tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post4343635342543041056..comments2024-03-18T23:33:45.536-07:00Comments on A CRICKETING VIEW: On the UDRS debateKartikeya Datehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-57548794287480264122010-12-21T00:07:15.767-08:002010-12-21T00:07:15.767-08:00There is only one reason why Sachin Tendulkar and ...There is only one reason why Sachin Tendulkar and the Indian cricket board are not in favour of UDRS.<br /><br />India played 3 tests under UDRS with Sri Lanka and we lost the series I think 2-1. Sachin that year scored over 1000 runs but in the UDRS series made 95 in 6 innings at an average of 15+<br /><br />Among all the batsmen today in world cricket if you did some serious indepth research and looked at all the benefit of doubt umpiring decisions in favour of them wherein they were actually out, the handsdown winner would be Sachin "The Desi God" Tendulkar. <br /><br />He knows it. The Indian board knows it. Other than that test matches would be shorter and the entire set of batting records would just disappear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-51751873973279397672010-11-08T06:08:40.918-08:002010-11-08T06:08:40.918-08:00UDRS is a must in order to eradicate howlers... Ha...UDRS is a must in order to eradicate howlers... Hawk Eye is pretty pathetic and should not be used for Leg before decisions except if the ball pitches outside leg stump decision. Rest like snicko & Hotspot are very helpful technologies.Jaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06408115858450574131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-29300705818383229592010-10-06T22:28:39.776-07:002010-10-06T22:28:39.776-07:00True. I think some redundancy will be necessary. S...True. I think some redundancy will be necessary. So the Third Umpire should still be around.Kartikeya Datehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-14011891193914206982010-10-06T21:47:28.235-07:002010-10-06T21:47:28.235-07:00Kartikeya, if they implemented a "quick glanc...Kartikeya, if they implemented a "quick glance" solution you wouldn't need the third umpire because the central umpire would have all the available information <i>before</i> he made a decision.<br /><br />It would also be expandable as more technology became available. There is no reason, for instance, why the ICC couldn't mandate bats had a thin touch-strip on the edge, that communicated to the umpire that there was an edge. <br /><br />It is also ridiculously easy. Communicating the results of hawkeye's lbw assessment to an umpire with a smart phone is literally a day's work.Russhttp://idlesummers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-15693809753737716082010-10-06T19:46:43.580-07:002010-10-06T19:46:43.580-07:00The point of introducing UDRS is to eliminate obvi...The point of introducing UDRS is to eliminate obvious errors. But given the way it's set up, it introduces too many other changes. I agree that in certain situations the players may have good information (for example inside edges), and in a significant percentage of cases they do walk (such as when they're bowled or caught at cover), but should that be used? Shouldn't the information available to the third umpire be used first?<br /><br />On Technology - Im cautious about believing that technology takes us closer to the truth (especially technologies like Hawkeye). Yes this technology is probably more compelling than a video replay, but it is still just a newer, apparently more sophisticated reconstruction.<br /><br />The quick glance approach, as Russ suggests, shouldn't take too long, and what's more, there are unlikely to be too many reversals because Umpires don't make too many mistakes.<br /><br />In any event, we always see a replay of every single appeal before the next ball is bowled. The TV Umpire can see the same. In the vast majority of instances, he will find that the Umpire is either right, or it's marginal. Unless the umpire is obviously wrong, the game goes on. There doesn't need to be an active positive affirmation that the umpire is not obviously wrong every time.Kartikeya Datehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-40022521651396737372010-10-06T18:53:52.624-07:002010-10-06T18:53:52.624-07:00Jonathan, it depends how intrusive you want to the...Jonathan, it depends how intrusive you want to the technology to be. It would be quite easy to provide a "second look" approach that lets the umpire look at tv replays (admittedly on a 4 inch screen) for all decisions. But watching the central umpire arse around on his smart phone while he makes a decision would be no more entertaining than waiting for the third umpire to second guess him.<br /><br />I'd prefer a "quick glance" approach that basically lights up whether the decision is clearly out/not out, but otherwise lets the umpire get on with it. I also think, in regard to lbws that there is much to be said for giving a batsman out when he looks out (as in, is comprehensively beaten), provided it is "close enough" and vice versa.<br /><br />Maybe its a bowler thing, but there is nothing more central to cricket than a huge appeal, the pause and the raised finger. We should try and preserve that.Russhttp://idlesummers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-77701649788398270042010-10-06T18:24:28.085-07:002010-10-06T18:24:28.085-07:00To clarify - I didn't mean to imply that Karti...To clarify - I didn't mean to imply that Kartikeya has no trust in any of the technology, rather that where some would say any obvious improvement to a decision is a good thing, he doesn't think it is an obvious improvement to the game overall.