Decision Review System

Real Time Snicko could give DRS the edge

Nagraj Gollapudi

February 6, 2013

Comments: 116 | Text size: A | A

Michael Clarke asks for a review, Australia v South Africa, first Test, Brisbane, November 9, 2012
At the moment, when a review is called for, the third umpire does not use evidence from Snickometer © Getty Images
Enlarge

A further enhanced version of the DRS, with the potential to increase certainty over edges, could be available later this year if new technology to allow the use of the Snickometer tool to be included in the process gains approval.

Controversy continues to exist over the ability of the Hot Spot cameras detecting faint edges, but this could be eliminated almost completely with the inventors of the system now on the verge of introducing Real Time Snickometer in an attempt to add extra clarity to the decision-making process.

The Australian company BBG Sports, who were behind Hot Spot, has been conducting trials on the new audio technology and believes the new improved Snickometer is the ideal complement to the Hot Spot and, when used in tandem, can enhance the DRS thereby making the review system more reliable, faster and consistent.

Currently, Snickometer is only a viewing aid and not part of the DRS because it requires a physical process by a technician to overlay the pictures with the sound provided by the stump microphones. This leads to delays in producing the final product and also risks inconsistencies in the results. The new system would make the process fully automated.

Warren Brennan, the head of BBG Sports, said: "I am hopeful that it would improve fine-edge detection dramatically. On most occasions, you are going to have the Real Time Snicko and Hot Spot agreeing with another. So the third umpire will now have two points of reference. There can be more consistency that way."

The inability of Hot Spot to detect a fine edge especially when the fast bowlers are operating, and the issue known as the 'motion blur' created by the speed of the ball, has been a constant source of debate and some countries, notably India, are wary of the vulnerability of the DRS. There were recent examples in the Johannesburg Test when Pakistan were unhappy about the decision-making based on Hot Spot.

An enhanced system would go down well with boards already in favour of the DRS but it remains to be seen whether it would sway the minds of the BCCI who refuse to use the system. The BCCI have broader reservations about the technology, particularly the predictive element of Hawk Eye, rather than just Hot Spot.

During 2011 BBG Sports introduced new infrared cameras from British manufacturer Selex ES and found them to be the most sensitive infrared cameras they had used. The new cameras, which Brennan pointed out, "have taken the Hot Spot system from an accuracy of around 85% to a current accuracy of 95%", came with the promise that they would completely eradicate motion blur and make it possible to detect very faint Hot Spots. However, by Brennan's own admission "not even the best infrared cameras on the planet could avoid the occasional missed fine edge."

In late 2011, Brennan discussed the idea of improving the Snickometer product with old colleague Allan Plaskett. The Snickometer was Plaskett's brainchild back in 1999 and the product has been used by broadcasters in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and India over the past decade.

"The first task at hand was to ensure that the Snickometer would be ready for the DRS process within 5-10 seconds of an appeal," Brennan said. "The only way to achieve this was to have our own server hardware recording a minimum of 12 different camera channels plus two stump mics all in real time." Thus the Real Time Snicko was born and has been tested in the last twelve months in trials across Australia and the UK.

The second main task was to come up with a robust procedure whereby audio and video synchronisation could be guaranteed without the need for manual intervention. "Allan and I both envisage a daily pre-match calibration process that will be supervised by the third umpire as the most accurate way in which to set a synchronisation offset between video and audio," Brennan said.

"The major strength of Hot Spot is fine-edge detection for spin bowlers," he added. "A spinning ball with its rotating action will grip-and-rub more profusely against a cricket bat creating more friction. This in turn creates more heat which is much easier for the Hot Spot cameras to identify.

"The strength of the Real Time Snicko is for faster bowlers where the wicketkeeper is standing 20-plus metres behind the stumps. From this position the noise of the wicketkeeper moving his feet creates little problem unlike when the wicketkeeper is standing up-to-the-stumps for a spin bowler."

For the Real Time Snicko to be included into the DRS process ICC ratification would be necessary. "The plan for 2013 is for Allan and myself to meet with the ICC in March and discuss the possible homologation of the Real Time Snicko into the DRS process. If so, then the Hot Spot and Real Time Snicko could work in tandem for faint-edge-detection during the Ashes series starting in July 2013," Brennan said.

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Nagraj Gollapudi

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Engfasttrackwimp on (February 9, 2013, 10:41 GMT)

@Allanplaskett: "snicko should only be used as a negative indicator, to confirm no sound from bat, or anything else, as the ball passed". Why isn't this information being made publicly available? Why is BCCI being bashed about for rejecting the DRS in its present form?

Posted by Allanplaskett on (February 8, 2013, 13:13 GMT)

When I invented Snicko in 1999 it was granted its EU and UK patents on the basis that synchronisation of sound and vision was fully automatic for edges between one and three metres of the stump microphone.. That has remained true ever sincer for Snicko UK, licensed exclusively to BskyB. Susan Betts is correct to say below that Snicko should not be used as a positive indicator in DRS, but not for the reason she gives. Low frequency noises do not appear in the oscillograph; they are filtered out. Snicko should only be used as a negative indicator, to confirm no sound from bat, or anything else, as the ball passed. A positive sound on the graph, even an isolated sharp spike, could (low probability) be something else, picked up at the critical instant by coincidence.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 8, 2013, 6:13 GMT)

I hope my post gets published.

@Ahsan Rafiq, hot-spot and tracker are definitely not the way to go if you have to seek improvement in cricket. They have been shown to be as inconclusive as the umpires for tough calls. So, answer me - why do you want to spend boatloads of money on such inconclusive things? Is it for howlers like huge inside-edge LBWs? You must be kidding me. We have slo-mo that can do that job for us at little or zero extra cost. If an expensive thing cannot answer tough calls, then one has to question the motive for persisting with it and then argue that hot-spot and tracker are for howlers only anyways. I'm sorry, hot-spot and tracker, the high-tech gadgets they are, will be expected to address tough calls. Tracker is one heck of a wicked joke and hot-spot is not working for tough calls. It fails badly for faint edges just like our age old umpires. So why spend huge money on hot-spot?

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 8, 2013, 5:47 GMT)

@Punters Mate, it is mind numbingly stupid to say that hot-spot should be used for howlers like huge inside edge LBWs when everybody is able to watch that on TV with slo-mo replays. Nobody is against DRS here. Yes, I'm against using hot-spot for howlers. You don't need hot-spot for a howler. Do you?

