Should the DRS be mandatory?

[rich1uk]

so the BCCI had said they were worried the technology was inaccurate and wanted independent testing , that happens and the results suggest the system is accurate but they still say the think the technology is flawed ?

[OffStumpYorker]

I read that a bit ealier and as you said earlier the BCCI wont budge from thier objection, I'm not sure what the reason is, as they are soon to complain when an Umpire is less than 100% accurate and call for his head, yet when you give the umpires the opportunity to have a system that helps get their accuracy up from 90-95% to 95-97% they are not happy about it.

Ball tracking is very much a questionable debate, and there are a couple of incidents that get trotted out as to why its not accurate, but this is largely due to the DRS tracking system not having enough data to make a prediction, and this could be resolved by having an Insufficent Data event raised, thus the decision stays with the on-field umpire.

[rich1uk]

agreed

thats why i said earlier there needs to be better training and guidelines about how to use the system as most of the issues i have seen with drs has been due to interpretation and application of the information provided by the technology rather than the technology itself

[Making_Splinters]

Do the BCCI allow the use of replays for Run Outs and potentially grounded catches?

[OffStumpYorker]

Do the BCCI allow the use of replays for Run Outs and potentially grounded catches?

I believe they do as this is incontrovertable evidence, though I'm not sure if they allow the umpires to check noballs on a wicket.

[Making_Splinters]

Do the BCCI allow the use of replays for Run Outs and potentially grounded catches?

I believe they do as this is incontrovertable evidence, though I'm not sure if they allow the umpires to check noballs on a wicket.

Yes but they are far from foolproof, video replays often make things look grounded when they are not and I have seen run outs that are inconclusive either through the actual moment being between frames or the cameras being obscured by players: Can't remember who the Ausie was who was clearly run out by about 2 feet but the opposition were in the way so the thrid umpire couldn't give it, I want to say Slater.

Either way its strange that they'd have one potentially broken bit of kit but reject the other.

[DeltaAlpha]

What's needed for video replays is a higher frame rate and higher definition. Video definition - even HD - is rubbish compared with a cheap digital still camera that you could buy from Asda. And, preferably, transparent players, of course... or just more cameras...

[Making_Splinters]

How utterly ridiculous is this:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/570131.html

The issue was not put to an open vote despite support for the DRS from most Full Member nations as well as the majority of the playing community

Lends support to my earlier statement that there is a fear of challenging the BCCI on this.

Also bang on the money with my earlier comments about money being a red herring.

It is understood that an appeal by a majority of the Full Member nations to the ICC for the sale of centralised rights to the DRS to a single sponsor was also not likely to gain traction due to the BCCI's opposition to the technology itself.

[ddb]

Yes that article is ridiculous.

[Making_Splinters]

And why is it ridiculous ddb?

Its utterly laughable that the ICC haven't even taken the question to a vote, exactly why I feel that the DRS should not be mandatory but instead a the sole discretion of the home Board.

[OffStumpYorker]

And why is it ridiculous ddb?

Its utterly laughable that the ICC haven't even taken the question to a vote, exactly why I feel that the DRS should not be mandatory but instead a the sole discretion of the home Board.

Its also shows that the executive board members are hypocryitical, every major team bar one uses the DRS in its entirity, the poorer boards dont because of cost, but there was a plan to sove that through sponsorship.

I think you are right MS that back door use and changing it so that the Home board is the one that makes the decision would cause one of two things to happen India refise to play any teams whose home board embraced the system, possibly isolating them, forcing India to either Back down or break away, breaking away would cause a schism, as most boards would most likely then refuse to allow their home spun cricketers to play in what would be an unauthorised competition.

[Making_Splinters]

I think hypocritical is slightly strong OSY, it seems to me that the current situation is far more about saving face for all concerned than any betrayal of a belief in a system that they honestly feel will either improve or hinder the game after all Cricket Australia know too well the pain of being snubbed at the top table following the John Howard debacle.

At present the pro DRS parties are able to confirm their support of the system through words and bringing it to meetings with good intent but no action and at the same time they can point to the BCCI as the reason why the DRS is not mandatory in the game which keeps the headline hounds sated because they know that if they were to try and push the matter they would probably lose and the outcomes further down the line of losing face in the wider cricketing world might be harmful both at the ICC and domestically. Conversely the BCCI is more than happy to shoulder the burden of every so often being the troll under the bridge because ultimately they get their desired outcome with regards to the DRS and it affirms their position as the most powerful member of the ICC when it needs to push buttons elsewhere.

While I’m not entirely sure how to take my suggestion being called back door – far too smoke and mirrors for my tastes – the reason why I present it is simply because it helps mitigate these difficulties, no one loses face and at the same time everyone to a certain degree gets what they want with the exception of the BCCI who lose their overseas veto. In actuality could spin it as helping improve the autonomy for the smaller boards within the ICC by saying they are acting to remove any pressure that could be placed on boards that do not want to use the DRS by pro DRS touring parties.

[OffStumpYorker]

While I’m not entirely sure how to take my suggestion being called back door – far too smoke and mirrors for my tastes – the reason why I present it is simply because it helps mitigate these difficulties, no one loses face and at the same time everyone to a certain degree gets what they want with the exception of the BCCI who lose their overseas veto. In actuality could spin it as helping improve the autonomy for the smaller boards within the ICC by saying they are acting to remove any pressure that could be placed on boards that do not want to use the DRS by pro DRS touring parties.

M_S, it would be a back door, or rather by stealth, to getting it implemented around the globe, such that at some point the BCCI would have to accept it, or face only playing home series, and once that occured that there would be no justification for not implementing it in thier home series thus its would be an implementation by stealth.

I cant see that the sponsors and TV companies would pay the level they do for only home games probably against inferior opponents, and I have reservatations the fans would stand for it as they would more than likely missout on seeing thier team playing Australia, England and SA.

[D/L]

I think the answer to the question should be "Yes". Not only does the system improve decision making, but, as was claimed on the radio the other day (I forget by whom), it reduces dissent and this can only be good for the game.

With Bell’s dismissal yesterday, it seems that “Hotspot” has now been developed to a point where it can detect a “feather” that even the batsman can’t. This can only be a good thing in the quest to maximise the number of good umpiring decisions.

The biggest obstacle in the way of the universal use of UDRS is, of course, the BCCI. They have painted themselves into a corner with their opposition to it and will be very reluctant to admit their mistake.

[Making_Splinters]

Hotspot seems quite temperamental when it comes to really fine edges, Bell had one in the last series which he knew he had feathered but did not show up on Hotspot and in this series had one he didn't think he'd hit that did show up on Hotspot.

As for the dissent argument, see the Gayle dismissal last series.