DRS no longer mandatory
- Thread starter Gurjot95
- Start date
Sedition
Panel of Selectors
I don't think Australians wanted Howard either.. he's a politician and they're tweaking scum.
stefan
International Coach
Its not even worth talking about CSA and their leaders like Majola. They are BCCI's puppets. They feel they need to bend over to india because "India got us back into international cricket"... Just go back and read about the Mike Denness incident and the "unofficial test". Also are so called leaders are currently being investigated for not declaring their ipl bonus money...
I am not specificly in favor of Howard(not a fan because of his Iraq war stance) but he is a strong leader and that's what cricket needs. Unfortuantly all the officials involved seem to be puppets who bow to whatever the BCCI wants because of the money involved. They care more about what's good for their own pocket then what is good for the game...
If that was an attempt at trolling, nice try...
----------
Not necessarily. The ones playing are humans, not robots. Maybe an early Tendulkar dismissal might have spurred someone else to come up with a better show than what they achieved in that particular game.
----------
Now I hope there is no more controversies regarding his wicket as he was clearly out but HotSpot did not show. Shows how good the technology is
Really? ha ha ha.... thats funny!
Howard was not elected since he is considered a racist (again views may differ). SA and Zim were the ones who led the opposition for a change. Why would you want to put a controversial guy as a head of an already controversial organisation
----------
Are you suggesting Mike Denness was impartial? I remember in the 1990's Aus players used to do all sorts of rubbish and get away with it. The whole incident turned ugly. Had he banned Pollock for his antics this would not have happened. He targetted just Indian players and it took a political turn. There were protests outside SA embassy in India and also there was pressure from Parliament to cancel the tour. It would have been a PR disaster for a country trying to come out of racism if some other country was to cancel the tour for racism. SA did right. Mike Deness was wrong or atleast partial.
Howard is a controversial leader. And not to forget this great leader of yours was a great puppet to US when he was in power
You really expect him to stand up against the cricketing superpower 
----------
NZ were not happy since I believe it was their turn to nominate a leader and CA bullied them
----------
You forgot about the case when Vaughan accussed Lax of cheating. Why spend 1000's of dollars on a technology that is not correct. Not to forget the use is humiliating. If I remember correct it is some military technology and some one from the company needs to be with the machine always and there were also 48 hrs restriction (before which the device cannot be bought to the subcontinent). I cannot find the article but I sure read this during the world cup.
----------
Haha we have already been screwed and we have taken the opportunity to cleanse incompetent umpires like Steve Bucknor. That explains part of why Aussies have been doing badly of late
Last edited:
stefan
International Coach
Whether or not Denness was unfair to India is not the point. The point is CSA should have left the decision to the ICC. Instead they bend over and took whatever India wanted. It was not their decision to make whether Deness is a proper match referee or not.
Which part of it took a political turn do you not understand? There were real problems in India. The parliament called on BCCI to cancel tour which would have been a diplomatic attack on SA govt. And the SA govt. told CSA to do everything it can to make sure the tour went on. CSA was not a puppet of BCCI. The matter was outside both BCCI and CSA's hands.
Had Tendulkar not been involved in the mess probably BCCI would have dealt with it differently and the reaction from India would have been a lot less. Tendu is a guy who won matches for India when he knew Azhar mafia was trying to fix some of them. He was the only Superstar of Team India at that time. To ban tendulkar was a blasphemy for a lot of fans. Again you may have a different opinion as to whether he cheated or not or whether the reaction from the public is rational. But that is the ground reality and you need to face it. Accuse Tendu and you have a billion enemies
Last edited:
WubbaLubbaDubDub
The Man With The Glip Glops
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
Well, I know CSA is complete puppet of BCCI but again that is not BCCI's fault. If you wish to be enslaved to someone then thats your choice.
For DRS we are spending crores of rupees series by series but its better to spend those money to bring up another country like Ireland or Netherlands. Spend those money their and spread cricket. DRS is not what CRICKET needs right now, cricket needs is popularity.
With DRS, we can also assure decline of umpires standards because they now know, whatever will be the decision if they are not satisfied they will change the decision by referring. I will be in full support of DRS when rules will be standard which does not change series by series jotted down in a proper book and the technology is near 90% correct which is not currently. I would say it is just 20% accurate. For instance Bell's dismissal in WC which was overturned due to 2.5 m rule. I mean wtf, if umpires given out, just check whether its hitting the stumps or not.