Posted by Punters_Mate on (February 7, 2013, 22:52 GMT)

The nonsense that some posters rabbit on with suggesting that DRS is some anti BCCI conspiracy. DRS supporters simply want a better outcome to remove the howlers that everyone watching on TV or those in the stadium are aware of immediately after the decision has been made. How is it good for cricket when the broadcaster can critically analyse every umpiring decision with the available technology and in the process undermines the consumers confidence in the game. At a time when world sport is under unprecedented scrutiny over probity issues to fail to utilise the best tools to assist umpires is mind numbingly stupid.

Posted by sensible-indian-fan on (February 7, 2013, 19:23 GMT)

Dunno why cricinfo didn't publish my previous comment. Hopefully this one gets through.

@Johnny_Rook - "They do 2+2 = (4 * pi / pi) and will keep on discussing the value of pi till eternity :)" Couldn't have described what ICC/BCCI are doing in a better way.

@Dravid_Gravitas_Statchin_Selfishkar - We may have had disagreements over Sachin's achievements in the past but I 100% agree with you on this issue. An equipment must justify its price. Moreover, its stupid to have different forms of DRS (hotspot-no hotspot) for series played in different countries. As a cricket fan, howlers make me sick. I actually felt sorry for Cook in the Ind-Eng ODI series. But imagine, what would have happened if we had some simple no-nonsense referral system in the Ind-Eng Test Series (where Cook got away in the crucial matches). Agreed that we didn't deserve to win that series but things sure would have been very very interesting.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 7, 2013, 19:14 GMT)

@Dravid_Gravitas: Yeas, I've often tried to pin them down on DRS itself but they drag in BCCI needlessly and start saying that DRS is technology and we all should embrace technology and support innovation else how will the game progress and because BCCI is opposed to DRS it means BCCI is opposed to using technology and so BCCI is not interested in the health of the game and so we must say yes to DRS cos BCCI opposes it. Ha Ha Ha. I can see a no of fallacies in that line of reasoning, if you can call it "reasoning" at all. A Pro-DRS guy will hardly talk about DRS itself, even if we set aside the Howler vs Marginal topic. He will not even touch the main point of the cost of DRS and who will afford it. He will only be interested in DRS being used cos it is technology and that we must oppose BCCI cos technology is good for the game. Some have even said that BCCI has so much money so it can pay for DRS for other boards. O Yeah. Yes I can but why should I? If BCCI bullies it is HELL RIGHT.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 7, 2013, 18:49 GMT)

Sometimes I feel ICC can learn a lot from Software Engineers. ICC needs to learn how to first test things by building a prototype. How can tools hitherto unproven be used directly at the highest level of the game? Imagine that Bell lbw issue happening in the WC Final...or imagine India or Eng losing out a point and so a place in the QF due to that 1 point between winning and tying. Can ppl imagine the huge huge controversy? In fact it had already happened in 1992 when a shambolic rain rule based on weird logic was used and SA lost out on the SF spot there. ICC should first try to build some scenarios before making changes to rules. The super sub was another such that was done in a hurry. Teams simple opted to have an extra batsmen for the chase to use that rule. Ditto for the 3rd PP, most teams wud take it in the 46th over only. And now ICC wants DRS - an unproven tool proven to act up rarely AND regularly but which needs a lot of money. Moreover, we already have cheaper options to DRS

Posted by   on (February 7, 2013, 16:57 GMT)

Rules for any contest should be the same for both the teams, so ECB can not bully the visiting teams to accept DRS or simply leave. Applying DRS are not should be the same regardless of whether it is dashing opening batsman or struggling tailender who is fighting for a draw. If you are talking about getting the decisions right, you are trying to be fair, right? Then applying DRS for all 11 players is only fair. Also, why should player takes it on himself to question Umpire's decision? He should volunteer to do that in every decision which he thinks is marginal. 3rd umpire should watch every ball (just like cricket cray public do) and should reverse the decisions which thinks need to be reversed. He should have the authority to do that, with out being asked. Also, if super-slow mo cameras and pitch map can do the job, why the expensive technology which is no better ? To fill the coffers of ECB and ACB? Guys, what do you think?

Posted by   on (February 7, 2013, 16:36 GMT)

Dravid_Gravitas_Statchin_Selfishkar Good point DRS is not meant to give perfect decisions rather its purpose is to improve decision making...............That is why DRS always favors onfield umpire's decision unless there is enough evidence to overturn field umpire's decion.........Hence DRS for sure improves decision making but not give perfect decision that is why all countries r accepting it..................A doctor does not guarentee cure but his treatment only improve chances of cure yet everybody visits doctor when gets ill ......simple........Everythings that we do in life is just for improvement that's all.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 7, 2013, 16:35 GMT)

@sensible-indian-fan, proud of you mate. I couldn't have put it better. I'm glad my 2+2 logic is catching on. I think I can take some credit there. I also see the pro-DRS naivete's fool-hardy chest beating has mellowed down to an occasional whimper and moan. Soon it will disappear into oblivion. This is modern age. There is no place for stone-age practices like dogma, whim, muscle power, bullying me into believe/belief. If a company wants money (numbers) they have to prove their equipment's worth with data (numbers). Simple as that!

Posted by AyeSayer on (February 7, 2013, 16:30 GMT)

@HawK89 Unless your view was directly behind the umpire's position, your off-stump view is unlikely to be right. The camera is probably located on the offside giving you the view of the off-stump.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 7, 2013, 16:25 GMT)

@Harmony111, I don't think it is extremely weird to read the pro-DRS people's claims about DRS's accuracy and all of that. You know why? They simply fell for the colorful on-screen graphics and high-flow language of the SKY mob and other 'experts'. It's easier to wake-up a guy who is sleeping but not the one who is pretending to sleep. Favorite tag-lines of pro-DRS gang - BCCI bullies, BCCI whims, BCCI stone-age, BCCI regressive, BCCI muscle - when the only questions that are asked of them are - 1) Why do you need hot-spot, to say that there is a huge inside-edge LBW howler, but not a slo-mo replay? 2) IF hot-spot is only for howlers anyways, then how is BCCI the bully and not ECB, which is trying to push the insanely expensive hot-spot unilaterally in a bilateral series (without the touring board's approval), knowing very well that hot-spot is inaccurate? Yes, it is stone-age & dogmatic to force something on me based on your whim, and ECB has to come out of stone-age & dogma.

Posted by MunafAhmed811 on (February 7, 2013, 15:38 GMT)

WHEN BCCI/India protest, they are being obstructive, stupid and bullies. Some fans will simply blame BCCI for inflation in their country as well . I recently concluded test match where a team scored not even 50, three decisions using DRS caused controversy. Still its BCCI which is bieng bully. All BCCI said is DRS is not reliable and is easily manipulative. Recent unreliable decisions have proved BCCI is correct.

