ICC news February 15, 2012

Independent tests for ball-tracking systems

ESPNcricinfo staff
42

The most contentious aspect of the Decision Review System - the ball-tracker - is being put to the test by the ICC at the Cambridge University to establish the accuracy of the two rival tracker systems accredited by the ICC for the DRS.

The ball-tracking technologies currently in use for the DRS - the Hawk-Eye and the Virtual Eye - are being tested by a company called Computer Vision Consulting Limited. The results of the test should be available to the ICC's cricket committee in time for its next meeting in May this year.

Dave Richardson, the ICC's general manager of cricket, told ESPNcricinfo in an interview that the company had been asked to review "the level of accuracy and reliability of the two ball-tracking companies ... In terms of accuracy we want to know whether their virtual depictions of where the ball has pitched and where the ball has impacted the batsman accord with the reality, and whether their predictions as to where the ball would have hit the stumps are correct."

The issue of reliability he said was to find out "the percentage of times they can deliver an accurate tracking. If, in a Test, there are 60 lbw appeals and the ball-tracking technology is only able to deliver an accurate tracking on, for example, 50 of those occasions, then they would not be regarded as very reliable. On the other hand, if they were getting it right on 97 out of 100 occasions, we would probably regard that as being acceptable."

Before the introduction of the DRS in 2008, Richardson said, the ICC had conducted some basic manual testing which had left them satisfied before launching the system. The current test he said was "a far more detailed review by a completely independent party. Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye both tell us how accurate they are, but this will verify those claims." The contention between the two rival ball-tracker technologies was largely around the number of frame rates offered by their cameras in order to provide data to work with the ball tracker.

The ball-tracking technology was first included as part of the DRS' earliest mandatory requirements but in June, the ICC made it optional, and the Hot Spot infrared thermal imaging camera compulsory. Both technologies have come under criticism, due to a series of what appeared to be flaws.

When responding to the criticism that the ICC should have tested all the available DRS technology thoroughly, Richardson said, "We were satisfied with the testing we did. We tested the accuracy as far as we could, and to an extent it showed that the technology was at least accurate and reliable enough for it to be used in the manner that we have used it."

Most misgivings about the accuracy of the technology, he said, came from people being "misled" by what they saw on TV or the angle of sight while watching a contentious dismissal. The picture of slow motion replays under DRS often came, he said, from cameras set to the side of the bowler's arm rather than directly behind it.

"People see a replay on TV and say, 'That looks as if it was hitting leg stump.' But then Hawk-Eye shows it just missing and you say to yourself, 'That just cannot be.' But what people don't realise is that the camera for the slow-motion replay might not have been behind the bowler's arm. There are three cameras in a row and the one used for slow-motion replays is one of the ones on the side. So, often the picture you see on your TV screen is slightly misleading."

What was needed, he said, was to give the viewer "the evidence to prove that [people] should trust the evidence provided by the ball-tracking technology, not what they might see on television."

There were no plans to test the Hot Spot technology because, "Hot Spot is real, it's not a virtual picture." What the owners will be working on is to make their cameras more sensitive so that the "smallest of touches" could be visible. The priority of the infra-red cameras in use in the DRS was their "sensitivity, that is, its ability to generate a visible heat mark as opposed to clearly defined pictures which look nice but do not provide the level of sensitivity to pick up the faintest of edges."

He admitted what while Hot Spot cameras may not be able to pick up the very faint touches, "they will never show a mark where there is no touch and they are also very useful in distinguishing between whether the ball has touched the bat or gloves, as opposed to, for example, the thigh guard, arm guard, shoulder or helmet."

He said in time, the ICC would like communication between the on-field and third umpire during a DRS discussion to be heard on TV. "Hopefully when the umpires are so confident in the system and so well versed in using it, we will be able to do that. That's the aim."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Ameega on February 16, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Spot on Punters_Mate! Well said!

  • zenboomerang on February 16, 2012, 9:00 GMT

    @jmcilhinney... Ahh, ignorance is bliss & cherrypicking a comment is even worse... Please show that the basic parameters of the original setting up of Hawkeye & its data analysis is now being curtailed by a new approach... Didn't Hawkeye use shadows as part of their original research?... lol... Sorry I don't accept your put down... Please use factual data techniques rather than random slurs - though I am used to that from pommies... I've moved on - have you?...

  • razi_hasan on February 16, 2012, 8:41 GMT

    I don't understand why 'royramesh' brought Saeeed Ajmal's action in this DRS debate. U have no sense ...

