it at the ICC level, then all this bashing becomes kosher.

[Ironcat]

^ Pak. and SL not using DRS for many series and only when few countries are involved should give you an hint that system is indeed expensive.
The system is expensive because individual boards are negotiating with the vendor for a few matches here and there. Try importing a single Toyota from Japan to see what I mean.

This technology is used in video games, tennis matches, snooker games, etc. Like I said above:
The Hawkeye technology, the one under "criticism" here, is now owned by Sony. Sony wants to bring it to the masses, i.e. baseball and others. At the heart of it, it is a simple setup of a few cameras and examination of frames, using which you can run a bunch of algorithms to predict what's going to happen next. All of this at a smaller scale can already be done with your smartphone these days, so expect that cost to go down.

[LethalSami]

ICC as a whole needs to run/implement the DRS universally.........just like it puts its "elite" umpires universally who sometimes makes pathetic blunders :facepalm:

BCCI can go do itself and play domestic if it doesn't want to run with the modern tech and implement DRS

sad news is the Pharaoh controls the $$$$$$$$

[Ironcat]

The owner of Hotspot said no to ICC to send sophisticated cameras for World Cup in Subcontinent.
First of all, DRS was used in world cup, so there goes the cost argument out of the window.

As for moving "Hotspot" cameras, the vendor declined to make them available because it would need them back after 7 days. Not because of cost. Read this:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/499653.html

[cricketworm]

I think you need to start reading before typing away.

Pakistan as a board should not be funding DRS. ICC as an association should. Which part of this can you not understand? The problem with all those missing and present DRS examples you provide is simple: it's the boards that are funding it - not the ICC. The moment ICC takes over that responsibility, all matches will have DRS.

So, try again. If a rogue member such as BCCI starts to oppose it at the ICC level, then all this bashing becomes kosher.

So you are saying ICC will start funding it for all boards, as soon as BCCI agrees? No. Won't happen. You are basically asking top boards like BCCI, CA and ECB to chip in for lesser boards? No. That won't happen either.

We don't know what dealings happen behind the doors by board members. ICC make money from their own sponsorship and their own tournament largely. I don't think they get their finance help from bilateral series. You can say that ICC is another board, who takes care of their own tournaments, rulings for the game and umpires, match referee etc. We don't know how bilateral earning money helps ICC. We don't know how umpires are paid. Do they get paid by ICC alone or they are compensated some money by that particular bilateral series. And ICC may be involved in just choosing the umpires.

We don't know what's the sharing by ICC the association board. And how much stake board has.


The system is expensive because individual boards are negotiating with the vendor for a few matches here and there. Try importing a single Toyota from Japan to see what I mean.

This technology is used in video games, tennis matches, snooker games, etc. Like I said above:

I partially agree with point you are trying to make here that system shouldn't be expensive and ICC should look for better/cheaper alternatives. But We just don't know which system ICC trust and if they have in fact done enough research by themselves to look for better and affordable alternatives.

The suggestions you are giving the way ICC can pay for the system, will not make any difference to ICC or other boards. If ICC could support to fund DRS, they would have already! So, there must a reason why they aren't funding it right? May be, the reason is they don't have much 'rights' for bilateral series regarding earned money from that series!

[cricketworm]

First of all, DRS was used in world cup, so there goes the cost argument out of the window.

As for moving "Hotspot" cameras, the vendor declined to make them available because it would need them back after 7 days. Not because of cost. Read this:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/499653.html

Yes, as I also mentioned that there are only 6 cameras available world wide. I didn't exactly say camera wasn't available for finance reason. I said there are only limited cameras available world wide for it to use.

Read the last paragraph. Though, owner didn't admit it, it was thought to be the real reason, that it would be quite hectic to move sophisticated cameras to move from country to another country.

[Ironcat]

So you are saying ICC will start funding it for all boards, as soon as BCCI agrees? No. Won't happen. You are basically asking top boards like BCCI, CA and ECB to chip in for lesser boards? No. That won't happen either.
LOL, they already do. When they fund the elite panel at the ICC level - or, rather, when all boards together fund the elite panel.

There are 12 umpires on the elite panel. Each of them is paid about $150K to $200K a year, which means that the panel costs the ICC ~$2.4 million a year. (Plus, there are all those other umpires.)

DRS costs up to $10,000 per playing day. If centrally contracted, let's say the cost is $5,000 a day on average.