Posted by soumyas on (February 7, 2013, 15:20 GMT)

@countjimmoriarty, you didn't understand my theory "SECOND CHANCE", It simply means batsman is still not out, but if next situation involves DOUBT then "detriment of the doubt" will take care of the first wrong decision. closest DECISION for FAIR DECISION. especially when they runout of DRS.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 7, 2013, 15:00 GMT)

@Dravid_Gravitas: I know. I too have been asking the same question to the pro-DRS guys for days and weeks now. On one forum I had a long and somewhat technical discussion with a fellow but he kept talking about why DRS isn't reliable in exceptional cases due to Type 1 and Type 2 errors. When I explained to him how his answer was insufficient cos DRS has many components, not just one and each one will have its own T1/T2 issues he vanished and never came back. Except this, NO PRO-DRS guy has ever talked about DRS basics & how it is works and how much it accuracy is. I've been asking if DRS has had any independent peer review and what is the basis of saying Hot-spot/Hawkeye is accurate to x extent - No Answer. I asked if the various pro-DRS boards discussed DRS exhaustively before saying yes to it - No Answer except that they wud have.

I fail to see how can ppl not understand Howler vs Marginal OR say DRS is only for howlers. When they run out they start the BCCIBashing, Embrace-Tech bit

Posted by kunderan on (February 7, 2013, 13:27 GMT)

So when BCCI/India protest, they are being obstructive, stupid and bullies. When other countries raise this issue, it is suddenly accepted that the technology should be improved (what BCCI has been saying from the beginning). Now suddenly even a real time snicko becomes a reality and Hotspot can be improved!! I hope the BCCI bashers have the good grace to admit that BCCI was right about insisting on improving the technology! Let's hope Hawkeye can be improved as well. Many times, it shows unrealistic extrapolation of the ball's onward progress. Finally, it makes no sense if national security comes into the equation for Hotspot. Either all countries should have access or none at all and then the funding needs to resolved so that even the 'poorer' cricketing countries can use this

Posted by PanGlupek on (February 7, 2013, 12:30 GMT)

@AyeSayer, Your point r.e who will pay for it is a perfectly fair question.

Your second point r.e equitable referrals, well, that depends on 2 things: Firstly, how bad is the umpiring (TV and standing umpires)? Bad decisions by these two will result in more referrals, some of which may be incorrectly ruled against a batsman. It also depends if the batsmen are using the referrals properly - if they just refer because they think it MIGHT not be out, instead of using it for what it's really there for - to prevent howlers, then it will be a problem for lower-order players, but that's the top-order's fault, not the system's.

Your point that you reckon less games will be played as a result of decisions taking longer to make is a joke, presumably? You think that as a result of extra decision time, and ODI will now last 3 days or something?

Posted by countjimmoriarty on (February 7, 2013, 12:12 GMT)

@soumyas And what exactly is the difference between your 'second chance' and not out? Unworkable nonsense.

Posted by itismenithin on (February 7, 2013, 11:53 GMT)

There are lot of issues to be sorted out by ICC before technology could be mandated in all formats of the game and by all countries. 1.Will it be consistent across all tv producers, or different versions of it will get used ? 2. Who will bear the cost? if host board needs to bear it will it be affordable to countries like zimbabawe and bangladesh? 3. How to implement this withought too many disruptions to the game 4. How does technology fair in different weather conditions(under artificial light, when shadows lengthen on the pitch..etc)

Posted by Fast_Track_Bully on (February 7, 2013, 11:46 GMT)

@ electric_loco_WAP4. I just wonder whats the significance of that here. The DRS itself in trouble based on decisions on every tour. Aus Vs SA, India Vs Eng and last one is Pak Vs SA. So you must appreciate BCCI for its firm stand against faulty technology. Thats why you got a better technology now. What if everybody approves it ? the faulty one will have to be used.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 7, 2013, 11:34 GMT)

All those who are pro-DRS should first explain what do they understand by Howlers & Marginal Decisions?

It is extremely weird that on one hand the Pro-DRS ppl claim they understand how DRS works and to what extent when in fact even the manufacturer of its various components isn't quite sure and at the same time these ppl fail to distinguish between Howlers & Marginal Decisions.

If they really do understand the diff then they need to tell us - the rigid, blind Anti-DRS ppl - why should a hell lot of money be spent on installing a system that will help us in case of Howlers when we already have cheaper (in fact 0 extra cost) options available. Why can't replays with slo-mo cameras be used to see if it is a Howler or not? Ofc it will still need Common Sense which I guess is in short supply these days.

If they say DRS is for Marginal Ones then they need to explain why DRS often fails in those cases. That's like having a car with brakes that don't work when pressed only a little.

Posted by soumyas on (February 7, 2013, 11:04 GMT)

One more system called "SECOND CHANCE" shud be introduced, In this when there is a doubt in giving batsman OUT, Umpire doesn't give OUT but everybody knows batsman is OUT. Ground umpires should be informed of the same by third umpires, then umpire should put batsman on "SECOND CHANCE" status which should be taken care by "The detriment of the doubt" for same batsman. This is especially when they run out of DRS.

Posted by   on (February 7, 2013, 10:36 GMT)

There are obvious cases of lbw decisions given, which on slow-mo replays, show bat contact before ball hitting pad. Third umpire must be given over-riding powers to correct these by informing on-field umpire, without being referred to. This will surely improve correct decision numbers.

Posted by   on (February 7, 2013, 10:22 GMT)

Example 1 : 4th ODI Aust vs SL

Do you think that Clarke would have challenged his LBW if he thought that there would be a 2-Match Suspension? No. If he still challenges and given out, both Warner and Henriques still have the right to challenge their LBW.

Example 2 : Caught Behind (A) Watson (1st ODI vs Eng 2012) Positive Faint Hotspot (B) Wade(Aust) No Hotspot Positive SNICKO (C) Smith (SA) 2nd Test 1st Inn No Hotspot SNICKO not used.

I do not think that any of these referrals would have occurred if there was a 2-Match suspension for unjustified referrals.

@Susan Betts .... very good point however we should investigate the wave pattern of the sound that is produced by the phenomenon you described. I would think that it would be 'dull', not 'sharp'. More research??

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 7, 2013, 9:59 GMT)

@Zia-R: Except that the DRS doesn't seem to work for those very very very very thin edges and its proponents say that DRS is meant only for howlers and not for marginal decisions. In that case, all the money being spent on using DRS is clearly going down the drain. You might ask what is the option then, right? Well, the option is to use the good old reliable slo-mo camera replay and juxtapose it with lots n lots of common sense. But since Common Sense seems to be a rarity these days the pro-DRS ppl want DRS. Their problem solving attitude is like using a High Tech Solid Gold sword where the knife only needed to be sharpened. And pity that the sword that they have brought in too has lots of blunt points in its edge. And then they accuse the anti-sword ppl of not being technology friendly and of being rigid & obtuse.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (February 7, 2013, 9:45 GMT)

The umpiring in recent 2 ODI series India played says all about BCCI and their team tactics really..... Want to see the same 'standard' maintained in test series vs Aus. Only diff... with neutral umps expect 80% of the 'decisions' go against them in Aus' 4-0 whitewash of Ind . Time they get a taste of their own...!!