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-13781646939632996002010-10-06T18:17:44.629-07:002010-10-06T18:17:44.629-07:00Russ, it wouldn't even be too hard to put some...Russ, it wouldn't even be too hard to put some sort of graphic on it, would it? If desired, you could show just the observed path of the ball without trajectory, giving the umpire more accurate information than his sight and memory, while still allowing for Kartikeya's concern about an massive change in the effective criteria. (Of course, you could also pursue a similar purpose objectively by choosing a larger "benefit of doubt" margin than the current one, which is actually significantly greater than the reported error. [For Hawkeye at least - anyone seen anything about Virtual Eye?])<br /><br />Ach, it seems to me that Kartikeya's definition of marginal decisions and obvious error's is the major difference between him and those who push UDRS at any opportunity. If you have some level of trust in the technology, then any evidence you can accordingly gain from it is an obvious improvement to the decision. Kartikeya's position is a bit closer to affirming any decision that could be justified by an umpire with no extra tools, which is actually more inline with structure of the UDRS.<br /><br />Kartikeya, I think I share your concerns about the role of players, but unless we are talking about a time-consuming review for every appeal (assuming that we are still only talking about wickets), then it is relevant that the players are sometimes in a better position to know whether the decision is wrong than someone with a tv. That doesn't fit well with the ability to make tactical requests, but it's hard to avoid that conflict.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-53680794859317626332010-10-06T14:39:17.485-07:002010-10-06T14:39:17.485-07:00Ach, it depends how long it takes doesn't it? ...Ach, it depends how long it takes doesn't it? Suppose hawkeye is effectively immediate (and I believe it is) and there was a method of determining no-balls as outlined in your other post. You could give an umpire a $500 smart-phone running an app connected to the ground's wireless network that flashed up, every ball, four things:<br />no-ball (yes/no), pitched outside leg (yes/no/your call), pitched in line (yes/no/your call), hitting stumps (yes/no/your call).<br /><br />No need for UDRS at all, as the umpire could have a quick look at their phone to confirm and then use their judgement. That only leaves edges and close catches, but replays have proven to be no better than an umpire at judging these things anyway, so why bother? (If technology existed to determine edges, perhaps a sensor strip on bats, then that would be covered too).<br /><br />The problem with UDRS isn't the idea of checking a few things, it is that the method chosen is so cumbersome. The technology exists to convey the information to the umpire immediately, yet they are still out there using walkie-talkies.Russhttp://idlesummers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-64443453681342864702010-10-06T13:11:11.445-07:002010-10-06T13:11:11.445-07:00It is not so much time wasting as it is the necess...It is not so much time wasting as it is the necessity to waste time while reviewing each decision with the same degree of care, not just the ones which the on-field umpire is unsure of. What you are proposing is for intervention from the 3rd umpire, but such intervention takes time and demands he reviews all cases irrespective of whether the on-field umpire has made the request (which still happens today). Should he pick and choose about which ones he wants to review we go back to square one where people talk about subjective reviews when this system fails, say events similar to Chris Broad's meting out of punishment. In case the point was put across properly, again I ask, what does the batsman who has just been dismissed do? Stick around for a few minutes in the hope that the third umpire will review the action and spot the bowler over-stepping? Does he walk back to the pavilion only to be re-called in each case? So you see, even for as simplistic a protocol as you recommend, there are complications. UDRS while not perfect, forces (or should force) teams to make judicious use of referring the absolute howlers. In this way it minimizes delays and talk of subjectivity better than most other systems.<br />Also note that it is not UDRS that you are picking on in the first few paragraphs of this post. The 3rd umpire gives the on-field umpire an appraisal of the exact turn of events in the case of an LBW, he does not overule it based on what Hawkeye extrapolates. He tells him where the ball pitched, where the impact was and other pertinent information like whether the batsman hit the ball. It is upto the on-field umpire to reverse his decision if he believes there is significant reason to change it, and as you might have noticed in the recent Eng-Pak series, they avoided reversing decisions that were marginal and stuck to the original one.achettuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16177809419856216677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-24050825555882038392010-10-06T11:32:48.870-07:002010-10-06T11:32:48.870-07:00On this business of slowing down the game.