For DRS we are spending crores of rupees series by series but its better to spend those money to bring up another country like Ireland or Netherlands. Spend those money their and spread cricket. DRS is not what CRICKET needs right now, cricket needs is popularity.
With DRS, we can also assure decline of umpires standards because they now know, whatever will be the decision if they are not satisfied they will change the decision by referring. I will be in full support of DRS when rules will be standard which does not change series by series jotted down in a proper book and the technology is near 90% correct which is not currently. I would say it is just 20% accurate. For instance Bell's dismissal in WC which was overturned due to 2.5 m rule. I mean wtf, if umpires given out, just check whether its hitting the stumps or not.
Who said it's not correct? Hotspot missing a mark doesn't mean it isn't correct, it means it has limitations just like any other thing in this world. As for Vaughan, clearly he doesn't understand how Hotspot works.
If you have been watching the BBL they have the video umpire doing the reviews. Has been successful in getting the right calls made, might have missed one the ball before in the Sydney derby but I'd say this method looks pretty good once the players actually know what is going on and the umpires have more training on this. So far only seems to be for catches.
The key would be holding the player before he gets off the field. This would involve the 3rd umpire knowing straight away if something was wrong or just asking the umpire to keep the player around if it looked really close.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
It is 90% accurate... more in fact...
This thread alone is a wonderful example of why it's easy to convince entire swathes of people (is idiots too strong?) that something is true when actual evidence exists to prove to the contrary.
I would say, that the Bell instance was indeed a mistake, that the rules were changed to accomodate it. I would say that anyone referring to something that is now defunct as a reason is either misinformed, an idiot, a moron, or just blindly ignorant.
I would say that 99% of people who disagree with the DRS system are probably dreadfully dull people, the sort of person who would take their trousers off and bend over because someone told them to do it. I would say, I would say that making up rubbish and spouting it as fact is an excellent way of completely negating one's entire argument.
What I love, is that all the people arguing against DRS seem to ignore the main point. That is there are less mistakes with the DRS system than without it. If even that simple fact is lost on some people, then I guess we can only hope that progress is moving fast enough to overtake their fragile and delicate minds.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
i'd be ok with that, but the problem is the weighting with the batsman. like, say hughes in the new zealand test, out on 0. NZ didn't review because they were worried about wasting a review too early in a high pressure innings.
no one's waiting around because if the umpire says not out, then just get on with it, you can't stop the game every ball for a tv umpire to review it. but hughes knew he was out, you feel a ball on the glove, he held all the cards in that situation.
as it is the only thing DRS is really sorting out is nicks behind being wrongly given out, the rest is pretty much a lottery as to when to correctly review.
I don't have any problem with technology being used to get the right decision, i think we need it. what I don't think works is that the players have to decide when to review and when not to.
maybe they could do the thing where they just hold the batsman back a minute on close decisions, giving them no reviews, and give the fielding team 5 or something. I think not outs are the bigger problem.
every one goes mad when someone is given wrongly out, because it doesn't happen, whenever a batsman survives an out it's got to the point where people don't even bother because it happens so much.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
@ stinky
You're leaving out spinners like Swann. Plenty of spinners benefit from the DRS because they can appeal for LBW's when bat and pad are played together. Not to mention, a spinner often knows when a ball was meant to go straight on, something an umpire sometimes isn't and will say it's missing leg.
All the Hughes one demonstrates to me, is that NZ weren't that confident themselves, and much like the umpire, weren't convinced it was actually out. This basically means it wasn't really a shocker of a decision, and isn't technically what the DRS is for? Also, what's the point in referring a Phil Hughes not out decision? Only postponing the inevitable for another over or two
You're leaving out spinners like Swann. Plenty of spinners benefit from the DRS because they can appeal for LBW's when bat and pad are played together. Not to mention, a spinner often knows when a ball was meant to go straight on, something an umpire sometimes isn't and will say it's missing leg.
All the Hughes one demonstrates to me, is that NZ weren't that confident themselves, and much like the umpire, weren't convinced it was actually out. This basically means it wasn't really a shocker of a decision, and isn't technically what the DRS is for? Also, what's the point in referring a Phil Hughes not out decision? Only postponing the inevitable for another over or two
They actually reviewed a not out against Cameron White and he was given and it was pretty similar to the Hughes one. Key is the 3rd umpire being able to say hey that looked out live or that looked pretty close to out.