Posted by dalboy12 on (February 7, 2013, 9:15 GMT)

@Thyagu5432 - I like it, that would work - I mean what's a half-hour break, as long as the right decision is made - lol.

Posted by Zia-R on (February 7, 2013, 8:59 GMT)

giving notout to a v v v v thin edge is far better than giving notout on a typical inside edge, i am unable to figure out the disadvantage of DRS really.

Posted by OldFashionedFan on (February 7, 2013, 8:32 GMT)

Based on all the controversial DRS referred decisions I have seen, I believe the problem does not lie with failings of the technology being used, but rather with lack of clarity in the 3rd umpires decision making process.

At no point in the near future will technology exist which is 100% accurate, therefore a very clear decision making process needs to be defined for the 3rd umpires when using the DRS. This should be a standard process for all umpires which will eliminate these controversial decisions and bring about greater consistency (which is what seems to be a major failing of the system according to it's detractors). I don't believe the current process is defined clearly enough.

The objective of the DRS system must be clearly defined by the ICC-To eliminate howlers and confirm or reverse marginal calls if enough evidence exists to do this. Clear evidence (beyond doubt) must exist to overturn a decision, and in marginal not-out decisions benefit of doubt should go to the batsmen

Posted by aboyan on (February 7, 2013, 8:19 GMT)

I am amazed at the comments below. I see some of the best brains showcasing their thoughts on this subject. It is a real treat reading all your comments :) Full marks to pitch_curator, sensible-indian-fan and Johnny_Rook Keep it going :)

Posted by JohnnyRook on (February 7, 2013, 7:26 GMT)

@ sensible-indian-fan. Hats off to you. Couldn't have put it any better. But I am sure, neither ICC nor BCCI (including their respective fans) are not gonna understand this. They do 2+2 = (4 * pi / pi) and will keep on discussing the value of pi till eternity :)

Posted by dalboy12 on (February 7, 2013, 7:12 GMT)

They could save a heck of a lot of time and money and just start fining players for not walking if they knick it, that would bring a bit of honesty back into cricket, but like all professional sport, cricket is probably far to gone in the honesty department for that to happen.

Posted by Thyagu5432 on (February 7, 2013, 7:10 GMT)

I think a simpler solution would be to ask the batsman if he did knick and administer him to a lie-detector.

Posted by sensible-indian-fan on (February 7, 2013, 6:59 GMT)

I don't understand this logic about DRS. Here's the thing.

1. DRS was incorporated to remove howlers.

WRONG. DRS was incorporated to remove MARGINAL decisions. For howlers, we can just use the existing technology along with a review system.

2. Ok, DRS can be used to improve marginal decisions.

Yeah, but its NOT working. So why pay money to get wrong decisions anyway. The marginal increase (4-5%) in the accuracy of marginal decisions is NOT worth the cost. Hotspot is a joke.

3. Then let's NOT have DRS at all (BCCI stand).

That's rubbish. You could have a decision review system and use the existing technology to eliminate howlers. The LBW projection need not be done (as its not accurate). Let the umpire or third umpire see the replay and make his own decision (for lbw, ball pitching, etc, etc).

With this method, howlers will get eliminated (with no increase in costs). Marginal decisions will always be there but that's ok as long as howlers are eliminated. Isn't this 2+2 =4 logic?

Posted by pitch_curator on (February 7, 2013, 6:59 GMT)

oh my !! they are making the game so complicated. And to top it all they are going to place these technologies in the hands of umpires who are blind as bats and deaf as posts. This is also an excellent business opportunity for all the techie companies who want to make a quick buck. I am planning to start "Vulture eye" and "Elephant ear" to track the ball path and listen to edges. My technology will be the best and will easily out do all othrs. Who said so? Tests. Who tested it? ME. Super logic.

Posted by NP_NY on (February 7, 2013, 6:51 GMT)

One good thing about India/BCCI not accepting the DRS yet - there is a lot of urgency to perfect it sooner than later.

Posted by Engfasttrackwimp on (February 7, 2013, 6:49 GMT)

oh dear! new limitations of DRS coming out of the woodwork slowly... well done BCCI for not embracing a stone age technology! To those advocating technology you need to understand that the right technology needs to be used for the right purpose and it also needs to make financial sense. You would not use a fork lift for having dinner would you?

Posted by tickcric on (February 7, 2013, 6:28 GMT)

1. Slowmo & pitch map is all we need to get to a high degree of accuracy. I have a feeling with just slowmo & pitchmap we will get more correct decisions and adding unreliable technological systems like, Hot Spot, Snicko into the mix actually reduces the accuracy level... 2. It is better to keep the review system with the umpires. With the current DRS system, as we can see, even the players are confused as to when to call for a review & when not to. As a matter of fact player's review system has become a tactical move where the value of the player is judged before going for a review. This doesn't necessarily ensure better accuracy in decision as we have seen often reviews are wasted on top order batsmen... 3. Are we not making the game of cricket too complicated with all these technical systems? At the end of the day this is sport & not a space program. Just bringing a plethora of technical equipment would not increase the value of the sport.

Posted by AyeSayer on (February 7, 2013, 6:17 GMT)

On further thought and following up on @Ismail_Parker's suggestion on improving technology, it seems like it should be possible to develop technology that is way cheaper than the costs claimed by the current providers.

The problem statement is quite simple.

1) How to detect edges without using waveform monitoring and matching that are prone to error due to Other sound sources (like batsman's shoes, wicketkeeper noises, other creaking noises form bat etc.)

2) Reduce the time takes to provide near-realtime communication of the contact between the bat and the ball.

3) Instead of relying on 'sound' on contact, it should do collision detection on contact between ball and bat by means of embedded electronics for in bat, ball or both allowing for near-field-communication like in the new Android phones.

4) Send a signal remotely to some receiver gadget held by the umpires.

5) Be a very very low cost solution so the "cost" will not be a barrier to adoption.

Any takers?

Posted by Rahul_78 on (February 7, 2013, 6:13 GMT)

ICC needs to take the ownership of the issue and as a governing body needs to fund the technology. ICC needs to take the issue out of the hand of host broadcasters as well as cricket boards. The technology is used to aid the umpires who have the responsibility of providing accurate decisions related to the game. The umpires are employed by ICC. They are ICC's employees. If ICC deems it fit that the technology is needed to assist its employees then why ask someone else decide about it and then fund it too. ICC umpires are supported by a sponsor then why not find a sponsor for DRS ? If someone like BCCI is not interested in using it I cant see what objection they can raise against the technology that is made compulsory and funded by games ruling body?

