Modified DRS to be made mandatory

This deserves its own thread.

But it will be without any form of ball-tracking technology. So howlers where the ball pitches outside leg stump and the batsman is given out LBW won't be able to be overturned. Thanks to the BCCI for their briiliant aplication of logic resulting in this decision. Let me elaborate... They object to HawkEye and Virtual Eye on the grounds that the 'predictive' path is, in their view, suspect. So, the whole system, including the bit where those systems (heres the good bit) show what actually happened. As I've said elsewhere, you couldn't make this sh!t up.

Reject the whole system, including the bit that works, because you don't like the bit that might be black magic. Maybe I'm a loon, but wouldn't it have been simpler to add a caveat saying the system can be used for representations of what has happened, and not in any manner for predicting events?

Although it seems if competing teams agree to it, the technology can still be used.

Referrals come down to just one usuccessful review per team per innings, which should reduce 'tactical' usage considerably.

And Hot Spot and audio can be used, although not Snicko. As long as the umpire turns up the volume on the Tele.

I think that's the lot. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/520913.html

Of course, this still has to be voted on by the ICC Executive Board. Who could still c*ck the whole thing up.

Er, what's DRS without ball-tracking? Video replay?

Surely they'll allow the ball to be tracked to pitching and striking the pad?

Are you sure the Bannies aren't just p!ssing off the bit after it hits the pad, i.e. the predicted path? Which I tend to agree with. Let the umpire be sure it hasn't pitched outside leg and has hit the batsman in line, and let him determine if it would've hit the stumps.

How about the simple red strip that they put down the middle of the pitch to get an idea if the ball pitched outside leg stump or not? Can that sill be used?

skully wrote:Surely they'll allow the ball to be tracked to pitching and striking the pad?

Um, no.

From the story linked to in the original post.

For example, if the ball pitches outside leg stump and the batsman is given lbw, he can appeal against the verdict but the third umpire will not have the benefit of ball-tracking technology to ascertain where the ball pitched.

Henry wrote:How about the simple red strip that they put down the middle of the pitch to get an idea if the ball pitched outside leg stump or not? Can that sill be used?

That would be a 'no' as well.

And this from the story...

The pitch mat was brought up during the discussion as the one element of the ball-tracking technology that could be used in the DRS so that the lbw could be covered using two technologies. It was, however, rejected by

Now, in the interests of entertainment, I'll interrupt the quote to give you a chance to guess who rejected it. Go on, have a guess...

Spoiler:

Of course, there's now the question of who will pay for the Hot Spot technology...

Wow, that's farken unbelievable.

Why? Haven't years of following cricket, the corruption in some boards, and the ineptitude of the ICC prepared you for this?

So "audio tracking device technology" is not snicko?

Real time, not super slo-mo, and no graph representing the audio.

Zat wrote:Why? Haven't years of following cricket, the corruption in some boards, and the ineptitude of the ICC prepared you for this?

Fair enough but that gobsmacked me. What a bunch of c0ckmunchers these farkers are.

Fark, what's wrong with "yes Billy, it didn't pitch outside leg, and it hit him in line, over to you, son"?

That is just bureaucracy gone bananas.

I don't spose there is any thought given to a method of adjuicating dismissals that served the game for a couple of hundred years?

In my job, I've had to place graphics on video images and I'll tell you, it's difficult for a pitch mat not to be accurate. I cannot understand what objection they'd have to it.

Zat wrote:Real time, not super slo-mo, and no graph representing the audio.

So, as I said, an action replay. May as well get the commentators to double as 3rd umpires. FFS.

Zat wrote:Real time, not super slo-mo, and no graph representing the audio.

Fark, no wonder the bannies live in the dark ages.

Brass Monkey wrote:

In my job, I've had to place graphics on video images and I'll tell you, it's difficult for a pitch mat not to be accurate. I cannot understand what objection they'd have to it.

Do you understand any of their thought processes?

I would prefer they went with Hawk/Virtual/Whatever Eye, up to the point the ball hits the pad. The pitch mat can be manipulated fairly easily. A few pixels are easy enough to add or remove.

HawkEye can be overlaid on teh TV picture to minimise the chance of manipulation.

But this is the ICC, why should I expect logic?

Zat wrote:Reject the whole system, including the bit that works, because you don't like the bit that might be black magic.

Ahem.... don't you mean monkey magic? No, nononono, I meant teri maa ki magic?

I've got a great idea. Let's have a DRS system but let's make it completely sh*t. Let's make it so sh*t that it will be capable of making and endorsing the same bad, original decision. Let's make it so sh*t that it's like not having a review system at all. I think it's a great idea and completely a step in the right direction. I think the ICC should be credited, actually. They usually manage to make everything sh*t within a few months of it coming in, in this case it has taken the soft, testicle-less morons a few years.

taipan wrote:
Do you understand any of their thought processes?

Well no. But the point is that I can see how, to ignorant eyes and ears, Hawkeye(f*ck Virtual Eye - c*ckheaded thieves) could be misconstrued as some evil person just creating the images rather than the whole, y'know, mathematically sound triangulation algorithms it is. But the pitch mat is simply a graphic put on the screen using simple geometry. T'would be more difficult to get wrong......

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next president of the ICC... Chivalry Augustus.

Hawkeye and pitch mats are a white man conspiracy. Well done on the BCCI for standing up to racism.

Mehhh, it's the same thing, though, isn't it? ALL other teams will agree to use Hawkeye and the vapid needledicks from valorous India will stand by their rightful crusade to keep the correct decisions made down at 92% rather than up at 98% where the rest of us will be. At least they don't think infra-red is voodoo.

As I've already posted in some other thread, the decision is sad, weak and pathetic. And honestly the other boards are as much to blame as BCCI. FFS, I thought the one subject in which the BCCI were in a minority of one against atleast 8 who were in favour of the DRS, they might finally be over-ruled. But hey....

The only good thing about this is after watching the ridiculousness of handicapping umpires only in series involving us, the penny might finally drop. It may take years, but I do expect it to happen.

Otherwise I'm just waiting for the BCCI to refuse the DRS giving a lack of funds as excuse. That should be entertaining.

I saw that exec lie through his teeth saying it would cost $60,000 a match, when the real cost is $25,000 maximum. Naturally, the BCCI can't afford either sum.

But in all seriousness, for the less rich boards (and hence for everyone) I think it should be split into thirds - the home board pays a third, the ICC pays a third and the broadcaster pays a third.

i think the bcci tried to try and come out of it not looking like complete idiots since they so publicly opposed the udrs. if they agreed to all parts it would be a damning indictment of their earlier lack of logic

hopefully after a few series they will have 'gathered scientific data' on hawkeye and that will be made mandatory as well

seems to be a financial windfall for the hot-spot makers though. till now they only did series in aus and eng. now they will be required for every test series

The One wrote:i think the bcci tried to try and come out of it not looking like complete idiots since they so publicly opposed the udrs. if they agreed to all parts it would be a damning indictment of their earlier lack of logic

hopefully after a few series they will have 'gathered scientific data' on hawkeye and that will be made mandatory as well

seems to be a financial windfall for the hot-spot makers though. till now they only did series in aus and eng. now they will be required for every test series

How can they make Hot Spot mandatory? Aren't those cameras ridiculously expensive? So poor boards like the WI will have to pony up for this technology but aren't allowed to use the hawkeye technology they already have? That makes sense. The current system is not perfect but I think these changes are ridiculous. Just make UDRS mandatory across the board and just use whatever technology the home broadcaster has.