sohum
Executive member
No, the logic doesn't follow. My guess is that the BCCI makes a hell of a lot more money than the ICC.
Hot Spot unlikely to be used in the World Cup
- Thread starter Bounce
- Start date
P
pcfan123
Guest
The BCCI should not have to pay for ████,
The ICC is the governing body of cricket, they have to set it up. Ridiculous that they are not, what the hell are they waiting for? Invest in the sport you █████
Mark added 0 Minutes and 45 Seconds later...
Its actually feasible, like night vision goggles. Maybe in 20 years
The ICC is the governing body of cricket, they have to set it up. Ridiculous that they are not, what the hell are they waiting for? Invest in the sport you █████
Mark added 0 Minutes and 45 Seconds later...
The solution has already been found
Its actually feasible, like night vision goggles. Maybe in 20 years
sohum
Executive member
International Cricket Council - News - Publications - Annual Reports
The ICC made a $3m loss in 2008 and operated under a $84.7m surplus in 2009. The bulk of this was made from event revenues because they held both the Champions Trophy and the World Twenty20 events in 2009 (revenues from these two events added up to around $140m). Apart from event revenues, the ICC only makes about $30m in revenues.
Once they go back to a normal schedule (only one major ICC event in any given year), their surplus will shrink back down. So there's no long term surplus to work with.
The UDRS costs about $56,000 per match day, according to one report. It does not appear that this cost includes the cost of the hotspot technology, however. Or the cost of purchasing the equipment rather than leasing it (and also the costs of transportation, etc. since presumably they won't buy enough equipment to cover every single stadium that is used in Test cricket).
If there was ever a good time to invest in the technology, it would be now, though, since the ICC is operating under a pretty massive surplus. However, they are probably waiting in anticipation of the 2011 World Cup. The 2007 World Cup yielded revenues of $230m. If this World Cup comes anywhere close then they should have enough to finance the UDRS.
Dare
Chairman of Selectors
I thought the ICC would be making allot of money from BCCI but I guess the ICC is structured differently from leagues like NBA, NFL and MLB.
sohum
Executive member
Nope, it's the other way around. The ICC only makes money from ICC events and global sponsorships (usually coinciding with those ICC events). Most of their money is paid back to the members and invested in the development of cricket.
American national leagues are different because all the franchises are privatized. They are enterprises in and of itself and hence the governing organization doesn't have to pay out anything. I guess the IPL would be the closest analog in cricket (the bidding war for franchises springs into mind).
Insomniac
Title Recipient
Hotspots pretty useless anyway, Haider was out at 115/6 when he was on 18, and Hot Spot showed no edge although snicko later showed an edge.
Insomniac added 4 Minutes and 8 Seconds later...
Honestly though, has hot spot shown us anything the naked eye can't see?
As in, every edge from hot spot I think has always been able to be confirmed by the naked eye - whilst a bit hard to see and requires one to look very closely, you can see it through the naked eye.
Insomniac added 4 Minutes and 8 Seconds later...
Honestly though, has hot spot shown us anything the naked eye can't see?
As in, every edge from hot spot I think has always been able to be confirmed by the naked eye - whilst a bit hard to see and requires one to look very closely, you can see it through the naked eye.
Confirmation please.
Well I think it was tentatively agreed that at the very least the final can get hot spot, and probably the other big matches too. It's just they can't do ALL the matches at this stage since there aren't enough cameras and they need military clearance to get them made.
Not surprised, and not disappointed
There's so little hotspot and other gimmicks pick up that can't be picked up by replays. Anything that does slip through the net they should just accept as being too hard to call.
I'd be more concerned that the UDRS has too many flaws, not least because it is given to the players who have to make a judgement on when to use them and they are always bound to use them for calls on LBW rather than when they know there was/wasn't an edge. It needs reconsideration in my view, if the point is to eliminate umpiring mistakes then it doesn't because it depends on sides having referrals left. So basically it's ok for an umpire to make a mistake if the side on the receiving end has no referrals left?!?!?!?
And the defence of "they shouldn't have wasted their referrals" is pretty limp, if an umpire stood there principally to watch the ball from an optimum position can get it wrong then why should someone who's behind the stumps, at slip, in the covers, bowling or even at the non-strikers end be any better at calling or judging it?!? Players will naturally want to know on close calls whether it was out or not, giving them control of the referrals is wrong in my opinion.
Are they counting how many successful referrals there have been against failed referrals and indeed how many decisions that weren't referred were incorrect? Those stats are the ones that prove if the system is working and indeed worthwhile as is. If as many referrals fail as succeed, and similar numbers again go without referral when they would have succeeded, then to me the system is a lottery.
Similar threads
