India Drs Threats Again

Top Contributors
woah woah WOAH. The BCCI have threatened to pull India out of the FTP, not the current Champions Trophy. Still, "spoiled child" is a fair comment.


To play devil's advocate, though, I'll quote a comment posted by Raman Gupta on that article that highlights the flaws of the DRS:
1) The biggest problem of DRS is hot spot technology. If it shows an edge then there is no doubt that there was an edge. But, as DRS people have themselves accepted, it can on many occasions fail to detect an edge. This is really serious issue. Suppose an edge takes place & the umpire gives it out. The batsman knows he nicked it but still takes the review. In review there is no hot-spot edge, then the decision will be overruled. That is not what is required. By this way, the correct decisions of the on-field umpires can also be made wrong.

2) The ball-tracking technology of DRS is not fool-proof. It uses presently 357 frames per second which is not sufficient to track it accurately. By scientifically proven methods, there should be atleast 700 frames per second to achieve <0.00001% error. As of now, the error stands at 2%. This is not acceptable. When the decisions are based on say, when the ball is just hitting the top of stumps, then this technology is not reliable.

3) Also the unneeded formalities that come with DRS is not worth it. If the decision goes upstaris, then it should be independent of the on-field call. There should not be anything as on-field call. That will make it acceptable to all nations.
Click to expand...

Although I'm a fan of the DRS, I can understand India's reservations. I remember Dhoni once saying at a press conference that they want to keep the human element of umpiring in the game, which is a fair and respectable claim; some things get missed and some decisions go the wrong way, they reckon, and that's just cricket. The point that they're missing, though, is that there will only be less fallibility with the DRS; with the speed at which a fast bowler bowls and the amount of variables that factor in to ball trajectory and nick detection, it would be very difficult -- and very costly -- to get the technology 100% right. I may be wrong, but for argument's sake, I'll make the bold statement and say that we may never have a perfect system. (Tech enthusiasts can feel free to rebut.)

The DRS was implemented to reduce the dismissals and non-dismissals that makes the umpire look deaf and/or blind: ie. the complete howlers. Think of the DRS as the world's ideal human umpire who, despite being unbelievably more sharper-eyed and keener-eared than Taufel and Rauf on their best day, still has a margin of error. The difference is that it's smaller.
 
troll3y said:
woah woah WOAH. The BCCI have threatened to pull India out of the FTP, not the current Champions Trophy. Still, "spoiled child" is a fair comment.


To play devil's advocate, though, I'll quote a comment posted by Raman Gupta on that article that highlights the flaws of the DRS:


Although I'm a fan of the DRS, I can understand India's reservations. I remember Dhoni once saying at a press conference that they want to keep the human element of umpiring in the game, which is a fair and respectable claim; some things get missed and some decisions go the wrong way, they reckon, and that's just cricket. The point that they're missing, though, is that there will only be less fallibility with the DRS; with the speed at which a fast bowler bowls and the amount of variables that factor in to ball trajectory and nick detection, it would be very difficult -- and very costly -- to get the technology 100% right. I may be wrong, but for argument's sake, I'll make the bold statement and say that we may never have a perfect system. (Tech enthusiasts can feel free to rebut.)

The DRS was implemented to reduce the dismissals and non-dismissals that makes the umpire look deaf and/or blind: ie. the complete howlers. Think of the DRS as the world's ideal human umpire who, despite being unbelievably more sharper-eyed and keener-eared than Taufel and Rauf on their best day, still has a margin of error. The difference is that it's smaller.
Click to expand...

Well written. It's good to have another perspective. ;) However, the DRS does and is achieving its purpose (getting rid of the howlers from the game) and ALL the other nations are using it without complaint. It doesn't give an unfair advantage to either side if they both use it.

I would be quite happy if they got rid of the DRS altogether as it's not completely full-proof as you say and can take away from the moment of getting wickets OR the DRS is kept and is improved and every nation uses it...simple as that. Either way I'm happy.

One nation not using it is just selfish arrogance from a board that thinks it's better than the game. They're not.
 
Snicko can't be used because it takes several minutes -- more than an over, if I recall -- to clean up the stump mic background noise and generate a video-synchronous soundwave graph. The best we can do is watch the replays at full speed and turn the stump mic volume up. Even then, when the video gets slowed down, so does the audio; you then get audio illusion of sound bleeding between frames, which makes it very difficult to tell exactly when a sound is detected. The issue of camera frame-rate also comes into the picture: when a ball is travelling at 140 kph, the distance it travels between two 25fps camera frames is over 1.5 metres.
 
troll3y said:
Snicko can't be used because it takes several minutes -- more than an over, if I recall -- to clean up the stump mic background noise and generate a video-synchronous soundwave graph. The best we can do is watch the replays at full speed and turn the stump mic volume up. Even then, when the video gets slowed down, so does the audio; you then get audio illusion of sound bleeding between frames, which makes it very difficult to tell exactly when a sound is detected. The issue of camera frame-rate also comes into the picture: when a ball is travelling at 140 kph, the distance it travels between two 25fps camera frames is over 1.5 metres.
Click to expand...

All this technology should be improved and should be funded by the ICC. I thought that was the idea in the first place? Right from the start, we knew it wasn't perfect.
 
The reason Snicko can't be used in the DRS process, though, is because it's (currently) technologically impossible to include it. It's not a case of "not good enough" -- it just can't be done.
 
As usual the BCCI holding the rest of the cricketing world to ransom. Would be good if they were no longer a part of international cricket.
 
Personally I don't mind the BCCI complaining about DRS but if that's the case they should never complain about the umpires (at least publicly). If the BCCI had never hounded Steve Bucknor plus the other umpire (whose name I forget) out of the game combined with their inability to accept any 3rd umpire or disciplinary action that goes against them I wouldn't mind their stance so much.

They are right on one thing, DRS should not be treated like tennis with referral options available for the players. The technology should be an aid for the umpire only (DAS - Decision Assistance System), if the umpire is unsure let them go upstairs to clarify their decisions. The way to rein over and under use would be to promote and pay umpires more on a scale where they get more money for correct decisions and less the more they use the DAS (plus if you keep giving poor decisions and using DAS too much you'll probably use your job).
 
leftie600 said:
They are right on one thing, DRS should not be treated like tennis with referral options available for the players. The technology should be an aid for the umpire only (DAS - Decision Assistance System), if the umpire is unsure let them go upstairs to clarify their decisions. The way to rein over and under use would be to promote and pay umpires more on a scale where they get more money for correct decisions and less the more they use the DAS (plus if you keep giving poor decisions and using DAS too much you'll probably use your job).
Click to expand...

I think that's a great idea. Then we wouldn't have "this is out when the umpire gives it out" and "this is not out when the umpire gives it out" nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top