Bored Members - Guests | Media | White Bored | Interview | Bored Anthem - Songs | Boredwaani | Cartoons | Facebook | Twitter | Login

Dear Trevor

by Homer

From Cricinfo, Trevor Bayliss has this to say on the UDRS

"The question that's got to be asked is, why the referral system is being used in every other series barring this one, when the ICC said that it should be used after October 1," Bayliss said. "No one's explained to us yet why it's not being used when it's being used everywhere else in the world. If Dilshan was able to go and make a big score in the first innings, things might have been a bit different."
Now, this can either be seen as a valid point for the increased use of Technology in cricket ( and grist to the mill for more BCCI bashing) or sour grapes.

I am inclined to go with the latter. And not just because of my well documented antipathy to the increased use of technology in cricket (here and here).

In one of the "other series" where the UDRS is being used, at the end of the first day's play, both teams involved are unhappy with the referral system. This despite having the full complement of everything the UDRS has to offer.

Ricky Ponting is unhappy because "The Australia captain believed West Indies batsman Shivnarine Chanderpaul was caught behind on 38 during the opening day of the second Test. But the third umpire did not give him out.".

And the  West Indies are unhappy because "Chanderpaul was fired on the flimsiest of evidence from one camera shot when other angles were inconclusive and the "hot spot" replay failed to show a touch on the edge of the bat."

And for the record, Snicko indicated a sound in both incidents - the source of which remains unknown.

So not only is the technology in use unreliable, it is further compounded by the fact that  human error ( and human malice) has a huge role to play in the final result. So, not only can the technology in use produce erroneous results ( or be manipulated to produce said results) but you have the discretion of the third umpire to deal with AFTER the technology has delivered its verdict.


And who is to say that Sri Lanka would have benefited from the UDRS. For all I care, Prasanna Jayawardene would have never come close to the 154 he scored in the first Test at Ahmedabad had the technology been in play!

Does that answer your question, Trevor?

Cheers,

10 comments:

Mahek said...

It's sad that captains only focus on the decisions that go against them. New Zealand would have lost Brendon McCullum on the first day of the Dunedin Test had the referral system not been in place. Likewise, Kamran Akmal benefited from the referral system yesterday after Rudi Koertzen had made another bad decision.

The problem is with players like Chris Gayle and Peter Fulton who don't know how to use the system. One of them thinks it's his birth right to waste his team's referrals, the other doesn't deem it fit to use one when he's given out LBW after the ball took the inside edge of his bat.

Homer said...

Mahek,

If players dont know how to use the system, it points to a lack of education.

When umpires dont know how to use the system, what does that indicate?

And since the solution itself is so full of bugs, does it make sense to utilize it ?

Cheers,

Mahek said...

I think the umpires have done a good job with the new system. The two decisions regarding Chanderpaul were close and I very much agreed with the first one. The second one was really close and Hot Spot was inconclusive. I'd have gone with the batsman there but the umpire saw it otherwise, not too different from any other close decision. Credit to the people in charge in Australia for bringing in two more Hot Spot cameras once the NZ-Pak series is over.

The umpires know this system is in place to eliminate the obvious mistakes. With close ones teams just have to suck it up. You can't say that the system doesn't work because you thought there was an edge and the replays didn't show that. If you expect every referral to go your way then be judicious in using them. Nothing can justify Chris Gayle wasting two referrals on plumb LBW decisions. And you can't help players like Peter Fulton who know they got a bad decision but not realise they can challenge it.

Jonathan said...

The question, no matter who is asking it, always seems to be "Why did the mistakes go against us?" Which is understandable, but not really intended to deal with the problem.

One of the few things I thought Ponting has got right over hte years is pointing out that the cameras won't pick up everything that others, even umpires, might see. So it's a surprise to see him expecting the referral system to cope with everything. The out decision, however, is a bit stranger. I hope it wasn't some sort of attempt to balance things up.

As for hotspot, more cameras might be interesting, but there is already a camera at each end, and we didn't see a hotspot view from the batsman's end. That seems pointless to me.

Homer said...

Mahek,

And yet, comms keep talking of how the umpires are learning on the job about what is expected of them vis a vis the referral system.

The ICC,as always, is being too smart for its own good. And as always, I wait for it to have egg on its face!

Cheers,

Homer said...

Jonathan,

Cameras are kept along the line of the popping crease on both ends of the wicket ( and in some case, on either sides). And yet we never seem to get accurate reads on run outs ( despite having stump cams on either ends that can help).

Why? Because it is upto the discretion of the producer as to what images to show and what to withhold.

4 hot spot cameras will do what exactly?

During India's tour Down Under in 2008, there was, on the Age, an article that said that the Hotspot software takes upto an hour after a crash to come up so there could be times that the hotspot images will not be available.

The current technology and its use by the ICC is a joke. Like the organization!

Cheers,

Mahek said...

It's quite an exaggeration to say we never get an accurate reads on run outs. There are a lot of instances where technology has helped sort out some really close ones. The ICC has clearly indicated that the referral system has been instituted to eliminate the obvious mistakes. If players keep using it for marginal decisions they are bound to feel let down. But it wouldn't hurt them and the media to acknowledge the howlers that have been reversed.

About the two Hot Spot cameras, they are going to be installed square of the wicket.

Homer said...

Mahek,

Since, per the ICC, the umpires get 98% of their decisions rights, we are left with the remaining 2% decisions where technology has to abet the decision making - the marginal decisions, if you will.

If technology cannot clarify the borderline decisions and is open to manipulation, what use the UDRS?

Cheers,

Mahek said...

The use of UDRS is that Dilshan doesn't get screwed over twice in the same test and I get screwed in Fantasy Cricket because of that :D

Mahek said...

Just had an instance of technology deserting the officials. The ball hit Iain O' Brien almost immediately after pitching which meant there wasn't enough evidence to form the predicted path. As a result, Pakistan lost a challenge. Like you mentioned, this may very well be an instance of the home broadcaster manipulating the technology.