No DRS for Pakistan/England Tests in the UAE

The ICC's brilliant new policy of mandatory DRS comes a cropper again because Pakistan's broadcaster won't pay for it.

So since the mandatory DRS has been announced, England-India has had no hawkeye because India don't trust it, Sri Lanka-Australia has no Hotspot because Sri Lanka can't afford it, and Zimbabwe's Tests with Bangladesh and Pakistan had no DRS at all.

What a farce. Why aren't the ICC paying for it across the board? It's not rocket science, is it?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/532121.html

It's not even brain surgery.

And it's clearly done your brain in, so you clearly need it.



Is DRS soooooooooooooooo pricey then?

The DRS is nothing like 'pricey'. It costs approximately £1,000 a day. Surely the ICC could stump that up?

You would have thought so.

Sounds more like the PCB are afraid of evidence.

Bloody hypocrites. On the one hand they'll lynch India for opposing its use, on the other hand they themselves don't use it that often.

As they say talk is cheap.

Why aren't the ICC paying for it across the board?

Probably because ICC itself isn't very sure of its effectiveness? Especially what happened many times during this summer, Aus casting aspersions on its usefulness.

Don't think we'll go too far with DRS in near future. It has way too many loopholes.

Sooooooooooooooooo ... are you for or against Pakistan's decision, SG?

SG wrote:

Why aren't the ICC paying for it across the board?

Probably because ICC itself isn't very sure of its effectiveness? Especially what happened many times during this summer, Aus casting aspersions on its usefulness.

Don't think we'll go too far with DRS in near future. It has way too many loopholes.

It's the ICC's fault, for not paying it. Full stop. Sky obviously are fine stumping the money up, as are other richer broadcasting companies. It shouldn't be them fronting it, the governing body should. It has nothing to do with the ICC as to it's effectiveness, they passed the mandate as voted by the countries.

Too many loopholes? Don't be stupid, no-one said it was 100% accurate. Just that it's more accurate than umpires. It's still down to the humans to make the decisions.

SG wrote:

Why aren't the ICC paying for it across the board?

Probably because ICC itself isn't very sure of its effectiveness? Especially what happened many times during this summer, Aus casting aspersions on its usefulness.

Don't think we'll go too far with DRS in near future. It has way too many loopholes.

But the ICC themselves mandated its use in all series.

Why would they do that if they thought it was all a load of hokey nonsense and witchcraft?

The more simple answer as to why they're not footing the bill is because they're money grubbing parasites.

I don't know about loopholes - flaws, for sure. But nothing will ever be perfect and it's already proven a good starting point for getting more decisions right. Theoretically, the more it's used and understood, and the more the system and technology are tweaked and improved over time, the rate of correct decisions will continue to rise.

Hot spot has proved itself to be one such tool which gets cold on many occasions. Come on BM, you must've seen that many a times during that lop sided Ind-Eng series? Don't want to repeat all those instances.

If it can't ensure 100% results why would poorer boards opt for it?

Why would they do that if they thought it was all a load of hokey nonsense and witchcraft?

That was before this series starterd. That, combined with even Tauffel asking for ICC to look into it, say only one thing to me.

The more simple answer as to why they're not footing the bill is because they're money grubbing parasites.

Considering that the most of ICC's revenues come from India, don't think they'll ever be ready to foot the bill of DRS for int'l game played. Never ever going to happen.

Sooooooooooooooooo ... are you for or against Pakistan's decision, SG?

Nothing of that sort, Peter. Was just pointing out their hypocrisy.

SG wrote:Hot spot has proved itself to be one such tool which gets cold on many occasions. Come on BM, you must've seen that many a times during that lop sided Ind-Eng series? Don't want to repeat all those instances.

If it can't ensure 100% results why would poorer boards opt for it?

It's incredibly simple, SG. Hotspot will definitely pick up some edges undetected by the umpire. The ones that don't get pick up, there's always the stump mike to aid in the decisions. Both of the things I've said make for more correct decisions made rather than less.

It's still down to the humans to make the decisions.

They too go by what hotspot shows them. As I said, hotspot has proved to be a fairly inaccurate tool many no. of times during this summer.

SG wrote:

It's still down to the humans to make the decisions.

They too go by what hotspot shows them. As I said, hotspot has proved to be a fairly inaccurate tool many no. of times during this summer.

It's said to be less effective in colder environments, but that's immaterial really. The fact is the third umpire can advise the umpire as to whether he's hit it. Like the ODI the other day where Hotspot didn't pick anything up but the 3rd ump said there was a noise when ball passed bat and it was given out.

Brass Monkey wrote:

SG wrote:

It's still down to the humans to make the decisions.

They too go by what hotspot shows them. As I said, hotspot has proved to be a fairly inaccurate tool many no. of times during this summer.

It's said to be less effective in colder environments, but that's immaterial really. The fact is the third umpire can advise the umpire as to whether he's hit it. Like the ODI the other day where Hotspot didn't pick anything up but the 3rd ump said there was a noise when ball passed bat and it was given out.

And I think this is the point about technology - the more it's used, the more the umpires will understand it's strengths and weaknesses and be able to take those into account when making a decision.

Aus/Eng, they used Hotspot as the final word in all decisions. Which was obviously the wrong way to go about things. Now it's used more as an aid rather than an absolute, and we're getting more sensible, rational decisions as a result. They should do the same with hawkeye. If it throws up an obviously weird "prediction", like that LBW in the SL/Aus first Test, they should have the confidence to disregard it.

Dello wrote:
And I think this is the point about technology - the more it's used, the more the umpires will understand it's strengths and weaknesses and be able to take those into account when making a decision.

Aus/Eng, they used Hotspot as the final word in all decisions. Which was obviously the wrong way to go about things. Now it's used more as an aid rather than an absolute, and we're getting more sensible, rational decisions as a result. They should do the same with hawkeye. If it throws up an obviously weird "prediction", like that LBW in the SL/Aus first Test, they should have the confidence to disregard it.

Aye that's it. They have to have the conviction to say that a certain Hawkeye portrayal or Hotspot is incorrect.

Put it this way, it's better than simply sticking to a split-second single decision.

The ICC really are stupid and woefully naive, aren't they. How can they declare the DRS "mandatory", but then expect the host broadcasters to fork out the money for all the necessary equipment? If it's an ICC initiative then it's up to them to provide the facilities. It's just illogical and the broadcasters have every right to tell the ICC to get stuffed.

It's not like the ICC doesn't have the cash.....

Actually, what does the ICC spend their money on exactly that benefits cricket? I can't think of anything other than their members stuffing their back pockets.