Decision Review System July 6, 2011

Holding not a fan of ball-tracking technology

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 71

Former West Indies fast bowler and noted commentator Michael Holding has backed the use of technology in umpiring decisions, though he believes ball-tracking should be done away with since it is inaccurate. During last week's annual conference, the ICC - following the BCCI's sustained opposition to ball-tracking - decided to do away with it as one of the compulsory technological aids for decision-making, while making the DRS mandatory in ODIs and Tests.

"I have never been a fan of the projected path of the ball," Holding said during a round-table discussion at the MCC Spirit of Cricket lecture. "What HawkEye has produced with regards to the actual path of ball, where the ball has landed and where it has gone on to hit whatever - the bat or the pad - I am 100% happy with that.

"The projected path of the ball [though] is a calculation. Obviously it has a margin of error, [but] they won't call it that since they don't want to hear the word 'error'. That's why whenever it is hitting the stumps or projected to be hitting the stumps, they leave it to the umpire's call. If you are leaving it to the umpire's call, that means you are thinking whatever you are showing is not 100% correct … So everything except the projected path I am happy with."

While paring down the DRS, the ICC also rejected the visual aid provided by the pitch mat, again on the BCCI's insistence, a move that Holding criticised. "That mat is placed there by an immovable camera," he said. "[It shows] where the ball is being pitched, and that has been shown to be 100% correct, so I have no problems with that. I don't see why India don't want to use it."

Holding was critical of the BCCI's inordinate power in running the world game, an issue that has been discussed widely following the manner in which decisions were made at the conference. "I don't believe any country should be able to dictate to the world, whatever game it is," he said. "Brazil dominated football for many World Cups. They could not go to FIFA and say 'this is what we want in the next World Cup'. [But] They could never ever dictate the path of the sport.

"As far as I am concerned, it is the organisation running the game that should dictate the path. I am seeing an individual board dictating certain things, which I cannot agree with."

Andrew Strauss and Kumar Sangakkara, who have captained in matches with the DRS in use, were supportive of the use of technology in decision-making, though they differed in their opinions over the implementation of DRS. Sangakkara wanted umpires to use technology at their discretion, without the players having to review decisions, while Strauss was happy with the existing system.

"It adds to the spectacle of the game when the players can challenge decisions, the crowds like it, and it gives the captains decisions to make, some of them strategic as to when and against which players you might use your calls," Sangakkara said. "At the same time, I am a great believer in leaving it to the three umpires; if they need assistance to make their decision, let them ask for that. And allow the three umpires to sort it out among themselves."

Strauss said the DRS was good for cricket since it helped in getting better decisions and did not undermine umpires. "I must admit I had problems with DRS when it was first mooted. I worried about players being involved in the decision-making process - it is very contrary to what the game of cricket is all about, which is that the umpires make the final decision," Strauss said. "But having seen it work, and having seen umpires get used to the idea, I don't think they feel so much undermined now.

"A lot of the times the best umpires come out with their reputations enhanced by the DRS. I think everyone has got used to it, and we get more decisions right as a result of it, therefore it is for the betterment of the game of cricket."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Biso on | July 8, 2011, 7:38 GMT

    I would like to get results of one experiment. Let the bowler bowl a short rising ball & let hawk eye track the ball till it reaches the distance of the stumps after which switch off ( virtually) the tracking data and predict the path of the ball till maybe just half way between the stumps and the wicket keeper. Compare with the actual path. You will see how ridiculous the predicted path is under various conditions. I can bet, it will not be possible to find any calibration algorithm even with experimental data from thousands of such trials made under different conditions. Many people are simply talking out of their hats about ball path prediction. I am not trying to say that an umpire can predict better. I do not have any data to make that statement. BCCI definitely has some valid reservations against paying for such technology which is not yet proven . Is it not ICC which is trying to push some technologies that are half backed at this stage(or perhaps trying to patronise some)?

  • POSTED BY Night-Watchman on | July 8, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs You are out of your depth. Usage in Tennis is for the actual point of contact, not the projected point of contact. Hawkeye is inaccurate for uneven bounce, windy conditions, ball conditions, two paced pitches ... Hawkeye can never predict the swing or reverse swing on the ball, neither can it predict the path of spinning ball, or the actual amount of spin, cutters et al. I would love to see Warny bowl the famous Gatting Delivery again and see Hawkeye attempting to predict its path!!! It is just a computer simulation, I do not see any rigourous published test data and so Hawkeye Ball tracking should simply be done away with. It is just a company trying to peddle its wares without much testing on actual conditions.

  • POSTED BY Mfalme on | July 8, 2011, 5:16 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs - absolutely agree with you on the last part of your statement. Also wish to emphasis on what Sanga has said about DRS, "It adds to the spectacle of the game when the players can challenge decisions, the crowds like it, and it gives the captains decisions to make, some of them strategic as to when and against which players you might use your calls". Now, if people are looking for 100% accuracy then cricket would be confined to only video game parlors.

  • POSTED BY indicricket on | July 8, 2011, 5:03 GMT

    SIR MICHAEL ANTHONY HOLDING, I have to admit it has a nice ring to it.