  • Fast_Track_Bully on February 16, 2012, 7:18 GMT

    Thanks to BCCI for the ICC decision to test the DRS system...those who criticize India for everything do not understand that the resistance from BCCI would make a perfect DRS without any errors.

  • stark-truth on February 16, 2012, 7:10 GMT

    The beauty of DRS is that it takes out of the equation blatant incorrect decisions of the umpires, especially in lbws.

  • Moseley76 on February 16, 2012, 5:47 GMT

    I've noticed some ridiculously ill-informed comments regarding the technology employed by both Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye by a number of the participants here. Perhaps a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Capture would assist. I've used similar technology in a number of fluid dynamics and fluid-structure interaction experiments with very pleasing results. Presumably the ICC and the commercial television networks involved can and would source much better equipment than what I've used so I can only imagine the accuracy of their optical tracking system for DRS. The only errors that I can envisage in the ICC's ball tracking system are spatial/lens errors introduced by distance from the cameras to the ball. The system can of course be calibrated to quantify these errors. Good luck to the Cambridge researchers involved in the testing!

  • ONE4U on February 16, 2012, 5:29 GMT

    The game is more in the hands of a camera operator than umpires. As in the case of infamous world cup incident of Tendulkar's lbw call; the slightest of movement of camera directions through the operator's lever can prove a clear out to be not-out.

  • jmcilhinney on February 16, 2012, 5:20 GMT

    I cannot recommend strongly enough to everyone who reads this article to click the "interview" link in the third paragraph and read that too. It has some very interesting information, including the fact that the researchers doing these tests already have systems that, given the geographical location and date, can use shadows to help determine the exact position of an object. This debunks statements like "the methology used to build Hawkeye is the same that will be used to test its accuracy" by @zenboomerang. There is a lot of ignorance around about DRS and the technology it uses. That is at least partially the fault of the ICC. They should do all they can to ensure that the viewing public know as much as possible about it.

  • jmcilhinney on February 16, 2012, 5:16 GMT

    @Saad Sabri, that's the most ridiculous argument I've heard. Of course DRS can not magically know that the ball would have spun or swung if it had not hit the pad but then neither can an umpire. Umpires have to use their best judgement based on what they see of the ball and what they know of similar balls they've seen in the past. DRS does exactly the same thing. As for a ball hitting the batsman on the full, a rule was introduced many years ago that the umpire must assume that such a ball was going to continue straight on regardless of any other factors, so that argument holds no water either. Proponents of DRS all agree that it is not perfect and never will be, but that's very different to your completely ridiculous clain that it is not accurate and never will be. Umpires will never be perfect but you seem to think that that are accurate enough.

  • jmcilhinney on February 16, 2012, 5:11 GMT

    @SanjivAwesome, the ICC did not rush out untested technology as you say. They performed their own tests and were happy with the results. It is the BCCI's refusal to accept the ICC's decision on DRS and the resulting fire-storm that created the perception of unreliability. The BCCI said "no" and the rest of the world said "bad BCCI" and then many Indian supporters proceeded to point to anything they could to justify the BCCI's stance whether it actually made sense or not. It certainly has become "us against them" with little actual logic or reasoning on either side some times. Having said all that, if the ICC were happy with DRS and mandated then the BCCI should have accepted it. If they had issues, they should have gone away themselves and had independent testing done to show that it didn't work, not the other way around.

  • Ameega on February 16, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Spot on Punters_Mate! Well said!

  • zenboomerang on February 16, 2012, 9:00 GMT

    @jmcilhinney... Ahh, ignorance is bliss & cherrypicking a comment is even worse... Please show that the basic parameters of the original setting up of Hawkeye & its data analysis is now being curtailed by a new approach... Didn't Hawkeye use shadows as part of their original research?... lol... Sorry I don't accept your put down... Please use factual data techniques rather than random slurs - though I am used to that from pommies... I've moved on - have you?...

  • razi_hasan on February 16, 2012, 8:41 GMT

    I don't understand why 'royramesh' brought Saeeed Ajmal's action in this DRS debate. U have no sense ...

  • Fast_Track_Bully on February 16, 2012, 7:18 GMT

    Thanks to BCCI for the ICC decision to test the DRS system...those who criticize India for everything do not understand that the resistance from BCCI would make a perfect DRS without any errors.

  • stark-truth on February 16, 2012, 7:10 GMT

    The beauty of DRS is that it takes out of the equation blatant incorrect decisions of the umpires, especially in lbws.