Posted by   on (February 7, 2013, 5:48 GMT)

Why not remove the predictive element totally. Use DRS for what it's meant to be used as , eliminating howlers. The major howlers being inside edges in lbw decisions and the ball pitching outside leg. Use DRS to verify facts and overrule the umpire based on those facts instead of using DRS to speculate over close LBW decisions which should always be with the call of the umpire.

Get better umpires and train those umpires on how to use DRS.

Surely the BCCI can accept a solution where the predictive element (hawkeye) of the DRS is not used. Infact that would be a better solution than the half baked solution being attempted to be forced down the throat

Posted by azzaman333 on (February 7, 2013, 5:46 GMT)

I am baffled that anyone could think this is a negative development. The system, supported by players and umpires on the whole, is improving umpiring standards and reducing the occurrence and influence of bad decisions. The detractors claim that it's not a perfect system, yet whine louder when improvements are worked on. Yes, occasionally teams get a raw deal with DRS, but there is a clear, objective improvement in the proportion of correct decisions being made. Educate the players how the DRS works, reinforce how it's supposed to be used, and ensure the 3rd umpire is consistent in his decisions across the course of a match. If necessary, have the reserve umpire in the box and require unanimous support to overrule the decision to stop the third umpire overturning based on questionable evidence. Don't scrap the system, it works the vast majority of the time, but keep looking to improve it.

Posted by Brenton1 on (February 7, 2013, 5:22 GMT)

My problem lies not so much with the DRS but the use thereof. If it is meant to overturn howlers how come the lower order only get to use it if the top order has not made 2 poor reviews? If the lower order gets a poor descision and there are no reviews left then the batsman just has to accept it. Thats not really making the game fairer now is it?

Posted by satishchandar on (February 7, 2013, 5:03 GMT)

@landl47 : I do agree either hotspot or replay. But my real concern is, if hotspot is not good enough to pick the edges which are so clear when viewing a replay, how can you trust in case when you don't see any edge in replay. There have been some cases where hotspot does show marks when there were no edges too. I don't have any reason how it happens. But how can we rely on such a technology 100%. A very faint mark on hotspot which is deteted is neither a clearcut decision and most importantly, it is not a howler to be eliminated. Howlers are the decisions which are completely wrong decisions. Marginal decisions are not howlers is my view.

Posted by   on (February 7, 2013, 5:00 GMT)

Two reasons why the players should be involved in the use of DRS. Example 1: The ball hits the batsman's inside edge followed by his pad, all the players go up appealing and the umpire has no doubt the batsman didn't hit it and gives it out. Now if the players don't get the challenge the decision, why on earth would the umpire review the decision if they are sure, but just mistaken?

Second reason: The umpires will start checking every decision and doubting themselves more. If anything the current system proves how good the umpires usually are and how often the players are actually wrong.

Posted by landl47 on (February 7, 2013, 4:41 GMT)

Dravid etc etc, you are quite simply wrong about the use of hotspot. There's no protocol at all saying that hotspot must be used INSTEAD of slo-mo replays. If the replay shows an edge clearly, then that's an end of it. The issue is where there is nothing visually obvious. Then hotspot is used to see whether there has been an edge. Snicko, which is more sensitive than hotspot, can often give a clear reading, but currently takes too long. This new snicko, being automatically generated, might be quick enough to help.

On the two reviews issue, I'm with you all the way. Every decision should be made by the 3 umpires working together using whatever technology is avaiable. That's the way to get the most possible decisions right, which should be what everyone wants.

Posted by karthik666 on (February 7, 2013, 4:16 GMT)

All this can be avoided if players just walk .. Simple and best solution

Posted by crkt4evr on (February 7, 2013, 3:33 GMT)

DRS is an ABSOLUTE USELESS DISCUSSION! howlers can easily be eliminated by just providing the 3rd umpire the power to interfere & over turn decision in case of them ...using drs for close decisions(i.e changing decisions for millimeters ) is not good for game...

Posted by zenboomerang on (February 7, 2013, 2:33 GMT)

If it is a clear nick, hotspot picks it up, if not there are too many variables for very faint snicks - give it not out - life isn't perfect, nor is sport...

The problem with snicko is that it is in the stumps & any short clicking sound could be taken for a nick - bats creak at times... The slight movement of the legside foot by the batsman dragging the spikes in the pitch make a similar sound to a nick (as demonstrated by Ian Healy on Ch9) - this is what I think happened to Finch in the 1st ODI match - no discernable nick & clearly left foot dragging across the pitch at the same time as the ball went past the bat...

Posted by zenboomerang on (February 7, 2013, 2:32 GMT)

Brennan :- "The strength of the Real Time Snicko is for faster bowlers where the wicketkeeper is standing 20-plus metres behind the stumps. From this position the noise of the wicketkeeper moving his feet creates little problem unlike when the wicketkeeper is standing up-to-the-stumps for a spin bowler."...

So what about the batsman's feet?... The legside foot spikes regularly drag across the ground when playing shots - even a very slight movement can create a nick sound...

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 7, 2013, 2:11 GMT)

@Nutcutlet, New evidences require a new trial - true. But you don't charge a fortune for trials. Let the companies trial as they deem fit. And when they say that they are ready with their results, let an independent body verify the companies' claims. I'm sure, it isn't unfair to request a fair verification of claims. Technology - Yay, Unverified claims - Nay.

Posted by   on (February 7, 2013, 1:18 GMT)

There should be an improvement in technology. I would suggest a clip-on or a microprocessor chip on the bat which would detect any vibrations on the surface of the bat and pinpoint with accuracy the spot where the epicentre is (i.e. place where the ball hit the bat). As snicko sometimes catches other sounds like rubbing of the floor, gloves etc.

Posted by sk12 on (February 6, 2013, 23:22 GMT)

I really dont know whats stopping the ICC from enforcing the following rules: 1) Decision challenge time should be 5 seconds, strictly enforced - its more than enough time for the player involved to know if he has been wronged. if it takes longer it means he is in doubt, so the umpire decision is fair enough. 2) Only the batsman or bowler or WK can appeal. No discussions should be allowed. DRS canot be used 'strategically'. 3) the 3rd umpire cannot take more than 1 minute to decide. If he cannot deicde in that time, umpire decision stands (its not a howler). 4) 5 unsuccessful reviews allowed. These rules will ensure DRS works effectively for howlers and no time is wasted (max 5-7 minutes per innings). Definitely rule# 1 and 3 must be enforced.