  • POSTED BY sanath007 on | July 8, 2011, 2:11 GMT

    Holding is too old it seems, the ball tracking technology is absolutely Great, this world is not perfect there is never 100% perfection

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | July 7, 2011, 21:34 GMT

    It is sad to see one of my heroes, Michael Holding, lashing out against projected paths of the ball. No offense, but most cricketers should stick to just playing cricket, because the intelligence of many cricketers is really not that high. I really thought that Holding was an educated guy though. His views on "margin of errors" are ludacris. Yes, technology has margins of errors, and no matter how far into the future you are it will have errors but even today the margin of error for hawkeye is .1% (it is actually 99.9% accurate and used for a lot more sports such as Tennis and association football). Obviously a margin of error of .1% can not even compare to an umpire's margin of error, so what is the debate here? Do not understand why people are opposing this. One day in the future we will look back and wonder why we even thought of refusing such blessings.

  • POSTED BY ajaym_believer on | July 7, 2011, 19:06 GMT

    I abhor some of the strong arm tactics BCCI has used in the past. But in the DRS case they seem to be the only sane voice. They agree to the use of hotspot and line decisions. Using technology up to the point of impact to avoid obvious howlers is acceptable to all. Disagreement comes over the predictive part of ball tracking and should be further discussed. Mike Holding damns BCCI out of force of habit but agrees that they might be right about it after all (well not in so many words but in principle). Now, we understand that even hot spot is only 95% accurate. Ball tracking track record is poorer than International elite umpires average. Does this not merit more discussion or research OR damning BCCI is so satisfying that cricket be damned!

  • POSTED BY yezdi70 on | July 7, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    So much discussion on ball tracking. Why ? The makers of the ball tracking themselves conceded (recent article on cricinfo) that they are working hard to progress this technology to be 100%. They have admitted that it is not accurate. So lets be happy that the ICC has moved in the right direction by making DRS mandatory. As soon as ball tracking technology reaches an acceptable level that will also be made mandatory. The pitch mat should be made mandatory for sure.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 15:26 GMT

    The brazil example shows the level of understanding Holding has in this matter, Brazil and India are different! Brazil was never the financial powerhouse of football and India was never consistently winning ICC eventss as Brazil. BCCI has bargaining power not because India is top ranked in tests and world champs in ODI, but because they control the finances!

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 15:20 GMT

    @Tahir1234 : Every team always needs services of the past. Atleast India need services of Kapil and Gavaskar. But going by the current Pakistani team ..it may need all 11 players from past....However even then winning against India in a world cup match will still remain a dream.Even iif Imran and other return ..lack of bottlecaps will still render them in effective.

  • POSTED BY Biso on | July 8, 2011, 7:38 GMT

    I would like to get results of one experiment. Let the bowler bowl a short rising ball & let hawk eye track the ball till it reaches the distance of the stumps after which switch off ( virtually) the tracking data and predict the path of the ball till maybe just half way between the stumps and the wicket keeper. Compare with the actual path. You will see how ridiculous the predicted path is under various conditions. I can bet, it will not be possible to find any calibration algorithm even with experimental data from thousands of such trials made under different conditions. Many people are simply talking out of their hats about ball path prediction. I am not trying to say that an umpire can predict better. I do not have any data to make that statement. BCCI definitely has some valid reservations against paying for such technology which is not yet proven . Is it not ICC which is trying to push some technologies that are half backed at this stage(or perhaps trying to patronise some)?

  • POSTED BY Night-Watchman on | July 8, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs You are out of your depth. Usage in Tennis is for the actual point of contact, not the projected point of contact. Hawkeye is inaccurate for uneven bounce, windy conditions, ball conditions, two paced pitches ... Hawkeye can never predict the swing or reverse swing on the ball, neither can it predict the path of spinning ball, or the actual amount of spin, cutters et al. I would love to see Warny bowl the famous Gatting Delivery again and see Hawkeye attempting to predict its path!!! It is just a computer simulation, I do not see any rigourous published test data and so Hawkeye Ball tracking should simply be done away with. It is just a company trying to peddle its wares without much testing on actual conditions.

  • POSTED BY Mfalme on | July 8, 2011, 5:16 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs - absolutely agree with you on the last part of your statement. Also wish to emphasis on what Sanga has said about DRS, "It adds to the spectacle of the game when the players can challenge decisions, the crowds like it, and it gives the captains decisions to make, some of them strategic as to when and against which players you might use your calls". Now, if people are looking for 100% accuracy then cricket would be confined to only video game parlors.

  • POSTED BY indicricket on | July 8, 2011, 5:03 GMT

    SIR MICHAEL ANTHONY HOLDING, I have to admit it has a nice ring to it.

  • POSTED BY sanath007 on | July 8, 2011, 2:11 GMT

    Holding is too old it seems, the ball tracking technology is absolutely Great, this world is not perfect there is never 100% perfection

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | July 7, 2011, 21:34 GMT

    It is sad to see one of my heroes, Michael Holding, lashing out against projected paths of the ball. No offense, but most cricketers should stick to just playing cricket, because the intelligence of many cricketers is really not that high. I really thought that Holding was an educated guy though. His views on "margin of errors" are ludacris. Yes, technology has margins of errors, and no matter how far into the future you are it will have errors but even today the margin of error for hawkeye is .1% (it is actually 99.9% accurate and used for a lot more sports such as Tennis and association football). Obviously a margin of error of .1% can not even compare to an umpire's margin of error, so what is the debate here? Do not understand why people are opposing this. One day in the future we will look back and wonder why we even thought of refusing such blessings.