  • Moseley76 on February 16, 2012, 5:47 GMT

    I've noticed some ridiculously ill-informed comments regarding the technology employed by both Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye by a number of the participants here. Perhaps a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Capture would assist. I've used similar technology in a number of fluid dynamics and fluid-structure interaction experiments with very pleasing results. Presumably the ICC and the commercial television networks involved can and would source much better equipment than what I've used so I can only imagine the accuracy of their optical tracking system for DRS. The only errors that I can envisage in the ICC's ball tracking system are spatial/lens errors introduced by distance from the cameras to the ball. The system can of course be calibrated to quantify these errors. Good luck to the Cambridge researchers involved in the testing!

  • ONE4U on February 16, 2012, 5:29 GMT

    The game is more in the hands of a camera operator than umpires. As in the case of infamous world cup incident of Tendulkar's lbw call; the slightest of movement of camera directions through the operator's lever can prove a clear out to be not-out.

  • jmcilhinney on February 16, 2012, 5:20 GMT

    I cannot recommend strongly enough to everyone who reads this article to click the "interview" link in the third paragraph and read that too. It has some very interesting information, including the fact that the researchers doing these tests already have systems that, given the geographical location and date, can use shadows to help determine the exact position of an object. This debunks statements like "the methology used to build Hawkeye is the same that will be used to test its accuracy" by @zenboomerang. There is a lot of ignorance around about DRS and the technology it uses. That is at least partially the fault of the ICC. They should do all they can to ensure that the viewing public know as much as possible about it.

  • jmcilhinney on February 16, 2012, 5:16 GMT

    @Saad Sabri, that's the most ridiculous argument I've heard. Of course DRS can not magically know that the ball would have spun or swung if it had not hit the pad but then neither can an umpire. Umpires have to use their best judgement based on what they see of the ball and what they know of similar balls they've seen in the past. DRS does exactly the same thing. As for a ball hitting the batsman on the full, a rule was introduced many years ago that the umpire must assume that such a ball was going to continue straight on regardless of any other factors, so that argument holds no water either. Proponents of DRS all agree that it is not perfect and never will be, but that's very different to your completely ridiculous clain that it is not accurate and never will be. Umpires will never be perfect but you seem to think that that are accurate enough.

  • jmcilhinney on February 16, 2012, 5:11 GMT

    @SanjivAwesome, the ICC did not rush out untested technology as you say. They performed their own tests and were happy with the results. It is the BCCI's refusal to accept the ICC's decision on DRS and the resulting fire-storm that created the perception of unreliability. The BCCI said "no" and the rest of the world said "bad BCCI" and then many Indian supporters proceeded to point to anything they could to justify the BCCI's stance whether it actually made sense or not. It certainly has become "us against them" with little actual logic or reasoning on either side some times. Having said all that, if the ICC were happy with DRS and mandated then the BCCI should have accepted it. If they had issues, they should have gone away themselves and had independent testing done to show that it didn't work, not the other way around.

  • Punters_Mate on February 16, 2012, 4:46 GMT

    @satyachowdary, technology will never be 100% perfect. If we applied your standard then we would never have read your comment unless of course you suggest this site, software, hardware and the internet in general work at 100% performance. I also assume you never watch television, drive car, use a mobile phone, catch public transport, obey traffic signals and heaven forbid you ride in an airplane because after all these bits of modern technology that rule our puiblic lives are demonstrably fallable. Why do you apply a standard of performance to DRS that you do not apply to technology where your life is at risk?

  • Punters_Mate on February 16, 2012, 4:40 GMT

    @dsig3 from my perspective I disliked the part of the recent series in OZ where both sides reverted to constant appealing thus applying pressure to the umpires. In the main the umpiring was good however we still saw some howlers such as Hussey in Melb. This decision provided the perfect example of why DRS is good for the game. Before Hussey had walked 10 metres from the wicket everyone in the MCG and presumably the umpire plus the millions watching on television knew without any doubt that a mistake had been made.

  • Vikum72 on February 16, 2012, 3:51 GMT

    Saad, what you are saying doesn't make sence. What can an umpire do in such a situation.It's not humanly possible to accuratly predict what the ball would do had it not being interrupted. Or do you believe and ampire can spredict for sure the digree or swing or turn thereafter? Technology is not 100% but it will only improve. Nothing's perfect in this world!