Posted by HawK89 on (February 6, 2013, 23:21 GMT)

How about they fix the ball tracker? I saw Pollard bowl to Clarke and it was set for an LBW. Hits him straight on the pads and I could see off stump when it hit him, yet the DRS said it hit him outside off stump, which is impossible since you can see it. Whats the point of DRS if it has a different set of rules to give a batsmen out?

Posted by Tlotoxl on (February 6, 2013, 22:15 GMT)

Xylo: yes, every series you might hear of 1 or 2 questions where DRS was not completely clear as to whether it made the decision better or worse - and I have still never heard of a example where DRS *clearly* made a good decision bad - but what becoming routinely accepted without comment now is the 20-30 clearly bad decisions that are quite rightly overturned making the games better and fairer every series.

As for Snicko it has always mystified me as to why it took so long just to display a waveform, you can do that instantly on any home PC.

Posted by CoorparooMaverick on (February 6, 2013, 21:56 GMT)

i used to be a fan of the DRS as i hoped it was going to make the game fairer but after watching numerous not out decisions overturned on little to no evidence i am bamboozled. if it is to be used to remove poor decisions then it needs to sit in the hands of the umpires solely, as soon as a team/captain are given reviews then it becomes gamesmanship and is not there to remove the howler. Why cant an onfield umpire review a decision that he thinks is too close to call, or conversely why cant the third umpire check the decision whilst the batsman is walking off and re-call him if necessary?

Posted by SnowSnake on (February 6, 2013, 21:50 GMT)

@Homer2007 could you provide a reference to your claims? As much as you want to credit Australia defense technology, hot spot was neither invented nor proprietary technology of Australia. It was invented in France and is no longer strategic technology. As much as Aussies like to believe that they have a monopoly on the technology they simply don't. If a board wants to use hot spot they will regardless of any Aussie control on the technology because other countries will make the technology available. This is the first time I am hearing that Australian defense systems have any technology that is considered cutting edge.

Posted by arsenal0099 on (February 6, 2013, 21:40 GMT)

Idea of DRS is to reduce howlers. We can easily do that by using slow motion camera. Why do we need these expensive hawk eye, snickometer when they are not 100% foolproof? Using these expensive technologies will increase the confusion as we have seen in many cases. We are concerned only about the howlers and not about the marginal ones. I think BCCI is correct in opposing these. Who s going to bear the expenses? It will be ultimately BCCI as we know most of the revenues of ICC comes from India. DRS with simple slow motion should be fine. But I am not sure ECB will agree with that. Why they need to push for hawk eye? Are there some other reasons?

Posted by inswing on (February 6, 2013, 21:37 GMT)

What you need is an independent tests not done by the company. Trying it out in some matches is good, but not enough, as some situations may never arise in those few matches. Once sufficient accuracy in close situations and various weather conditions is found, train the umpires. Then you are ready to go.

Posted by historyman40 on (February 6, 2013, 21:30 GMT)

If DRS is to be used it should be to help the umpires and players should not be involved. It should be only to help the umpires make a correct decision.

Posted by   on (February 6, 2013, 21:07 GMT)

The Hotspot Technology is flawed. Very faint nicks will not show up on hotspot. It is simply a matter of physics and the principles of blackbody radiation.

In the instance of very faint nicks, the energy is will be lost from the ball due to friction as it touches the edge of the bat will not be enough to raise the temperature at the point of impact to a temperature where it readily distinguishable from the temperature of the bulk of the bat.

I believe that this has been explained to most cricketers which is why, even in Aust. tour of Eng (2012), challenges were being made to faint nicks, znd may have also been used to overturn correct decisions this season (eg Smith (SA) and Wade (Aust)).

The DRS goes against the ethics of the game, that is to abide by the decision of the umpire. One simple way of stopping this is while limiting howlers is having unlimited challenges, but fining the team $20,000 and having 2-game player suspensions for every unsuccessful challenge.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (February 6, 2013, 19:53 GMT)

India continue to consign themselves to what is effectively the stone age of cricketing logic. They are stuck in the 20th century, and the rest of the world has moved on without them. The BCCI need to recognize this and introduce DRS, which they are only against because it means a better first innings' score for their test team, as opposed to making under 100 which would be more likely these days. Stop frustrating cricket lovers around the world, who are denied the chance to see, for example, masters of the game like Cook (who we remember was given out nicking thin air TWICE in the last test of the series). This is an illogical attempt at avoiding a self-evident truth: That DRS makes the game fairer, and 99% of players are in favour of it. Time to move forward India.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 6, 2013, 19:52 GMT)

That's a welcome development. Nobody in their right mind would be against technology aiding human judgment. I'm against DRS - its technological contents and the 2 reviews policy. IF the intention is to eliminate howlers, then who stopped ICC from including slo-mo replays for thick inside-edge blatantly wrong LBW decisions? Nobody answered why the expensive hot-spot instead of slo-mos IF the intention was to eliminate howlers. We don't need hot-spot for that? Do we? This urgency to push - it's either hot-spot or nothing - logically renders itself to question the credibility of ICC's claim that their intention is to eliminate howlers. Next, IF the intention is to eliminate howlers, what happens if a howler is committed after the two reviews get exhausted? These are genuine questions that beg answers. I'm against DRS - with regards to the inconsistent and unreliable technologies it consists of and with regards to its 2 reviews policy. For boatloads of money I, of course, expect better.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (February 6, 2013, 19:34 GMT)

It has always seemed to me that Hotspot & Snicko should be used in sequence. HS may give the 3rd umpire what is required, but despite recent improvements, it is currently at 95% accuracy. Should nothing show on HS, then Snicko has to come into play. This will, I think, prove conclusive in noisy conditions due to windy weather or excited spectators! What's not to like? The expense should be borne by the home board where possible (England, India, SA) & the ICC shd ensure that poorer countries are helped financally. Above all, there needs to be a universal application of this belt & braces technology because recent situations which have depended on the whim of a certain board can be no longer acceptable. All previous arguments are now invalid, because the technology has moved on. The bar has been raised. New evidence requires a new trial. I find the current standard of umpiring for international matches patchy at best & incompetent at worst. That cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.

Posted by Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on (February 6, 2013, 19:34 GMT)

These technologies are not useful in cricket. You will get as much accuracy in super slow-mo replays. Ball tracking system is not accurate anyway. There were a lot of complaints of this in Tennis ? Are they still using it ?

Anyways , Why to pay these guys for every match instead of relying on super slow motions.

The cost of super slow motions will be much less than hawk eye, hot spot or advanced snicko. Super slow mo will be acceptable to all including BCCI and will be implemented by all.