  • POSTED BY ajaym_believer on | July 7, 2011, 19:06 GMT

    I abhor some of the strong arm tactics BCCI has used in the past. But in the DRS case they seem to be the only sane voice. They agree to the use of hotspot and line decisions. Using technology up to the point of impact to avoid obvious howlers is acceptable to all. Disagreement comes over the predictive part of ball tracking and should be further discussed. Mike Holding damns BCCI out of force of habit but agrees that they might be right about it after all (well not in so many words but in principle). Now, we understand that even hot spot is only 95% accurate. Ball tracking track record is poorer than International elite umpires average. Does this not merit more discussion or research OR damning BCCI is so satisfying that cricket be damned!

  • POSTED BY yezdi70 on | July 7, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    So much discussion on ball tracking. Why ? The makers of the ball tracking themselves conceded (recent article on cricinfo) that they are working hard to progress this technology to be 100%. They have admitted that it is not accurate. So lets be happy that the ICC has moved in the right direction by making DRS mandatory. As soon as ball tracking technology reaches an acceptable level that will also be made mandatory. The pitch mat should be made mandatory for sure.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 15:26 GMT

    The brazil example shows the level of understanding Holding has in this matter, Brazil and India are different! Brazil was never the financial powerhouse of football and India was never consistently winning ICC eventss as Brazil. BCCI has bargaining power not because India is top ranked in tests and world champs in ODI, but because they control the finances!

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 15:20 GMT

    @Tahir1234 : Every team always needs services of the past. Atleast India need services of Kapil and Gavaskar. But going by the current Pakistani team ..it may need all 11 players from past....However even then winning against India in a world cup match will still remain a dream.Even iif Imran and other return ..lack of bottlecaps will still render them in effective.

  • POSTED BY yoohoo on | July 7, 2011, 15:06 GMT

    Well, now suddenly everybody seems to be echoing what BCCI has been saying all along!! Yesterday the head of Virtual Eye agreed that the predictive part ws not yet good enough, and today holding is saying so. But, before the decision was made at ICC meet everybody was just interested in dissing BCCI, even though they were right all along. Looking at all this I have a new found respect for BCCI, they are the only ones who have had a consistent view on this, and their view is proving to be right. everybody else is just interested in showing their bias and being negative for the sake of being so.

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | July 7, 2011, 12:56 GMT

    Anshuman Singh, thanks for explaining. Have we used pitch mat already as part of DRS or even without DRS in place?

  • POSTED BY TwitterJitter on | July 7, 2011, 12:19 GMT

    @Wolver - If it was left to English press, many Asian players would still be willy nilly suspended by umpires, Murali banned from cricket for chucking, and players dropping out of Asian tours for all silly reasons. Those journalists never apologize for all the false accusations they made against BCCI regarding who was responsible for trimming the number of teams for WC 50/50 or WC T20. They just jumped onto another accusation when previous one turned out to be false. They even have a charge that Sachin and Dhoni are refusing UDRS because they are scared of Swann! BCCI is no angel. They are everything that Sanga accused SL board to be in domestic affairs and a little more, but international bully? There were only 2 boards that had "veto power" (discrimination etched into constitution) and it is not BCCI. They still have to win votes from others to get their way just like any other board needs to.They did not voluntarily give it away. It was snatched away when they lost financial muscle

  • POSTED BY maddy20 on | July 7, 2011, 11:59 GMT

    If ball tracking is used, teams will struggle to get to 100 on a surface that offers assistance to the bowlers . Getting rid of it is a good move.

  • POSTED BY rkannancrown on | July 7, 2011, 10:14 GMT

    The part of Holding's comments related to using technology upto point of contact are logical and deserve to be accepted. His crib about BCCI is more related to the inability to accept that the game is being driven from the subcontinent.

  • POSTED BY Proteas123 on | July 7, 2011, 9:11 GMT

    @TwitterJitter - Your last statement is just ridiculous. BCCI opposition to DRS is just holding back the game. Holding's points are sound and the compromise is a real pitty for cricket as a whole.

  • POSTED BY SyedKabirHussainy on | July 7, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    I think that ball tracking technology should be used but do we have testing results available to public that how this technology was tested with different scenario. I believe under certain scenario it can be 99% accurate but in certain scenario it will be less than 50% accurate. So it should be used where accuracy rate is acceptable mark. Suppose we have scenario A: where ball is above 80mph and distance between where it pitched and where it hit is more than 3 meters without any seam movement. I believe for this case there should be no doubt that it should be used. Now scenario B: a spinner delivery with less than 60 mph and distance between where it pitched and where it hit is less than 0.5 meters. Under this scenario say that the accuracy percent may be less than 70% so we should rely on umpire's decision only. Also point like acceleration due to gravity may differ in certain grounds [very minimal but it will affect] plus heavy and hight atmosphere for the day should also be noted.

  • POSTED BY uglyhunK on | July 7, 2011, 7:53 GMT

    That Brazil example is just plain wrong. Brazil dominated on the field but money comes from Europe.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 7:51 GMT

    I went to a presentation at Lord's about Hawkeye and the technology involved. Prior to that I had not been totally convinced however, after seeing that I was completely persuaded of it's accuracy, partly as it uses missile guidance technology and its dedicated cameras take many more shots per second than than regular HD footage.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 7:40 GMT

    Because Eng & Aus dictated ICC in tha past does not authorise India to dictate now. We do not want any country dominate or dictate ICC which should be an impartial body dedicated to cause of cricket without fear or favour to any country. We do not want any more big brotherly attitude from any country which India now showing.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 7:31 GMT

    @Jim1207: The pitch mat is a virtual mat placed on the pitch with the help of two immovable cameras placed directly behind the umpire's head on either bowling end. The mat is as wide as the width of the stumps and runs the length of the pitch connecting the stumps at both ends. It is used to assist in determining whether a delivery has pitched within the line of the stumps, or not and also whether the impact of the ball with the batsman's pads was within, or outside the line of the stumps. It is considered accurate because it uses static cameras directly behind the umpire and also as there is no element of prediction involved. It is used to assist in the adjudication of LBW decisions by the TV umpire.