In the last 12 months, ~50 tests and ~100 ODIs were played, so let's say if a test lasts 4 days on average, then 4 * 50 + 100 = 300 days of DRS use (excl. T20s), which amounts to 300 * $5,000 = ~$1.5 million a year.

And you should expect this technology cost to go down for all those other reasons I mentioned.

The suggestions you are giving the way ICC can pay for the system will not make any difference to ICC or other boards. If ICC could support to fund DRS, they would have already! So, there must a reason why they aren't funding it right? May be, the reason is they don't have much 'rights' for bilateral series regarding earned money from that series!
The problem is that ICC is taking DRS on as an additional cost. Instead, it should be replacing the bloated cost of umpires with it.

In any case, ICC can easily come up with the additional $2 million a year if it bakes the costs into its event revenue sharing. It earns nearly $250 million from its ODI world cups - for instance.

[Ironcat]

Yes, as I also mentioned that there are only 6 cameras available world wide. I didn't exactly say camera wasn't available for finance reason. I said there are only limited cameras available world wide for it to use.

Read the last paragraph. Though, owner didn't admit it, it was thought to be the real reason, that it would be quite hectic to move sophisticated cameras to move from country to another country.
The cameras are already moved inside a country as a team travels from one venue to the other in a bilateral series. When you move it among countries (as in a world cup) though, then you need additional export clearances. Whatever the real issue was, it wasn't cost.

[cricketworm]

LOL, they already do. When they fund the elite panel at the ICC level - or, rather, when all boards together fund the elite panel.

There are 12 umpires on the elite panel. Each of them is paid about $150K to $200K a year, which means that the panel costs the ICC ~$2.4 million a year. (Plus, there are all those other umpires.)

DRS costs up to $10,000 per playing day. If centrally contracted, let's say the cost is $5,000 a day on average.

In the last 12 months, ~50 tests and ~100 ODIs were played, so let's say if a test lasts 4 days on average, then 4 * 50 + 100 = 300 days of DRS use (excl. T20s), which amounts to 300 * $5,000 = ~$1.5 million a year.

And you should expect this technology cost to go down for all those other reasons I mentioned.


The problem is that ICC is taking DRS on as an additional cost. Instead, it should be replacing the bloated cost of umpires with it.

In any case, ICC can easily come up with the additional $2 million a year if it bakes the costs into its event revenue sharing. It earns nearly $250 million from its ODI world cups - for instance.

If ICC has that much of money then what do they do with this money? Spend for their cool offices in Dubai? Or crap Anti-corruption committee who has done literally nothing! Why don't they finance the system if ICC has money?

Why would agreeing for DRS by BCCI will make any difference to ICC if they don't want to fund it on the first place?

Again, I ask, if they have that much money, why don't they fund it for at least lesser nations? No one stopped ICC funding the system for Pak-SL series!

[Ironcat]

If ICC has that much of money then what do they do with this money? Spend for their cool offices in Dubai? Or crap Anti-corruption committee who has done literally nothing! Why don't they finance the system if ICC has money?

Why would agreeing for DRS by BCCI will make any difference to ICC if they don't want to fund it on the first place?

Again, I ask, if they have that much money, why don't they fund it for at least lesser nations? No one stopped ICC funding the system for Pak-SL series!
When ICC earns $250 million from the ODI world cup, most of that is sent back to the boards - the hosts receiving the lion's share for the costs they incurred. So, ICC simply needs to revise the revenue sharing formula to hold back about $5 to $10 million (combined) from these revenue shares until the next world cup. (BTW, Pak never received anything decent from the last world cup, and SL dug their own hole by spending all the money on new stadiums.)

There is a belief though that the question is a bit more philosophical. For example:
The ICC also needed to address two other fundamental flaws. The funding of DRS has remained a contentious matter since its inception. The broadcasters are right to not accept the responsibility for guaranteeing the technology required to implement the system. The full package, including Hot Spot, is beyond the means of many cricket boards, which barely break even.

This leads to the question of control. The ICC pays and governs the umpires, whereas the broadcasters contract the technology providers, without exception. While they provide crucial inputs to decision-making, the broadcasters fall outside the direct supervision of the game's governing body. In effect, the DRS is a system that neither the ICC or the boards pays for or controls.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/521060.html

Now, add to the above the situation where your most influential member is not supporting it, and you have a recipe for no action. So, I do blame ICC for not seeing the forest, but BCCI hasn't made life any easier by blunting it by way of a lack of support.