  • yoohoo on February 16, 2012, 2:33 GMT

    Frankly, the only sane voice in the whole DRS debate is that of BCCIs, and that says something about the rest of us!! Seriously, shouldn't this have happened before DRS was introduced? It required two years of BCCI opposition to finally get this done??

    The DRS supporters are behaving like blind mobs. Kind of like George bush - 'you are either with us or against us'. And that is just hurting everything.

  • cric-kumar on February 16, 2012, 2:25 GMT

    If ICC really want to help umpires bring-in third umpire to the field and make him play. Really it's a tough job for the on-field umpires to stand for 5 days and to concentrate every ball. Rotate the umpires, give an umpire 2 sessions a day and make proper communication between the umpires about the pitch and match conditions. It will make them fresh and they can concentrate on the match without much tired. Obviously it will increase the accuracy on their decision making.

  • Kolpak1989 on February 16, 2012, 1:58 GMT

    @CricFan78, it has been tested before and found to be accurate. The most important question here is does it help get more correct decisions? If the answer is yes, and it is, we should have the DRS.

  • ollie99 on February 16, 2012, 1:16 GMT

    I can't figure out why the Indians were so reticent to use DRS during the Australian tests. The technology might not be perfect, but on many occasions the Indians were disadvantaged in the tests with their inability to challenge OBVIOUSLY dodgy lbw and catch decisions through their own decision not to use DRS.

  • dsig3 on February 16, 2012, 0:28 GMT

    Should of been done years ago. I am happy with the technology 99% of the time. The contention from DRS comes from 3rd umpires making poor decisions with the evidence presented to them. I enjoyed the Australia/Indian series without it I must say, but the umpiring was very good throughout. Unfortunately that is not always the case, and bad umpiring can ruin an entire series. The DRS, if used properly will prevent that from happening. Its a different world now that batsmen cant hide. If your out, your out. Balance restored.

  • zenboomerang on February 16, 2012, 0:04 GMT

    The BCCI ban on DRS is just another form of climate change denialism - head in the sand until you are 3 metres under water... DRS has already been proven to be more accurate than umpires & these further tests are only going to restate the obvious - that the methology used to build Hawkeye is the same that will be used to test its accuracy... Just that you will have post grads doing the work to make it independent... A big fuss about nothing...

  • balajik1968 on February 15, 2012, 22:58 GMT

    The ICC should have trialled DRS at domestic level everywhere at least for 2 seasons, ironing out the glitches before introducing the international level. Cricket is a game heavily influenced by the conditions. My knowledge of the science behind DRS is limited, but looks like a two dimensional projection is being used to get a decision at a three dimensional level. It is like the ceteris paribus(other things being equal) caveat used while postulating economic laws. So it is pretty likely to fail in real time. I would love to see the caveats spelled out by the makers of these technologies. We hear that DRS is 97% accurate, so on and so forth. I would love to see some hard numbers. Most of what is written or said seems to be dogma, lacking rationality. Let's have a trial of the DRS in real time. If it proves out, then have it by all means. It is time for a cool debate. The whole DRS debate is becoming an ugly India-bashing exercise.

  • on February 15, 2012, 22:23 GMT

    DRS is never ever accurate, and will never be, it can not predict the swing the ball will make ! it can only make the path of the original ball and predict the path on the basis 'if' the ball had gone in the same direction that its been traveling in. But what if it would have swung later? what if someone like Shane Warne does spin a ball about a meter, and what if that kind of spinning delivery pitches on batsman's toe in line ,hitting in line, and going towards the wicket ? could it predict that how much the ball would've spun if it would not have pitched on the toe ? NO ! it would create a straight path from that point onwards, continuing the path its been coming from !

  • on February 15, 2012, 22:09 GMT

    IMHO UDRS is not the way to go. Technology could be used in better decision making, but the call on when to use it should be made by the on field umpires & not the players. If there is an element of doubt the on field umpire should make a call. The performance of umpires could be reviewed every year & the better performing ones(who use technology judiciously & who gives a high percentage of correct decisions) should be rewarded. The worst performing ones could be relegated from the Elite panel.

  • satyachowdary on February 15, 2012, 21:44 GMT

    If we are getting 97% right why are we even using this, ICC test umpires also have around 95% decisions correct.... Technology should be used only when its 100%....

  • on February 15, 2012, 21:21 GMT

    I repeat again DRS is NOT used to determine whether the batsman is out or not out. That decision has already been made by the on-field umpire. If DRS shows OVERWHELMING evidence that the umpire's decision should be changed then it is changed. If not then you have to go with the on-field umpire's original decision. The ball shaving the outside of the leg stump when the umpire has already said not out is not overwhelming evidence.