  • POSTED BY GrassBanks on | July 7, 2011, 7:28 GMT

    As usual the truth the somewhere in the middle. ICC is comprised of it boards and is not a independent body. As it happens in every organisation power is not equally distributed. Name one international organisation where it is. FIFA, Mr. Holding?? You must be joking! Sepp Blatter has been running it for who knows how long. And maybe he should read his morning papers a bit more to see where FIFA is heading. America always gets to nominate the president of the World Bank and Europe always gets to nominate the president of the IMF. I wonder why. Now that China is contributing more money to the IMF it wants it's representative in a senior position. Welcome to the real world.

  • POSTED BY JustIPL on | July 7, 2011, 6:41 GMT

    India are worried about England tour and Swann has by chance benifitted by the technology more than any other player. India have got number one spot because aussies and proteas have lost it due to the exodus of champion players. India, on the other hand have retained players who have played against the champion teams for many years now. They have tried in windies series to find replacements but had to revert to the main eleven. They also need the services of Gavaskar and Kapil but it is not possible now.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 6:35 GMT

    @ Bob Martin - Thanks for pointing out in logical terms what others are doing wrong. I can see that the western world likes to make mistakes and doesnt expect to answer for them. Holding never questioned the ICC when he was playing.. I think this is courage developed too late. If all ICC members(including BCCI) had showed some spine when everything was run out of London, it would have been a far more level playing field now. I also happen to think that WI cricket should benefit first from Mr. Holding's views on how things should be done.

  • POSTED BY sukuviju on | July 7, 2011, 6:11 GMT

    If BCCI provide Holding with a commentary assignment for the next IPL, he will start singing a different tune.

  • POSTED BY Quazar on | July 7, 2011, 6:05 GMT

    As expected, the English and Australian press have not reported Holding's skepticism of ball-tracking... instead focusing on his criticism of BCCI. But I, and most in India I feel, would agree with Holding's view that the pitch mat should be used to judge whether the ball pitched and hit in line; we can do away with ball-path predictions entirely, or until independent testing of their reliability and error margin. Holding however lost some credibility by not questioning the roles that the ECB and CA play at the ICC... if they are better than the BCCI, why do they never vote against it? And why did CA want only 10 teams at the 2015 WC...why didn't they originally invite 2-4 of the Associates through a qualification process?

  • POSTED BY bhaloniaz on | July 7, 2011, 5:58 GMT

    I do not think Holding is speaking on behalf of England or English media. Even a few indian fans can see that BCCI's too much influence on the rules is not good for cricket. Fans of all other nations can see that. Indian fan's live in the fantasy that ECB once dominated all the decisions. There were 6 countries. NZ, ACB and ECB were together. India and Pakistan were together. WI could go either way. Then RSA and SRI came along. I am not ENG or AUS supporter. I used to support the indian team those days.

  • POSTED BY PSSidhu on | July 7, 2011, 5:24 GMT

    Remember what happened to field hockey? The game was turned completely upside down to the disadvantage of Asians. India should protect cricket from going the same way!

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 5:24 GMT

    @ Mohammed Faisal it does not matter if you are from pakistan or not but what you say makes sense. Believe me the IPL has been blamed for everything from Sri Lanka's loss against england recently but no credit for the one day wins. In fact the IPL has been blamed for Global warming as well because of the firecrackers. You correctly point the hypocrisy of the boards and India can only influence bilateral matches. Technology is not perfect. Anyway we need voices of reason and yours was one of them

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 5:22 GMT

    Holding's comments doesnt make any sense. How can he compare football and cricket? ICC has to depend on BCCI as India has the economic ability to run the game and cricket is played in and around 12 countries where as football is played all over the world and it has fans all over the world so obviously FIFA doesn really need to depend on any individual body!

  • POSTED BY Makkered on | July 7, 2011, 5:13 GMT

    Well, I would Like to point out to all BCCI opposers, If the technology is not apt enough, what is point of spending so much money on it. Secondly what they are doing is good for all the small boards and associate members, because if for example Full DRS is implemented who is going to shoulder the cost for margin of error in the decision.

  • POSTED BY masks on | July 7, 2011, 5:08 GMT

    All things considered the BCCI has just one vote in the ICC. Wonder why the other boards dont outvote the BCCI.Also wonder why Holding does not rail against the boards who he feels have sold out to the BCCI. By his logic all the boards.Why dont the posters here condemn their own boards for their lack of spine ?.And finally, why dont Holding and his ilk set their own boards right, join the ICC and put their money where their mouth is?.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 5:04 GMT

    Do good ....India and BCCI get bashed...where are the ones criticizing IPL when Sri Lanka and Australia are licking their lips for a piece of the pie. ICL atleast had fair representation amongst players. A little bit of history for my friends across the border...who do you think recommended Pakistan for Test status? In any case any application of technology is subjective. We are talking about pitches with imperfect bounce and sometimes inconsistent. Are they going to be adjustments made for day 1 vs. Day 3 vs. Day 5 pitches? What do we do with marginal decisions like the ball hit the outside of the wickets or bails in case of LBW. Then there is the addition of snicko, hotspot, stump mic and human error. What if the technology fails? What is the back up? Why don't we have a robot with a Taser and a videocam at square leg?

