No Hawk-eye for India - England series after DRS made mandatory
- Thread starter Gurjot95
- Start date
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
Its not as easy as that though. If India walked away from backing Sri Lanka they'd be completely bankrupt for example.
lewissaffin
Club Cricketer
At the end of the day, if England benefit from it then the Indians will get all arrogant and pissy about how DRS is the worst thing in the world. If India benefit from it then we English will get all stuck-up and holier than thou about the morals of the game.
Everyone has an opinion on it. Personally, I think it is incredibly selfish of the Indian batsmen to use their considerable weight in swaying world cricket to benefit themselves. Politics and sport should not cross like that.
Everyone has an opinion on it. Personally, I think it is incredibly selfish of the Indian batsmen to use their considerable weight in swaying world cricket to benefit themselves. Politics and sport should not cross like that.
That sounds like the hitman, at his murder trial, saying:
"I hate to speak ill of the dead, Your Honour, but it's his fault for not deflecting the bullet!".
What the BCCI is doing is an abuse of power, not a 'understandable' use of it ("With great power comes great responsibility"). There is a strong prima facie case against the BCCI for:
- using its wealth to buy corrupt and unconstitutional influence over the ICC
- seeking to bring cricket into disrepute, by facilitating the making of wrong umpiring decisions, including incompetent or - potentially at least - corrupt ones
Any fault that lies with others for failing to stop them is insignificant in comparison.
I'd agree if this were about the other cricket boards not stopping the BCCI, but this is the ICC. They're number 1 priority is the well being of the sport. They shouldn't be letting the BCCI dictate terms like they are.
Having said that, the ICC is more or less a gathering of the other cricket boards and they're all complete wusses.
England v India, 2nd Test: England question Hotspot accuracy | Cricket News | England v India 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo
Lol England crying hotspot is not accurate. Hawk-eye has its own problem. If ball just clips and the umpire has not given out then it stands. Which is crazy. Also the 2.5 m rule and the very fact tracking is based on guess work (similar to umpires).
Technology is not the answer to pathetic umpiring like Bhajji's dismisal. If umpires were good enough everything should be fine even though every now and then there may be some bad decisions.
Lol England crying hotspot is not accurate. Hawk-eye has its own problem. If ball just clips and the umpire has not given out then it stands. Which is crazy. Also the 2.5 m rule and the very fact tracking is based on guess work (similar to umpires).
Technology is not the answer to pathetic umpiring like Bhajji's dismisal. If umpires were good enough everything should be fine even though every now and then there may be some bad decisions.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
No it isn't. Try again.
P
pcfan123
Guest
wrong
India won't show any interest in it until they can somehow profit from it.
Pure and simple, the BCCI are money grubbers and not in the usual way that other cricket boards are. They are the greediest pigs in the lot
They'll have one to ponder now, middle wicket of the hat-trick and Harbhajan did not look at all happy.
The Indians have shown they don't like decisions going against them, beginning to wonder if they aren't collectively and some individually worse than Broad on that score.
I have never been a great fan of dorkeye I must confess, but at least the LBW referrals are an improvement on the naked eye and for some on here to sit and say "that looked out" and dismiss dorkeye is laughable. I have to laugh also at suggestion that "we need better umpires", they are a) only human, b) required to make decisions based on a normal speed view of the delivery with several factors to account for, and c) in a pressure situation.
That pressure won't be helped by no referrals, the umpires will know that whatever LBW decision they give will favour whoever they've given it to, be it not out or out. With referrals they'll know they can make a mistake because the referrals will bail them out. For example, if India had pulled their head out of the sand and had LBW referrals, Harbhajan could have saved his wicket and India might have a 100+ lead. I know the clever dicks said the umpire "should have seen it", Boycs I think was one, but that doesn't detract from the point that the umpire had to give what he saw and if he didn't see the edge then he couldn't give any benefit of the doubt.
