England In India - October 2011/12

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

BCCI just has problem with lbw referals and feel they are not 100 percent right and I agree to this. How can technology decide which will it turn and then those 2.5m stupid rule

----------

Sachin has no problem with UDRS if it also uses hotspot and snicometer with hawkeye.
British reporter states Indians are afraid of Graeme Swann and his spin and thus dont want to use DRS.

Scared of Graeme Swann? My foot and its bullshit and we will show that :@p

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[AngryPixel]

Swann avgs 37 against India. Scared, lolz. We should be more concerned with Anderson than Swann

 

[Ollie_H]

BCCI just has problem with lbw referals and feel they are not 100 percent right and I agree to this. How can technology decide which will it turn and then those 2.5m stupid rule

Umm no, it doesn't 'just' have a problem with hawkeye. It was a problem with the (non) use of snicko and hotspot.

 

[mohit_dude10]

BCCI just has problem with lbw referals and feel they are not 100 percent right and I agree to this. How can technology decide which will it turn and then those 2.5m stupid rule

I don't get what does BCCI mean that its not 100% yet, is umpiring without DRS 100%? They should oppose that too then, Its ridiculous how they're still opposing the DRS when the hotspot is available. And as far as 2.5 m rule is concerned they made a change to it after the controversial Bell decision.

 

[Ollie_H]

I don't get what does BCCI mean that its not 100% yet, is umpiring without DRS 100%? They should oppose that too then,

I could swear I made that point somewhere else.

 

[AngryPixel]

Yup in the No DRS for England thread. I think DRS only improves the quality of decisions. If BCCI has problem with Hawkeye then atleast accept the DRS for the Caught behind dismissals. Bravo was a gonner against Ishant yesterday. It was clear in the replays. Sound was there, deviation was there. So even without the snicko 3rd umpire would have ruled that out.

One thing that DRS has doe is that Umpire have started giving out LBW's which they didnt earlier. Take Sarwan's wicket for example. I dont think any umpire would have given that out ten years ago. I know he wasn't playing the shot but ball hit him on knee roll and umpires didnt used to give you out if you are hit on the knee roll while on frontfoot.

 

[War]

Andrew Strauss has a problem - and he's left to deal with Zaheer Khan. The Top Spin | Mail Online

Good analysis this.

 

[mohit_dude10]

I could swear I made that point somewhere else.

Probably because its so obvious for most of us, but not for BCCI.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

BCCI just has problem with lbw referals and feel they are not 100 percent right and I agree to this.

It's still pretty accurate. For those decisions where the ball just clips the bails or just hits the stumps, the on-field call is taken. Same for where the ball impacts on the pitch. I fail to understand the logic behind opposing the DRS. And, I use the world "logic" loosely.

 

[SaiSrini]

If the BCCI wants to continue to play the arse, then ENG should be able to use it regardless. If they want they could pull out the series, for being such damn fools.

Plus no the world should not be waiting for the BCCI to agree to anything. They dont bloody own cricket, although they are currently behaving like they do. It should quite obviously be the other way around & i hope you are not trying to defend your corrupt cricket board by seriously suggesting the former.

I am not defending BCCI as I know they are too dominant these days and use power wrongly. But the majority of the blame goes to the ICC and to the countries that suck up to the BCCI. The ICC needs to have balls to say "No, we are going ahead with the DRS for all tests" instead of bowing to the BCCI. If that happens, there is no question of BCCI agreeing to something and then it gets implemented.

 

[Sureshot]

It's still pretty accurate. For those decisions where the ball just clips the bails or just hits the stumps, the on-field call is taken. Same for where the ball impacts on the pitch. I fail to understand the logic behind opposing the DRS. And, I use the world "logic" loosely.

It often annoys me (Botham seems to do this a bit, though not this summer yet) with the question of the accuracy of Hawkeye in predicting where the ball will bounce, spin or the general direction of it. Do these people seriously believe that the human eye (which of it's good points, better prediction of object trajectory than a sophisticated camera system isn't one of them) is more accurate than a sophisticated camera system designed for the purpose?

The evidence for Hawkeye improving the quality of correct decisions is beyond all doubt, Umpiring standards were pretty good before, but who can seriously say the system doesn't work when the % of correct decisions has gone from high 80s to very high 90s. Even if it isn't perfect, it has it's issues, I'll admit, how can you turn down a system that has been as affective as it has been? I just don't get it.

I think it's a bit hard to blame some countries in some instances for going with the BCCI, for countries like Sri Lanka that have been practically rescued, financially, by the BCCI. I blame the ICC for allowing situations such as that to happen.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

I think it's a bit hard to blame some countries in some instances for going with the BCCI, for countries like Sri Lanka that have been practically rescued, financially, by the BCCI. I blame the ICC for allowing situations such as that to happen.

If the BCCI do financially help other boards, then it should be done purely for the sake of world cricket. I think it's unfair on them if they use past aid in order to pressure other boards to their way of thinking.

Take the ECB for example, who allowed the neutral series between Pakistan and Australia on their soil. The PCB and CA used the ECB's facilities, but none of the royalties were shared by the ECB. The ECB didn't demand anything in return - it was all done in the 'Spirit of Cricket'.

I think a lot of harsh criticism is given to the ICC. As it stands, all the power decisions are decided by the governing boards. For the ICC structure to change, it has to be decided by them. And that's not happening anytime soon if the BCCI are running things.

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

Can't agree more to Papa Smurf ECB acted in spirit of cricket and BCCI should help all the other boards in moving cricket forward. Don't worry things will be fine in ayears span

 

[sifter132]

It often annoys me (Botham seems to do this a bit, though not this summer yet) with the question of the accuracy of Hawkeye in predicting where the ball will bounce, spin or the general direction of it. Do these people seriously believe that the human eye (which of it's good points, better prediction of object trajectory than a sophisticated camera system isn't one of them) is more accurate than a sophisticated camera system designed for the purpose?

The evidence for Hawkeye improving the quality of correct decisions is beyond all doubt, Umpiring standards were pretty good before, but who can seriously say the system doesn't work when the % of correct decisions has gone from high 80s to very high 90s. Even if it isn't perfect, it has it's issues, I'll admit, how can you turn down a system that has been as affective as it has been? I just don't get it.

Couldn't agree more

 

[barmyarmy]

Swann avgs 37 against India. Scared, lolz. We should be more concerned with Anderson than Swann

That's what the Australians said...