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 5:04 GMT

    Whilst there is nothing wrong in being a proud man, which Mike Holding seems to be, he should also realize that the people in BCCI are not only proud but also powerful. When dealing with people like those, its best to walk a tightrope otherwise you risk being sidelined. People like John Wright and Gary Kirsten did that admirably and as a result we were able to reap the benefits of their experience. Mike Holding's experience and knowledge about the game is too precious to get wasted. My sincere advice to him would be to be careful when he chooses to criticize BCCI - by all means criticize, but be subtle, like some of the others.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 4:26 GMT

    Well, I am 100 percent agreed with Holding. He is as clear as a sunny day. The problem (if any) is with the proposed trajectory of the ball after pitching. But there is no problem with pich map. It is 100 percent correct and must have been there in DRS. Why? simply bcoz it confirms you where the ball pitched (within stump line, on off, on leg side etc) and then it confirms the point and direction of ball while hitting the pad. That surely facilitates in LBW decisions. Dont criticize Holding for that by saying he should help WI. Oh well if someone says the truth you would say him to do other good deeds and leave the truth. Come on at least he has done a good job by explaining his point with solid reasons

  • POSTED BY MrMMJ on | July 7, 2011, 4:18 GMT

    ICC is a democratic instituion and every board is trying to protect its interests. If BCCI has its independent opinion about UDRS then what is wrong in it. How about the other Boards playing the role of passive aggressor. Our way or be ready for being labelled as arrogant and misuser of money power. It is not BCCI's fault if they are doing better then other boards. BCCI is responsible for Indian cricket and they are doing great in this regard. I am not fan of BCCI but I must say they are not hounding their players like other boards and giving due respect to the senior players despite irrational arguements presented by so called cricketing geniuses, i.e. Chappell brothers, for their retirement and future of Indian cricket.

  • POSTED BY bharath74 on | July 7, 2011, 4:09 GMT

    @bobmartin When Eng & Aus were dictating the cricket world, you think it is for the best interests of cricket, but when India thinks UDRS predictions are not accurate, u call it as revenge, muscle flexing etc. We had enough of your Double standards, now that times have changed and you need to change along with it and adapt to 21st century.

  • POSTED BY on | July 7, 2011, 3:59 GMT

    Just because Holding didn't like BCCI's influence does not mean he has an agenda or he is illogical. I didn't hear him supporting any other administration for that matter. Cricket is an extremely small comunity and each county needs other equally. Imagine no test team visiting India, or no international player playing at the IPL and you will realize how it would be. Even Indians wouldn't buy tickets without international presence. The game is not really growing, its rather shrinking in places like WI. Without a fair and balanced attitude, cricket may very well end up with 5 or 6 international teams 20/30 years from now.

  • POSTED BY JustIPL on | July 7, 2011, 3:46 GMT

    Hawk eye gives the projected path while hot spot gives where it hits so the error is visible. Some integration of technologies should be possible to enable umpires check their own decision if in doubt but the players should not be allowed to refer any decision. It is against the very nature of the game where umpres decision is final no matter how badly we get challenged. Umpres are also human and have their due share of error like the batsmen who make mistakes to get out and bowlers who bowl badly to be called and hit. Any rule that applies to the cricketing world should also apply to India, period. Keeping umpires deprived of the technology is one way of finding fault with them and saving face in case of a defeat.

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | July 7, 2011, 3:43 GMT

    bobmartin, You are now in concurrence with BCCI. the actual flight path is tracked by hot spot better than hawk-eye due to its thermal imaging capability, which BCCI supports. The ball prediction path is not wanted by Holding which is what the column header says, which is what the BCCI also says.

  • POSTED BY intcamd on | July 7, 2011, 1:57 GMT

    Holding is just disgruntled. Have we polled every single former test cricketer out there? Why so much importance to his views alone then? What if GR Visvanath had a different view, Bob Willis another, and so on. Holding's statement that "I have no problems with that. I don't see why India don't want to use it" is garbage; so, if he sees it one way, all of India should see it the same? Wow, and he is the one complaining about BCCI's dictatorial powers?!

  • POSTED BY vswami on | July 7, 2011, 1:50 GMT

    Dont understand what the fuss is all about .. BCCI has a different point of view and the other countries can outvote BCCI. Its quite remarkable that the CEO of the technology provider comes out and says that there are reasons for not trusting the technology and all the journalists have gone quiet. Holding's analogy with football is totally off the mark. Its not Brazil where the money comes from but UEFA. If Platini doesnt want goalline technology because he doesnt like it as it would spoil the "beautiful game" ( while the rest of the world doesnt have a problem ) it will not happen and all the journalists will nod in agreement ! FIFA is no different from ICC or any other sporting body. The only difference in cricket is that money does not come from a traditional developed world economy and rest of the world doesnt know how to cope with it.

  • POSTED BY oldmanofsea on | July 7, 2011, 0:44 GMT

    @Holding: Brazil could not dictate terms to FIFA and the rest of the world because they did not generate more than 50-60% of the game's revenue. Dictating terms to the rest of the world does not require you to dominate the sports. Australia dominated cricket on the field from late 90s to 2007. But they did not dominate the cricketing world off the cricket field. But BCCI does generate more than 50-60% of the cricketing revenue. So you want BCCI to keep generating bulk of the revenue and other countires to keep feeding of the revenue and still enjoy the same powers as BCCI? Man, you do have some wishful thinking.