1. If ...On this business of slowing down the game.<br /><br />1. If there are frequent appeals, then the game is not in danger of running out of time, because it is possible to conclude that a large number of appeals suggests that batsmen are in trouble.<br /><br />2. If the average umpire makes 3-4 obvious errors in a game, why would the third umpire initiate contact more than 3-4 times? If an umpire is in doubt 3-4 more times, then there would be about 10 such communications over the course of a game.<br /><br />3. If there aren't frequent appeals, then this would not happen very often at all.<br /><br />So I don't think the time-wasting argument is plausible.Kartikeya Datehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-264522673215463832010-10-06T11:28:49.824-07:002010-10-06T11:28:49.824-07:00It's too narrow to think of UDRS as an improve...It's too narrow to think of UDRS as an improvement compared to the status quo. It's far more complicated than that. I dislike cost-benefit analyses, mainly because non-marketed things either get priced arbitrarily or ignored altogether, and hence dislike narrow, reduced value judgments that ignore complications.<br /><br />My whole point has been to point out the complications of UDRS. I rather hoped that this would be received in that light. That the UDRS has been approved is not in dispute. That it is a method intended to reduce errors is not in dispute either. The questions are as follows:<br /><br />1. Is it a good way to reduce errors?<br />2. What are the consequences to cricket of this system? How does it change the relationship between players and umpires? How does it change our conception of an "accurate" decision?<br /><br />That's what i've tried to address in this post.Kartikeya Datehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-31380342917571571152010-10-06T11:26:28.893-07:002010-10-06T11:26:28.893-07:00Easier said than done. What is to happen to the di...Easier said than done. What is to happen to the dismissed batsman in each case? What you propose relies on lightning quick confirmation/rejection by the 3rd umpire, or else there will always be a necessary delay for every single decision that is made by an on-field umpire while the 3rd umpire goes through replays, which aren't provided independently by the broadcaster and often take a while to be viewed. During this time the 3rd umpire must still check to see that the ball was legally delivered before moving through at least one camera angle. There are enough stop-go delays in cricket, what UDRS tries to achieve is an economy in referring a decision and it should ideally be used only to correct obvious blunders. I haven't checked the stats, but I'm sure soon teams will realize that making a tactical for a 50% decision is a waste of the system. The system is also open to abuse, say when a team has retained both referrals and uses them up for the sake of using it when they are near the close of an innings. That said, it will still be less than the number unnecessary double-checks by 3rd umpires if we were to see him communicate with the on-field umpires as per the system you propose.achettuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16177809419856216677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-31977424142645461922010-10-06T11:22:47.095-07:002010-10-06T11:22:47.095-07:00Would they improve upon the mediocre umpiring that...Would they improve upon the mediocre umpiring that is visible? Forgetting for a while their lack of accuracy at the nth degree? If the answer is yes or likely, I'm ready to go with it.<br /><br />It isn't a perfect system, has its flaws and limitations, but it is an improvement over what exists. Either umpires do a better visible job or take whatever help there is to begin with. And I am sure, the system will evolve once in place.<br /><br />Or we could all close our eyes or our HDTVs and slo mos and imagine ourselves to be too far from the action to bother about the handful of poor decisions per innings.<br /><br />Maybe cricket broadcasts must include a disclaimer, at the start and through every match, for audiences to ignore replays and such and carry on watching in the spirit of the game.<br /><br />The sport and television will then revert back to be truly the opium of masses...we can always imagine we saw a great contest in it.Soulberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15830619858224129215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-88086542674549188882010-10-06T05:42:22.542-07:002010-10-06T05:42:22.542-07:00hey , nice blog , like it ,
won’t be nice if i u c...hey , nice blog , like it ,<br />won’t be nice if i u can clickover to my blog page too ,<br />& post some suggestionmanisha sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12029288287152423081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-86682206784797149962010-10-06T01:02:40.953-07:002010-10-06T01:02:40.953-07:00I saw a lot of the UDRS at three Tests in England ...I saw a lot of the UDRS at three Tests in England this summer. It's not perfect, but it's worth the problems to avoid awful errors like Gambhir's and Hussey's.<br /><br />Another factor is the number of televisions around English grounds. Television viewers (rightly - we're paying big money) demand quick and comprehensive replays. 25,000 people at the ground would know there was an edge and one wouldn't - the umpire who raised the finger. Totally untenable. <br /><br />If it were Sachin on 98 in Mumbai, there would be a riot. Maybe at Edgbaston too with Ian Bell vs Australia.The Tooting Trumpethttp://nestaquin.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com