  • on_the_level on February 15, 2012, 20:52 GMT

    I wonder what technology will be used to determinr which of the two systems is the more accurate. Will this company also use computer simulation? If so, how accurate will the testing software be?

  • chapathishot on February 15, 2012, 20:17 GMT

    The use of DRS is not prefect in the England Pakistan 2nd ODI when ump give Misbah not out even thought it was hitting it was not out .If the umpire give the same out and Paks reviwed it would have been out .So how did DRS eliminated a human error.The human element is always there unless 100% howlers which are less than 1% by good umpires

  • CricFan78 on February 15, 2012, 19:38 GMT

    Hah ... The testing is being done years after DRS was introduced. Makes mockery of all the boards which were supporting it blindly and off course ICC.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 15, 2012, 19:09 GMT

    Well, at last a step in the right direction. Seller can't be telling me about the accuracy of his product. It needs to be verified.

  • SanjivAwesome on February 15, 2012, 18:56 GMT

    By rushing out untested technology too quickly ICC have created a perception of unreliability of the technology. Since perception is reality, no amout of testing or logic will ever remove lingering doubts about DRS which, in my opinion, is probably sound technology.

  • TamilIndian on February 15, 2012, 17:55 GMT

    Why two systems? - for run outs the onfield umpries are asking the TV umpire. Why not do the same for other things? - why give the option of reviewing to the players. Or why cannot the on field guy consult with the TV umprie to make the decision - use both naked eye/ ear inputs and technology inputs. The on field guys should feel they are in control. This overruling system doesnt look good.

  • golax on February 15, 2012, 17:29 GMT

    It is great that they are having theses tests and the results should be made public. I still feel that the tests are incorrect to some extent. If these systems fail in 10 out of 50 cases, it is still a useful system, if one shows that the humans (umpires from the ICC's elite panel) make incorrect decisions in the same cases. I imagine there is a way to get the true trajectory, without which all the tests are pointless. The correct way forward to demonstrate the advantage of ball-tracking would be to have the humans look at the video and mark where they think the ball was going to hit the stumps. A comparison of this with the ball tracking performance would clearly demonstrate, and as I expect, the superiority of the ball tracking.

  • crick.nick on February 15, 2012, 15:40 GMT

    DRS is acceptable, but it's rules giving just 2 chances to each team doesn't make the game equally fair for both teams playing. If you use 2 chances unsuccessfully and later umpires mistake, you won't be able to review like Eng playing Australia, England reviewing succesfully each time and then umpire making mistake by giving their batsman not out despite being out plus Australia being unable to review cause they already lost their reviews or in similar situation where umpiring errors gets even bigger with support of technology, in a game where one wrong decision can change the result of the game, it would be extremely unfair for both sides, so I think it should be left to teams if they use it or not and not complain why they use it or not.

  • Sinhaya on February 15, 2012, 14:11 GMT

    India will never accept UDRS no matter how accurate! UDRS is definitely better than on field umpiring. Dhoni is looking for lame excuses to win by hook or by crook by refusing UDRS WHICH IS MORE ACCURATE! Why wont Dhoni blame on field umpires who are not 100% PERFECT??

  • Naren on February 15, 2012, 13:54 GMT

    Only if BCCI does not kill the idea of DRS, it can survive. Hope some common sense prevail.

  • on February 15, 2012, 13:24 GMT

    Human made things can be easily manipulated, then whats the point of making one different from the other.

  • simpleguy2008 on February 15, 2012, 13:16 GMT

    Please make this system succes and make mandatory for all test nation especially india i want this system to be used in all indian matches also .One more request please make 2 challenges in odi also instead of one challenge.

  • HawK89 on February 15, 2012, 12:42 GMT

    You would think that sufficient tests should of been done before it was sent out to be used.

  • Leggie on February 15, 2012, 12:08 GMT

    I think the approach followed by ICC even for this test is incorrect. This fundamentally arises out of the fact that ball predictions are based on "speciific cameras" - rather than a video footage from any camera. It would have been extremely interesting to have two competing DRS systems predict the path of the "same ball" that was being bowled in the test laboratory. Obviously they cannot do the comparison since the two DRS systems have to use two independent cameras and they both may prefer the same spot for their "prediction". Given this limitation, the tests would still provide only "indicative results" and will not prove anything anyway. Nevertheless, it'll be interesting if ICC can share the results with the general public.