  • POSTED BY Silloh on | July 7, 2011, 0:38 GMT

    Michael Holding always appears to know what he is talking about and in the process he may not please everyone. One decision he needs no technology with is to help rebuild WI cricket. I suggest he be appointed President of the WICB and get the former greats to return to serve and choose the other Board members.

  • POSTED BY Baria00 on | July 7, 2011, 0:26 GMT

    really don't care much for holding's views..if he really cares for cricket and has any respect for WI, he should be helping them..he is just a mouth piece for English media.

  • POSTED BY frommoonman on | July 6, 2011, 23:57 GMT

    Sanga is forgetting that if you leave it to the umpires, players like Ponting, Clarke, Broad (who have repeated history of altercation with Umpires if things don't go their way) will PUSH and FORCE umpires to ask for review so we will be back to square one. It is better to let players call for reviews.

  • POSTED BY on | July 6, 2011, 23:49 GMT

    Let's not pick sides here. If you assess the information and ascertain the plot of this issue; you can arrive with better clarity. The technology is not guaranteed. So there will be certain teams that oppose it. Holding has a valid point for having this technology used for the betterment of the sport. However, he has erred when he has pinpointed BCCI's power as the reason to avoid this technology. It's probably BCCI's experience with this method. IF it's flawed why should someone agree? There are certain sports, where the competitors pick and choose the available resources. Like in Boxing you can choose the ring size and gloves used. Few can argue that its not a team sport. But its bilateral in nature. BCCI is only demanding this case for Bilateral series because they are not happy with the technology. For the betterment, I would consider fixing the issues with the technology rather than whinge at getting it on and pointing fingers at boards. No Robinhood is required. Fix it first. :)

  • POSTED BY Japan.Kolla on | July 6, 2011, 22:34 GMT

    I had a Problem with Hawk eye right from the star ! Sachin Tendulkar's LBW decision in WC semi final was one of the worst i ever seen in cricket field ! hide it in the dustbin

  • POSTED BY shillingsworth on | July 6, 2011, 22:20 GMT

    @TwitterJitter, you make some valid points. Sadly, the absurd allegation in the final sentence ruins what was otherwise a well argued contribution.

  • POSTED BY on | July 6, 2011, 21:45 GMT

    @TwitterJitter : Well said.

  • POSTED BY KS72 on | July 6, 2011, 21:04 GMT

    Hi Mikee...getting ready for a OBE/MBE or maybe knighthood.....Sir Michael Holding...how fabulous it sounds......keep working towards it!!

  • POSTED BY sreeg on | July 6, 2011, 20:16 GMT

    @Bob Martin - BCCI has it reasons regarding the UDRS etc for cricketing reasons. Mr.Holding didn't address that in detail and instead directed his thoughts towards Power used by BCCI...So you come to the 21st Century. bharath74's response was based on the fact when WI, Aussies used their muscle and not brains to run the power

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | July 6, 2011, 20:02 GMT

    Can anyone please explain what pitch mat technology is and where and how they are using in DRS?

  • POSTED BY TwitterJitter on | July 6, 2011, 19:54 GMT

    Like many pointed out, if BCCI was the only one objecting to the DRS system then they could have been out-voted at the ICC. So, it means that others are not clean either. Second, BCCI only objected to its use in bilateral series involving India, not for ICC tournaments or for other nations willing to use for their bilateral tours. Third it is funny how many English journalists (bbc_oliver to be one ) at the time blamed BCCI for reducing number of teams in 2015 WC when it has now come out that it was Aus and NZ who wanted fewer teams. Same goes for reducing teams in WC T20 when Lorgat now revealed that revenue considerations played a part, which means smaller nations wanted to be compensated for lost revenue due to increase in teams for WC2015. It is funny that when facts come out these English journos jump to a new topic to blame BCCI for. For all the talk of BCCI power, cricket is still controlled by Eng and Aus through their lackies in the media who do hatchet jobs for them.

  • POSTED BY bobmartin on | July 6, 2011, 19:53 GMT

    @bharath74 - "Where was Holding when Eng and Aus were dictating the rules for decades? " I see.. Now I get it... This BCCI and Indian supporters' antagonism against the format of UDRS that all the other nations want, has got nothing to do with what's best for the game, it's all a matter of revenge and muscle flexing bcause of what went on years ago. How pathetic and backward looking. In case you hadn't noticed. we are now living in the 21st century.

  • POSTED BY on | July 6, 2011, 19:12 GMT

    I am surprised that so much attention is given to Holding's well known views about BCCI.Best to ignore his disgruntled views ( as an obligatory house commentator, his cricketing nous is -shall we say-colourless.) Much more trenchant critique of BCCI and its corporate-driven culture will be found in the informed Indian media.

  • POSTED BY bharath74 on | July 6, 2011, 19:03 GMT

    Where was Holding when Eng and Aus were dictating the rules for decades?

  • POSTED BY mohammad.faizal on | July 6, 2011, 18:49 GMT

    Its silly that people keep blaming BCCI. Every board takes decisions as they seem fit. If other boards feel it is beneficial to support BCCI, then BCCI must be doing somethings right. Even though I'm a pakistani, I don't agree with this hypocrisy of jumping on BCCI all the time. England and Australia used to and can still play ashes and other series and decide what they want to do. Where does BCCI come in this ? If Srilanka plays Pakistan, what can BCCI do ? What people really mean is we want BCCI to just give us all their money and not negotiate for anything in return. That is pure greed. Shame on all you hyporcites. If people have honour and guts just do what you want to, no one can stop you. If your boards are supporting BCCI, then go complain to them about their decisions. Its not BCCIs job to make every srilankan, pakistani and aussie happy. They look out for their players and people, let our boards show the same sense of responsibility first.