It is a shame the Indians were so stubborn/stupid/*insert choice of word here* as it could ruin a good series and create a great deal of resentment. All teams will look back at what went against them, that's why referrals are essential because they take blame off the umpires and can reduce the amount of onfield tension between players and umpires as well as both teams. Harbhajan and India might suggest England knew he got an edge and call them cheats, just like England might suggest Sreesanth knew he hadn't taken a clean catch off his own bowling.
Oh and on the subject of tension, what was that tit Michael Yawn mentioning jelly beans on the TMS site?!?!? Someone should hire a hitman and test his ability to deflect bullets, he is too busy trying to be 'clever' and trendy with his stupid comments. He tried to invent a new expression for two quick wickets, I think the TMS team thought he was demented when he started saying "bang bang" - it thankfully never caught on. He should stick to what he does best, no wait he talks rubbish already so he's doing that. And I suspect the jelly bean thing would have been his stupid idea in the first place, wasn't that ridiculous idea of fielders moving during delivery (approach) his too....................?
I don't get this obsession with 100% accuracy either. The people who say we can't use DRS until it's 100% accurate. That's like saying we can't drive a car until it's 100% safe - and until then we'll refuse to use seatbelts and airbags.
Let's just say that umpire accuracy is 90% (not based on real figures) and DRS accuracy is 95%. If the umpire gets it wrong there's a good chance that the DRS will overturn it. If it doesn't what has been lost? There have been very few incidents where the umpire has got it right and DRS has overturned it (mostly due to hotspot).
DRS also isn't just about hotspot and hawkeye. Anyone watching a slow motion replay could have told Erasmus that Harhajan wasn't out yesterday. The idea of opposing something because it isn't 100% accurate is ludicrous. The accuracy margin is already covered by the onfield call margin of error. The system is there to reverse howlers not dismiss batsmen who where given not out when the ball may be clipping the outside of leg stump.
I just get annoyed watching wrong decisions when it's clear how easily they could be fixed.
Let's just say that umpire accuracy is 90% (not based on real figures) and DRS accuracy is 95%. If the umpire gets it wrong there's a good chance that the DRS will overturn it. If it doesn't what has been lost? There have been very few incidents where the umpire has got it right and DRS has overturned it (mostly due to hotspot).
DRS also isn't just about hotspot and hawkeye. Anyone watching a slow motion replay could have told Erasmus that Harhajan wasn't out yesterday. The idea of opposing something because it isn't 100% accurate is ludicrous. The accuracy margin is already covered by the onfield call margin of error. The system is there to reverse howlers not dismiss batsmen who where given not out when the ball may be clipping the outside of leg stump.
I just get annoyed watching wrong decisions when it's clear how easily they could be fixed.
RPHKR
National Board President
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2008
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
Are you a wizard?
Are you a racist ??
Uggh not this again. I don't see how no LBW reviews ruins a series. Both teams are playing by the same rules, and for 130 years there has been no LBW reviews. Bad decisions have abounded in that time, it's just that the scrutiny now is so intense that even the smallest errors are reported. Watched a news report about how Cook wouldn't have been out on day 1 under DRS doesn't help. The ball was a bee's dick over the stumps for one, and two if he was good enough to hit it he wouldn't have been out either. In the good old days that was just a close 50-50 decision that went against him, now it's a wrong decision. I don't like that trend.
Of course, I'd prefer India put it's support behind the DRS too so the rules were a bit more comprehensive, but there aren't 'stupid' for not doing so. Everyone has their own opinion on what should and shouldn't be used in DRS and it's exactly that THEIR OPINION.
For example, here's my opinion: I think Hotspot for caught behinds is crap, have a look at it sure, but if it shows nothing don't suddenly take that as gospel. Sound is what should be used and a good slow mo to see if it was bat on pad not bat on ball. And for LBWs, I like Hawkeye myself, but you'd get rid of most of the howlers with just a pitch map (for outside leg) and again a good slow mo to see if there was an inside edge.
But I'm not going to say the series is crap just because they aren't playing by the DRS I would run.