Posted by aplomb on (February 6, 2013, 19:30 GMT)

Future enhancement: Replace umpire with a super computer fitted with real time hawk eye, snicko and hot spot. All pitch and stump would be covered in laser ray and there would be transmitter fitted on bat and ball. Obviously we don't want to waste any time, can't tolerate any decision not verified by machines and can't accept player spirit for claiming any catch. First we would remove human umpire than allother human element till machine would play match against machine and watched by machine. Hold on my mistake.... its not machine its innovation/technology

Posted by RameshSubramaniam on (February 6, 2013, 19:18 GMT)

Unless umpires are explained correctly, these new technologies are going to create new howlers like Johannesburg test. Both decisions were overturned without concrete evidence which changed the match in complete sense. If field umpire says no and no hot spot marking, then by rules it should not be out. There should not be any manual intervention. ICC should learn this first before poaching BCCI to agree

Posted by landl47 on (February 6, 2013, 19:12 GMT)

Perhaps somebody would explain to me on what basis the BCCI or anyone else who has criticized the technology KNOWS that a wrong decision has EVER been made using it. Are you taking the word of the field umpire that the decision was wrong? Are you taking the word of the player who would like the decision to have been different? Are you taking the word of the television commentators who are looking at the same technology as the third umpire and coming to a different conclusion? Or are you looking at the television and drawing your own conclusion from what is shown on the screen- ie, the same technology?

The logical dilemma for anyone criticizing the technology is that they can't say a wrong decision was made UNLESS THEY RELY ON THE SAME TECHNOLOGY ON WHICH THE DECISION WAS BASED.

Frankly, it is a joke to suggest that the umpires' decision without technology is better than if they had used it to assist them. If you don't believe me, ask the umpires.

Posted by xylo on (February 6, 2013, 19:11 GMT)

I wonder how much more enhancements are needed for the DRS. Every series seems to have its share of controversies around DRS - Misbah and Faf being the most recent. It looks like the BCCI does have a point after all, and that the DRS is being pushed by some lobbies for their monetary gains for an early-stage product.

Posted by icknid on (February 6, 2013, 19:11 GMT)

Hotspot does not have the resolution required for faint edges, and it also has problems with signal contamination when brushing against other surfaces e.g pads. I am surprised that it was accepted so readily as one of the definitive technologies. Far better is sound in combination with high speed cameras and as 3rd choice, hotspot. The sound frequency from an bat edge is quite different from that of a pad or trouser, so this should be used. As for contact with gloves - high speed cameras should resolve most cases.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 6, 2013, 19:03 GMT)

@ TommytuckerSaffa: Pls keep it to BCCI vs DRS instead of making it BCCI vs technology/innovation. Had BCCI been anti-technology then they won't have been the 1st ones to say yes to it in the SL tour.

Posted by   on (February 6, 2013, 19:03 GMT)

OMG!!! If the DRS company pays money to BCCI, then they will embrace this, unfortunately its BCCI will be paying the DRS company hence bosses controlling Indian cricket is vehemently opposing the same.

Posted by   on (February 6, 2013, 18:50 GMT)

Although one can never be sure if BCCI obstructs the use of DRS on technical grounds as it appears to be, we can settle the merit of the advanced DRS by simply using it unofficially over a period of time. In this respect, I am suggesting that every controversial/borderline decision will be unofficially an anonymously referred upstairs by a panel of experts (say the commentators in the broadcasting booth). Then a record could be kept of the on-field decisions and that of the unofficial verdicts of the "4th" umpire. This will create a body of data that can be used to judge the efficacy of the system. May be (and just may be) then BCCI (and the promoters of the system) will be convinced that its introduction is right thing to do solely base on its technical merit. This may be expensive but it imperative for ICC to do a thorough independent investigation before imposing its will on cricketing bodies.

Posted by Temuzin on (February 6, 2013, 18:46 GMT)

So the all hoopla was for 85% accuracy and BCCI was sullied for not accepting 85% accuracy. Something is fishy here. I think BCCI is unduly blamed. I will go for excellent umpires (train them) and action replay. It seems a certain few companies are out to make money at the cost of cricket and certain boards may be getting some kickbacks to push them through. Reject DRS.

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (February 6, 2013, 18:34 GMT)

Great news. Remember folks, Rome, the great wall of china and the Taj were not built in one day. Technology is a constant movement of improvement. Hopefully now the BCCI will awake from the stoneage and embrace modern technology and mankinds desire to improve and strive for perfection.

Posted by BnH1985Fan on (February 6, 2013, 18:31 GMT)

I see a couple of issues here - first, there is no uniformity. Some countries allow the use of DRS, while others (e.g. BCCI) doesn't. What this means is that the touring players are dealing with 2 elements - playing conditions and players in the country of travel, and, whether or not technology is used. There needs to be uniformity in the decision concerning the adoption of technology.

Second, what happened to the good old sportsman spirit? Gone, it seems, are the days when a batsman who knows he is out (e.g. edged the ball) simply walks. Or a fielder who has not taken a 'legit' catch does not appeal. In the old days, with good spirit, we did not need technology. Could we bring that spirit back?

Posted by JohnnyRook on (February 6, 2013, 18:28 GMT)

@CrICkeeet. You know whats funnier. 8 countries out of those 9 abstained from a vote on it. So much for wanting it. And it gets even funnier. They want it but they don't want to pay for it.

Posted by TendulkarDgr8 on (February 6, 2013, 17:42 GMT)

All this while they were saying HotSpot was almost perfect and now they are saying it was only 85% correct all this while and they are increasing accuracy to 95% now?? I am sure the top umpires in International cricket have more than 85% accurate decisions.. So whats the necessity of HotSpot? And people who have already started pushing for adopting this new technology, do you guys have any proof that this new technology is better? Do you just buy anything if the seller says the product is good??

Posted by CrICkeeet on (February 6, 2013, 17:41 GMT)

9 out of 10 countries want DRS.......only 1 board finds dat its nt essential....really funny, isnt it?

Posted by champions_of_PAKISTAN on (February 6, 2013, 17:04 GMT)

@sal hussain i did not get the "APPOLOGISE PART " .. NO BODY NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT we should thanks to DRS for providing us so many correct descions.. because DRS is not all about fine edges .. HAWK EYE is also a part of it and that had significant importance in the DRS.. people also criticize our HAWK EYE but I think it had a large ratio in crrection of DESCION..

