bcci vindicated ?

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 01:29

after a lot of finger-wagging at the bcci for being heavy handed, the rats are deserting the ship one by one on their own. The article should also have mentioned bcci's position in the DRS issue, including the stand of players like Sachin, Dhoni who opposed DRS from the beginning.

Crapinfo: Clarke claims DRS 'distorts the game'

Australia's captain Michael Clarke has questioned the wisdom of the referral system for disputed verdicts, stating that its use is distorting the actions of the umpires as well as the players, and admitting he would prefer the DRS to be thrown out entirely if its consistency does not improve.

Clarke has also declared he does not wish to see Hot Spot return to the array of technological tools for third umpires until its reliability can be improved beyond the level seen during the previous Ashes series.

by horace Thu 14 Nov 2013, 03:59

the bannies prefer to bully umpires directly

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 04:06

weren't DRS or hotspot cameras on loan from some australian company ?

by taipan Thu 14 Nov 2013, 04:08

DRS was.

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 04:14

& there were multi-million $ royalty and usage fees for a single hotspot camera and a minimum of 2 were required for each match. Some England-Australia matches were used as tech demonstrators and even 3 to 4 cameras were used. It would have looked like a money sink at that time.

by Brass Monkey Thu 14 Nov 2013, 07:37

No. They're not vindicated. If it gets used correctly, it improves the game. The real problem is that people are f*ckwits. I read an article saying that it has improved decisions by 2%. So it works.

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 07:51

Brass Monkey wrote:I read an article saying that it has improved decisions by 2%. So it works.

Except for bcci and acb no other board can foot the bill for these cameras. So how do you think 'it will work' ?

by Brass Monkey Thu 14 Nov 2013, 08:05

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that they should be owned by nations, I think the ICC should buy them and be responsible for allowing any nation to use them.

by LeFromage Thu 14 Nov 2013, 08:28

They're only vindicated if their position was that Michael Clarke's a whiny shitbag.

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 08:32

So ICC is going to spend a cool million dollahs per test match. 2 cameras for each match and 4 for those boards who can afford a bit extra. I don't think it's working in a hurry considering the only source of income for ICC is a biennial Champions Trophy and once in a 4 years WC.

by Brass Monkey Thu 14 Nov 2013, 08:38

The ICC is the governing body. Nobody really questions where their money goes. They have the responsibility to run the game as smoothly as possible - if that means forking out some cash, then so be it. As I say, the only reason that DRS is not universally accepted is because there are too many braindead players misusing it.

by tricycle Thu 14 Nov 2013, 08:56

Where did the 1 million dollar figure come from, btw? Hotspot costs around 5k a day.

by taipan Thu 14 Nov 2013, 09:01

tricycle wrote:Where did the 1 million dollar figure come from, btw? Hotspot costs around 5k a day.

Wikileaks.

by Brass Monkey Thu 14 Nov 2013, 09:02

It's a million quid to buy the camera.

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 09:18

Hot Spot technology, even though claimed to be extremely accurate, is not used in many matches. The main reason for this is its expense: $6000 per day for the use of two cameras and $10000 for the use of four cameras.

Warren Brennan, the owner of BBG Sports, said the unwillingness of the International Cricket Council or national cricket boards to pay to use the expensive technology had restricted its use: "We won't be supplying Hot Spot to the World Cup next year, even for the semis or finals, if the cricket boards want a feed of that for adjudication purposes, they should contribute to the costs. The Ashes could be the last hurrah."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Spot_(cricket)

For an Ashes test series, the cost of 'hiring' hotspot cameras and the subsequent editing team come to quarter million dollahs for a 4 camera setup for a 5 match test series. To buy these cameras might cost at least $10 Million each or may not even be up for sale due to IPR issues.

by Henry Nolonga Thu 14 Nov 2013, 09:33

What happens in tennis? Does the broadcaster pay for the hotspot technology or does it come from a governing body? And is it mandatory for the major tournaments?

by taipan Thu 14 Nov 2013, 09:39

Henry Nolonga wrote:What happens in tennis? Does the broadcaster pay for the hotspot technology or does it come from a governing body? And is it mandatory for the major tournaments?

I think it is used at all ATP events.

by JGK Thu 14 Nov 2013, 12:22

buckSH wrote:
Hot Spot technology, even though claimed to be extremely accurate, is not used in many matches. The main reason for this is its expense: $6000 per day for the use of two cameras and $10000 for the use of four cameras.

Warren Brennan, the owner of BBG Sports, said the unwillingness of the International Cricket Council or national cricket boards to pay to use the expensive technology had restricted its use: "We won't be supplying Hot Spot to the World Cup next year, even for the semis or finals, if the cricket boards want a feed of that for adjudication purposes, they should contribute to the costs. The Ashes could be the last hurrah."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Spot_(cricket)

For an Ashes test series, the cost of 'hiring' hotspot cameras and the subsequent editing team come to quarter million dollahs for a 4 camera setup for a 5 match test series. To buy these cameras might cost at least $10 Million each or may not even be up for sale due to IPR issues.

$50 grand a test doesn't sound unreasonable.

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 13:06

taipan wrote:
Henry Nolonga wrote:What happens in tennis? Does the broadcaster pay for the hotspot technology or does it come from a governing body? And is it mandatory for the major tournaments?
I think it is used at all ATP events.

ATP attracts sponsors from countries such as USA, Germany, Swiss, China, Japan, France, Belgium, Italy etc. So no comparison here on the cost that the WTA et al can bear.

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 13:09

JGK wrote:$50 grand a test doesn't sound unreasonable.

For many developing countries the $ figure is a problem, govts may not release scarce foreign exchange for playing test cricket especially after Federal Reserve's tapering and 'quantitative easing' program when US dollar supply is being curtailed.

by embee Thu 14 Nov 2013, 13:42

Put DRS back in the hands of the umpires

The umpires are on the ICC panel ...and the ICC should foot the bill for any technology needed at a Test

All out decisions to be reviewed by the tv ump (obvious dismissals still need to be a fair delivery)

Umpire can call for a review of a close decision ...

Fielding team can review two decisions for free (after umpire has said not close) ...and further reviews cost 10 runs ... " not out ...umpires call" do not count as a used review ...

Overwhelming evidence required to overrule on field umpire

by buckSH Thu 14 Nov 2013, 13:53

ICC may need approval of the Dubai lobby and London bookie Nick for that. The London bookie may well be a Russian or a sicilian gangster for that matter or maybe even a desperate chav from 'the projects' who may sell you a bent farthing if you do not have your wits about you.

by Brass Monkey Thu 14 Nov 2013, 14:15

Or you'd get a Victorian street urchin selling you yesterday's news. Or you'd get a deaf person who'll buy songs with the money you give him for a charity lighter. Or you'd get a prostitute selling vagina to you only to turn out to have a penis. Or you'd get a giraffe painting himself black and white and pretending he's a zebra. Madness. Maaaadddnesss I tell ya.

by spangler Thu 14 Nov 2013, 14:24

Is the aforementioned prostitute selling her own vagina/penis or disembodied vag/cock?

Does she have an emporium?

by Brass Monkey Thu 14 Nov 2013, 14:34

spangler wrote:Is the aforementioned prostitute selling her own vagina/penis or disembodied vag/cock?

Does she have an emporium?

It's more of a rental. You're renting said genitals. You can do what you like with them, as long as they stay attached to the aforementioned prostitute. I'd stay away, though. Said genitals have usually been jizzed in / in a shitbox very very recently. Puts a bit of a taint on the whole proceedings

by Sponsored content

bcci vindicated ?

bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?

Re: bcci vindicated ?