  • POSTED BY cricket_for_all on | July 6, 2011, 18:45 GMT

    Well BCCI accepted hot-spot has only 90-95% accuracy (not 100%). Since It looks like very sophisticated to BCCI they accepted it. By the way these fools should understand that Hawk-eye also have 90-95% accuracy. I would ask the Hawk-eye producer to make this ball tracking system bit colorful like multicolor then BCCI will accept it.

    BCCI is not equal to Indians!!!. Indians are smart as any other person in the earth but not BCCI.

  • POSTED BY SnowSnake on | July 6, 2011, 18:42 GMT

    Not that I am a BCCI fan and belive that BCCI has some issues to sort out, I believe that overly criticizing BCCI is not fair. BCCI only gets involved when India is playing another nation. That is not a big market share of cricket. For all matches where Indian does not play, BCCI does not control what technology is used. So, despite of what anyone says, BCCI has limited control of the game. I can understand if all nation games such as world cup where BCCI may play a major role, but for test cricket and two team ODI games, BCCI plays limited role. In a way, every board should protect its interests. BCCI is proteching interests of Indian cricket. It is not as big a monopoly as it is projected to be.

  • POSTED BY ajaym_believer on | July 6, 2011, 18:39 GMT

    I fully agree with vishwanath.sreeraman. ICC has other members who can outvote BCCI on any issue. If they choose not to, I do not think this virulent tirade against BCCI alone is justified. BCCI like any organisation run by humans is far from perfect and certainly needs feedback from interested parties. But sometimes the criticism does seem over the top.

  • POSTED BY TwitterJitter on | July 6, 2011, 18:29 GMT

    My question is what is BCCI still doing by still being a member of ICC? Time to get out and let ICC member boards frame whatever rules they want to. Go with the domestic league for all 3 formats. I am sure domestic league will be successful if marketed well and financially much more rewarding irrespective of whether overseas players play or not. A 5-month domestic test champion ship and 6 week 50 over championship to go along with 6 week T20 championship every year in a league format (IPL) would do wonders for all the 10 franchises. It also makes Indian cricket to have defined cricket season each year. Franchises can also take full-time ownership of players like in other professional leagues. I am sure all the other boards will be quite happy without BCCI/India in the mix to object to their decisions. They can replace India with Ireland for all I care and argue whatever they want for all I care.

  • POSTED BY bobmartin on | July 6, 2011, 18:23 GMT

    As a postscript to my last comment, In respect of the comments of Michael Holding, I do wish people would read what is written and not what they hope or think is written. "I have never been a fan of the projected path of the ball," Holding said during a round-table discussion at the MCC Spirit of Cricket lecture. "I think what HawkEye has produced with the actual path of ball, where the ball has landed and where it has gone on to hit whatever - the bat or the pad - I am 100% happy with that." That is not the same as the headline of the article and some of the posters on here claim. Hawkeye is essentially two elements... One, tracking the ball from release until it is intercepted. That is tracking and is what has actually happened during the flight of the ball. As Holding says he is 100% in favour of that. The second part is the predicted path of the ball after interception and that is where the element of his doubt exists.

  • POSTED BY indicricket on | July 6, 2011, 18:06 GMT

    Mr.Holding did not have any problem when England and Australia ruled the roost in the cricketing world. I know 1983 still rankles, accept you were not got enough and you are still not. As mentioned earlier, it is sad to see a fine bowler become a subcontinent hater. His problem is not only with India, he also has a axe ato grind with Pakistan; his comments vis-a-vis Hair and ball tampering issue.

  • POSTED BY screamingeagle on | July 6, 2011, 17:54 GMT

    I fully agree with Holding. After all, he was just as vocal when UK and Aus had vetoes..... :P

    And of course, he has the good of cricket overall and WI cricket in mind, one can make out that with the amount of time he devotes to WI...

    Jokes apart, he is right about the pitch map. But about the influence of BCCI, well..next suggestion or demand would be to channel all the revenue from India to one account and divide equally between all the ICC members. Dont laugh ppl, thats what it all adds up to.

  • POSTED BY bobmartin on | July 6, 2011, 17:38 GMT

    The usual claptrap from Indian supporters who are anti-UDRS... The facts are: 1] The BCCI would not agree to the use of the UDRS in the form that the ICC and most, if not all, other test playing nations accepted. 2] The ICC changed the format of the UDRS to one which the BCCI would accept. Those are two well documaneted and therefore incontrovertible facts.. Ergo... the ICC have bowed to what is acceptable to the BCCI. Michael Holding was correct.

  • POSTED BY on | July 6, 2011, 17:26 GMT

    @ Sakthiivel obviously ICC is not like FIFA but a sporting organisation should never just listen to particular countries (such as india) on how to run the game. It's not about the money, even if the Bangladesh or Sri Lankan boards are only worth 20% to that of the BCCI they should all have an equal say on issues.

  • POSTED BY on | July 6, 2011, 17:09 GMT

    Agree with Holding.. the Indian Cricket Council (oops), I mean the International Cricket Council is in danger of becoming a one party state.

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | July 6, 2011, 17:03 GMT

    Mike holding did not want ball-tracking which every other country except BCCI supported. ICC is not using pitch-map not because India does not want pitch mat but due to some other reasons. If Holding is accusing India or BCCI as making use of the power, he should produce evidence of where it happens. If he is just accusing, he looks a lot more silly of lamenting against the people due to sour grapes. Sad to see a wonderful cricketer to become like this.