  • on February 15, 2012, 12:02 GMT

    The Hawk-eye ain't accurate.. Just few days back in Pak v/s Eng test match when ajmal bowled Doosra to Alastir cook the hawk-eye showed that it was an off-spin but when ajmal saw in the big screen he was shocked and also the viewers since we all saw that the ball had turned into alastir cooked (Doosra) but hawk-eye showed that it moved away from him.. Its not 99% accurate or more over it ain't 50% accurate !

  • royramesh on February 15, 2012, 11:24 GMT

    Again, Dave Richardson's statement raises more unanswered questions as in the Sieed Ajmal's suspect action case. Now he said that there are three cameras in a row and the replay is always shown from one side camera and People should realise that. Firstly how can peoiple realise this? Why don't the ICC tell the public ALL the relevant matters from the start? Secondly, why only do the replays from the side cameras? I always assumed that it was the same camera that filmed the actual delivery that was replayed. This sounds like a sketch from a TV comedy show. Thirdly, I hope and pray that the third umpires were told!

  • wrenx on February 15, 2012, 11:21 GMT

    A bit more transparency over DRS is always a welcome move. A step in the right direction, I think

  • on February 15, 2012, 11:05 GMT

    Can someone please tell me, with all these slow motion 10000 fps cameras floating around, especially in Australia, where they are used by the broadcasters for aesthetics, why are they not used in run outs and stumpings to stop the frame skip issue????????????????

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on February 15, 2012, 11:05 GMT

    Can someone please tell me, with all these slow motion 10000 fps cameras floating around, especially in Australia, where they are used by the broadcasters for aesthetics, why are they not used in run outs and stumpings to stop the frame skip issue????????????????

  • wrenx on February 15, 2012, 11:21 GMT

    A bit more transparency over DRS is always a welcome move. A step in the right direction, I think

  • royramesh on February 15, 2012, 11:24 GMT

    Again, Dave Richardson's statement raises more unanswered questions as in the Sieed Ajmal's suspect action case. Now he said that there are three cameras in a row and the replay is always shown from one side camera and People should realise that. Firstly how can peoiple realise this? Why don't the ICC tell the public ALL the relevant matters from the start? Secondly, why only do the replays from the side cameras? I always assumed that it was the same camera that filmed the actual delivery that was replayed. This sounds like a sketch from a TV comedy show. Thirdly, I hope and pray that the third umpires were told!

  • on February 15, 2012, 12:02 GMT

    The Hawk-eye ain't accurate.. Just few days back in Pak v/s Eng test match when ajmal bowled Doosra to Alastir cook the hawk-eye showed that it was an off-spin but when ajmal saw in the big screen he was shocked and also the viewers since we all saw that the ball had turned into alastir cooked (Doosra) but hawk-eye showed that it moved away from him.. Its not 99% accurate or more over it ain't 50% accurate !

  • Leggie on February 15, 2012, 12:08 GMT

    I think the approach followed by ICC even for this test is incorrect. This fundamentally arises out of the fact that ball predictions are based on "speciific cameras" - rather than a video footage from any camera. It would have been extremely interesting to have two competing DRS systems predict the path of the "same ball" that was being bowled in the test laboratory. Obviously they cannot do the comparison since the two DRS systems have to use two independent cameras and they both may prefer the same spot for their "prediction". Given this limitation, the tests would still provide only "indicative results" and will not prove anything anyway. Nevertheless, it'll be interesting if ICC can share the results with the general public.

  • HawK89 on February 15, 2012, 12:42 GMT

    You would think that sufficient tests should of been done before it was sent out to be used.

  • simpleguy2008 on February 15, 2012, 13:16 GMT

    Please make this system succes and make mandatory for all test nation especially india i want this system to be used in all indian matches also .One more request please make 2 challenges in odi also instead of one challenge.

  • on February 15, 2012, 13:24 GMT

    Human made things can be easily manipulated, then whats the point of making one different from the other.

  • Naren on February 15, 2012, 13:54 GMT

    Only if BCCI does not kill the idea of DRS, it can survive. Hope some common sense prevail.

  • Sinhaya on February 15, 2012, 14:11 GMT

    India will never accept UDRS no matter how accurate! UDRS is definitely better than on field umpiring. Dhoni is looking for lame excuses to win by hook or by crook by refusing UDRS WHICH IS MORE ACCURATE! Why wont Dhoni blame on field umpires who are not 100% PERFECT??