ICC can't fund DRS on a selective basis. Otherwise, what's next? PCB has issues with some of the elite umpires, so should they stop sending in their cheques and ask the boards who want to use the panel to pay for them on their own?

[adit_sh]

BCCI is actually making the English or Aussies sulking but they cant do much about it .....except for speaking in TVs and Radios :-). thats the media to get the frustration out.

[cricketworm]

When ICC earns $250 million from the ODI world cup, most of that is sent back to the boards - the hosts receiving the lion's share for the costs they incurred. So, ICC simply needs to revise the revenue sharing formula to hold back about $5 to $10 million (combined) from these revenue shares until the next world cup. (BTW, Pak never received anything decent from the last world cup, and SL dug their own hole by spending all the money on new stadiums.)

There is a belief though that the question is a bit more philosophical. For example:


http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/521060.html

Now, add to the above the situation where your most influential member is not supporting it, and you have a recipe for no action. So, I do blame ICC for not seeing the forest, but BCCI hasn't made life any easier by blunting it by way of a lack of support.

ICC can't fund DRS on a selective basis. Otherwise, what's next? PCB has issues with some of the elite umpires, so should they stop sending in their cheques and ask the boards who want to use the panel to pay for them on their own?

It's pity that Pakistan wasn't part of hosting World Cup, that might be the reason why the funding might be less for them. Cricket has nothing to do with it, it was because of few Pakistani, Cricket had to suffer. Same reason for India-Pakistan not happening, which claim to be cash-cow tourny.

ICC was in fault from the beginning. Had ICC been extra careful before implanting DRS for India-SL series, and ensured that proper system was implanted, BCCI may not have objected the system.

ICC never tested a system properly and just started experimenting. If they had been more careful, BCCI may not have objected the system. And again, still, ICC is continuing its stance and is ignoring BCCI. This will just increase more years before BCCI accept the DRS.

It took years of scrutiny by BCCI against bias/incompetent umpires like Steve Bucknor before they retired. Same scrutiny with Harper. Both umpires were continued to be part of series involving India, even whole world knew that both umpires haven't been good. Bucknor was part of Australian series and Harper was in WI. Some have accused that they were named umpires on purpose. So, you see it's not like India has not suffered from bias/or bad umpiring. You have to understand, despite that BCCI is objecting DRS, because they really don't trust the system and they think system can be better.

If PCB wants to take tough stand by protesting against bad umpires like not giving them pay check, so be it! I am with them. Because I don't think these are the best elite umpires, ICC can come up with!

[Random Aussie]

BCCI is actually making the English or Aussies sulking but they cant do much about it .....except for speaking in TVs and Radios :-). thats the media to get the frustration out.

How are we sulking about it? Unlike your countrymen, both us and the Engkish actually have a number of different opinions instead of blindly defending anything do with our countries because of an insecurity complex.

The current debate is nothing to do with Australia anyway, Tony Greig isnt Australian, neither is Michael Vaughan.

Or perhaps you think we are all the same because we are white?

[Ironcat]

It's pity that Pakistan wasn't part of hosting World Cup, that might be the reason why the funding might be less for them. Cricket has nothing to do with it, it was because of few Pakistani, Cricket had to suffer. Same reason for India-Pakistan not happening, which claim to be cash-cow tourny.

ICC was in fault from the beginning. Had ICC been extra careful before implanting DRS for India-SL series, and ensured that proper system was implanted, BCCI may not have objected the system.

ICC never tested a system properly and just started experimenting. If they had been more careful, BCCI may not have objected the system. And again, still, ICC is continuing its stance and is ignoring BCCI. This will just increase more years before BCCI accept the DRS.

It took years of scrutiny by BCCI against bias/incompetent umpires like Steve Bucknor before they retired. Same scrutiny with Harper. Both umpires were continued to be part of series involving India, even whole world knew that both umpires haven't been good. Bucknor was part of Australian series and Harper was in WI. Some have accused that they were named umpires on purpose. So, you see it's not like India has not suffered from bias/or bad umpiring. You have to understand, despite that BCCI is objecting DRS, because they really don't trust the system and they think system can be better.

If PCB wants to take tough stand by protesting against bad umpires like not giving them pay check, so be it! I am with them. Because I don't think these are the best elite umpires, ICC can come up with!
Everyone has been hard done by umpiring at one point or the other. Who would forget Pakistan's issues with Hair and then with Bucknor as well? The longer you keep impartial technology out of the equation, the greater these biases.