  • POSTED BY Sakthiivel on | July 6, 2011, 16:50 GMT

    FIFA & ICC are not same, Mr. Holding. By watching lamb team match you cant even able to pay for DRS. FIFA is rich , but ICC depends on Countries likeIndia Eng,Aus.but empty vessels making more noise here.

  • POSTED BY vishwanath.sreeraman on | July 6, 2011, 16:41 GMT

    BCCI dictating terms is a direct fall out of other greedy boards like ECB and CA meekly playing along with BCCI....i don't understand why the other boards cant take a stand and outvote BCCI...if thats not happening, its obviously becos most boards/board members are corrupt and are bought out by BCCI...in which case the cricketing world is getting what it deserves

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY vishwanath.sreeraman on | July 6, 2011, 16:41 GMT

    BCCI dictating terms is a direct fall out of other greedy boards like ECB and CA meekly playing along with BCCI....i don't understand why the other boards cant take a stand and outvote BCCI...if thats not happening, its obviously becos most boards/board members are corrupt and are bought out by BCCI...in which case the cricketing world is getting what it deserves

  • POSTED BY Sakthiivel on | July 6, 2011, 16:50 GMT

    FIFA & ICC are not same, Mr. Holding. By watching lamb team match you cant even able to pay for DRS. FIFA is rich , but ICC depends on Countries likeIndia Eng,Aus.but empty vessels making more noise here.

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | July 6, 2011, 17:03 GMT

    Mike holding did not want ball-tracking which every other country except BCCI supported. ICC is not using pitch-map not because India does not want pitch mat but due to some other reasons. If Holding is accusing India or BCCI as making use of the power, he should produce evidence of where it happens. If he is just accusing, he looks a lot more silly of lamenting against the people due to sour grapes. Sad to see a wonderful cricketer to become like this.

  • POSTED BY on | July 6, 2011, 17:09 GMT

    Agree with Holding.. the Indian Cricket Council (oops), I mean the International Cricket Council is in danger of becoming a one party state.

  • POSTED BY on | July 6, 2011, 17:26 GMT

    @ Sakthiivel obviously ICC is not like FIFA but a sporting organisation should never just listen to particular countries (such as india) on how to run the game. It's not about the money, even if the Bangladesh or Sri Lankan boards are only worth 20% to that of the BCCI they should all have an equal say on issues.

  • POSTED BY bobmartin on | July 6, 2011, 17:38 GMT

    The usual claptrap from Indian supporters who are anti-UDRS... The facts are: 1] The BCCI would not agree to the use of the UDRS in the form that the ICC and most, if not all, other test playing nations accepted. 2] The ICC changed the format of the UDRS to one which the BCCI would accept. Those are two well documaneted and therefore incontrovertible facts.. Ergo... the ICC have bowed to what is acceptable to the BCCI. Michael Holding was correct.

  • POSTED BY screamingeagle on | July 6, 2011, 17:54 GMT

    I fully agree with Holding. After all, he was just as vocal when UK and Aus had vetoes..... :P

    And of course, he has the good of cricket overall and WI cricket in mind, one can make out that with the amount of time he devotes to WI...

    Jokes apart, he is right about the pitch map. But about the influence of BCCI, well..next suggestion or demand would be to channel all the revenue from India to one account and divide equally between all the ICC members. Dont laugh ppl, thats what it all adds up to.

  • POSTED BY indicricket on | July 6, 2011, 18:06 GMT

    Mr.Holding did not have any problem when England and Australia ruled the roost in the cricketing world. I know 1983 still rankles, accept you were not got enough and you are still not. As mentioned earlier, it is sad to see a fine bowler become a subcontinent hater. His problem is not only with India, he also has a axe ato grind with Pakistan; his comments vis-a-vis Hair and ball tampering issue.

  • POSTED BY bobmartin on | July 6, 2011, 18:23 GMT

    As a postscript to my last comment, In respect of the comments of Michael Holding, I do wish people would read what is written and not what they hope or think is written. "I have never been a fan of the projected path of the ball," Holding said during a round-table discussion at the MCC Spirit of Cricket lecture. "I think what HawkEye has produced with the actual path of ball, where the ball has landed and where it has gone on to hit whatever - the bat or the pad - I am 100% happy with that." That is not the same as the headline of the article and some of the posters on here claim. Hawkeye is essentially two elements... One, tracking the ball from release until it is intercepted. That is tracking and is what has actually happened during the flight of the ball. As Holding says he is 100% in favour of that. The second part is the predicted path of the ball after interception and that is where the element of his doubt exists.

  • POSTED BY TwitterJitter on | July 6, 2011, 18:29 GMT

    My question is what is BCCI still doing by still being a member of ICC? Time to get out and let ICC member boards frame whatever rules they want to. Go with the domestic league for all 3 formats. I am sure domestic league will be successful if marketed well and financially much more rewarding irrespective of whether overseas players play or not. A 5-month domestic test champion ship and 6 week 50 over championship to go along with 6 week T20 championship every year in a league format (IPL) would do wonders for all the 10 franchises. It also makes Indian cricket to have defined cricket season each year. Franchises can also take full-time ownership of players like in other professional leagues. I am sure all the other boards will be quite happy without BCCI/India in the mix to object to their decisions. They can replace India with Ireland for all I care and argue whatever they want for all I care.