ICC is at fault for not forcing the issue. They should have long ago made DRS compulsory and carved out the costs from those revenue shares or by replacing those umpires.

BCCI, on the other hand, needs to prove why the status quo is better given all the non-DRS mess we have seen. Just yesterday, Taufel missed an edge that would have dismissed Hafeez an over before the end of the day and potentially put SL back in the match. Unless a proper alternative is forthcoming, I don't see any reason not to bash them (or the ICC).

[cricketworm]

BCCI, on the other hand, needs to prove why the status quo is better given all the non-DRS mess we have seen. Just yesterday, Taufel missed an edge that would have dismissed Hafeez an over before the end of the day and potentially put SL back in the match. Unless a proper alternative is forthcoming, I don't see any reason not to bash them (or the ICC).

you are free to bash BCCI for no DRS in pak-sl series, sure, even if BCCI doesn't make single cent from it. Suuuure!

All the intelligent talk gone down the gutter that means.

[Ironcat]

you are free to bash BCCI for no DRS in pak-sl series, sure, even if BCCI doesn't make single cent from it. Suuuure!

All the intelligent talk gone down the gutter that means.
BCCI bashing is on account of their arm twisting the ICC (and ICC bashing on getting its arm twisted) on the issue of DRS. But, I see what you mean in the bolded part above after reading the unbolded one.

[James]

Michael vaughan has a personal agenda against india

Could be. But I can't see a reason why he would. He always did well against India.

I think he is just looking to raise his own profile through masterfully trolling a goldmine of angst. And there's nothing wrong with that. :)

:nonstop:

[adit_sh]

How are we sulking about it? Unlike your countrymen, both us and the Engkish actually have a number of different opinions instead of blindly defending anything do with our countries because of an insecurity complex.

The current debate is nothing to do with Australia anyway, Tony Greig isnt Australian, neither is Michael Vaughan.

Or perhaps you think we are all the same because we are white?

going overboard dude !....

Its just not about the current debate...Its an ongoing since last 2years.

I saw Australian commentators (ch-9) too trying to reason out why BCCI doesnt want to go for DRS. They were actually shouting during a demo in the pitch about why the **** BCCI is rejecting it......as I remember It was Mark Nicolous, Ian Healy, Mark Taylor, Ian Chappell. Happened during Ind-Oz series and numerous other debates on the same topic during that series.

Helpless Whites if you wish to call that way. Agree or not BCCI is actually making mockery of the so called ICC rescuers.

[Pure Evil]

How are we sulking about it? Unlike your countrymen, both us and the Engkish actually have a number of different opinions instead of blindly defending anything do with our countries because of an insecurity complex.

The current debate is nothing to do with Australia anyway, Tony Greig isnt Australian, neither is Michael Vaughan.

Or perhaps you think we are all the same because we are white?

And Mr Hypocrite isnt this defending your country??

[Random Aussie]

going overboard dude !....

Its just not about the current debate...Its an ongoing since last 2years.

I saw Australian commentators (ch-9) too trying to reason out why BCCI doesnt want to go for DRS. They were actually shouting during a demo in the pitch about why the **** BCCI is rejecting it......as I remember It was Mark Nicolous, Ian Healy, Mark Taylor, Ian Chappell. Happened during Ind-Oz series and numerous other debates on the same topic during that series.

Helpless Whites if you wish to call that way. Agree or not BCCI is actually making mockery of the so called ICC rescuers.

You mean Australian commentators commenting on an Australian home series were having a go at the other country? Thats never happened before.

[Random Aussie]

And Mr Hypocrite isnt this defending your country??

Well i guess if you say it is, it must be. :nonstop:

Just pointing out that Vaughan isnt Australian so am curious why we are being roped in here, and i said why i suspect we have.

[James]

Whities gonna white :wg

[shahrukh619]

Micheal Vaughn, tusee great ho!

[RexRex]

Lol at the angrezis.We've got them right where we want 'em. :) #declininginfluence

[Namak_Halaal]

Lol at the angrezis.We've got them right where we want 'em. :) #declininginfluence

This is naive thinking.

I wouldn’t be surprised if angrezis are drafting up a plan to exclude India right now. Remember these angrezis ruled the world so they are far from stupid.

Cricket has survived long before India’s financial muscle, and will continue to do so. If India doesn't play ROW it's no loss for the ROW (just means one less minnow to play) but for India, they’ll be restricted to playing IPL and as a result Indians will be denied quality cricket.

No team or board is above the game.