Posted by nilaksh on (February 6, 2013, 16:56 GMT)

snicko-shnicko, use this money instead to train & develop umpires

Posted by billNCat on (February 6, 2013, 16:47 GMT)

The goal is to make the umpiring system as fair as possible To make the system fairer than it currently is, the first item should be the complete elimination of team/player's choices in calling for reviews. Second, in cases where the on filed umpires are not 100% about a decision, they should consult the third umpire who's had a chance to review the data produced by the technologies in vogue and then, and only then, make a ruling. In the case where the on field umpire is confident in making a decision purely on their own merit and does so, while the third umpire is convinced that the data available to them is contradictory, then they should convey it to the on field umpires who may choose to repeal the previous decision. Throw in the appropriate checks and balances and administrative and logistical formalities and I don't think that anyone in the world will have a whimper, apart from the fixers of course.

Posted by JohnnyRook on (February 6, 2013, 16:47 GMT)

Same thing over and over again. I challenge any HotSpot/Hawkeye/Snicko fan to answer this. If they are not useful for marginal decisions and are intended only for howlers, why are they needed in the first place since a howler by definition can be fixed by a simple slow motion replay at no extra cost. And for the people who want to do opposite of everything BCCI people do, I have an interesting fact. BCCI people eat from their mouths.

Posted by davidatlas999 on (February 6, 2013, 16:46 GMT)

forgot about drs use simple reply for clear error and give more power to tv umpire.i know one thing now days umpiring error are more then 15%.

Posted by thcricketfan on (February 6, 2013, 16:39 GMT)

No data on how accurate the technology is. 70%? 90%? 99%? Another sales pitch. I wonder if the ECB is getting a kickback from these companies.

Posted by Sinhaya on (February 6, 2013, 16:22 GMT)

@rajithwijepura, what about the cost? If we as Lankans are so fond of DRS why are n't we using it? Did BCCI oppose us using DRS when we hosted Pakistan and NZ last year?

If DRS is mandatory and with the high costs, ICC better pay and take full ownership just like how the WTA pays for the tennis open hawk eye cost.

Posted by CSK_greatest_of_all on (February 6, 2013, 16:16 GMT)

Now everyone can realise that BCCI fought for the game's goodwill

Posted by Rahulbose on (February 6, 2013, 16:10 GMT)

This all just looks and sounds like the sales pitch of a technology manufacturer (buy the latest version). It is amazing that after defending the hot-spot for so long, now the company selling it has finally come forward and admitted it doesn't work for fast bowlers and isn't even real-time. Even now what they claim is that snicko and hot-spot will agree "most of the time". ICC and cricket should rely on neutral umpires and their honesty, it is infinitely better than relying on the claims of these snakeoil salesmen for their latest concoction. Otherwise batsmen will keep getting out caught off their shoelaces.

Posted by pom_don on (February 6, 2013, 16:09 GMT)

And of course the Indians will not accept it unless it is proved perfect...........just like their umpires:::::::::::: LOL

Posted by rajithwijepura on (February 6, 2013, 16:05 GMT)

This new technology will be waste of time if ICC dont have guts to make DRS mandatory in every game. If 9 countries are with DRS and only 1 country denying it whats the problem?

Posted by   on (February 6, 2013, 16:04 GMT)

i was firm supporter of drs but after watching the series between pakistan and south africa and west indies and australia, i have to apologise to the indian team. they are definitely correct that this system is being manipulated. out with the drs and let the umpires rule the game. shame on the third umpire and the system.

Posted by CricFin on (February 6, 2013, 15:39 GMT)

>>>DRS is a aid to the umpires, designed to override obvious errors. It is not designed for 50/50 decisions.

but it is also used for 50/50 decisions. that is problem.

Posted by Selassie-I on (February 6, 2013, 15:32 GMT)

What needs to be done is getting rid of the whole 'umpires decision' outcome after referral. It's either out or it's not; it's either hitting the stumps or it's not.

We should be looking at how we use the technology as well as how it operates, ina constant strive for improvement.

Posted by AK47_pk on (February 6, 2013, 15:29 GMT)

We saw how well hot spot is being used in 1st test between pakistan nd south afriqa. This tecnology cant be fully utilised unless u have a senseble 3rd umpire. Just use normal cameras to get rid of big howlers nd leave these faint edges alone. Suncontinent fans are increasingly turning against drs nd rightly so.leave close decesions to onfield umpires nd use normal cameras for howlers. I hope BCCi will oppose drs again nd again nd as a pakistani fan I want pcb stands shoulders to shoulders with bcci on drs.

Posted by KapilJoshi on (February 6, 2013, 15:28 GMT)

If DRS is just to avoid obvious mistakes i.e. howlers.. then those could be avoided using slow motion replays itself.. What is the need to spend so much money in unrequired technology when many boards around the globe are struggling for finances.. Even ICC could use that money for promoting cricket in new countries and helping financially weak cricket boards

Posted by Rhygwyn on (February 6, 2013, 15:15 GMT)

@ Sathish.Velu - Rubbish. They were always going to improve because otherwise another company will eventually provide a better product. And just because DRS sometimes has a problem overall it has improved decision making. Umpires by themselves make horrible decisions - should we fire them too? Grow up people.

Posted by arun_padmanabhan on (February 6, 2013, 15:05 GMT)

The fact that hawk-eye is only about 95% effective implies that in any random match, one team alone can be given a rough decision. The umpires in the elite panel also have a success rate of 95%. This is probably the reason why BCCI has reservations against DRS. Atleast human umpires are accountable for their errors, whereas hawk-eye isn't.

Posted by Humair_Amil on (February 6, 2013, 15:00 GMT)

@Sathish.Velu - DRS was just meant to remove the obvious wrong decisions from the game. How many times did we see people given LBW when there was actually a big inside edge onto the pad? DRS even after the improvement won't be able to gurantee 100% accuracy. DRS should have been adopted by BCCI by looking at it as an improvement in the decision making system and not as an absolute fix. Putting a seat belt on while driving does not guarantee that you won't die if you get involved in an accident, it just improves your chances of survival - Same goes for DRS.

Posted by ThatsJustCricket on (February 6, 2013, 14:58 GMT)

Haven't we heard that before? When the new hotspot cameras were introduced, it was claimed that they would be 100% perfect in picking up faint edges. It clearly hasn't done that. I guess we will have to wait and see how this real time snicko works out. It's good news to have this on board but don't think it's time to celebrate yet. As for BCCI, their power would be better utilized in forcing improvement of the DRS in stead of blindly refusing it.

Posted by FredBoycott on (February 6, 2013, 14:45 GMT)

DRS is a aid to the umpires, designed to override obvious errors. It is not designed for 50/50 decisions.

Posted by TobyTee on (February 6, 2013, 14:42 GMT)

As someone who works in the TV industry it has always baffled me as to why snicko could not beslaved to the same time code as the live pictures and replayed along with hotspot. So now they have solved it. It was onlye ever a matter of time. But seriously Sathish - you reckon the BCCI being ignorant naysayers has had any effect on this? Grow a brain!

Posted by bumsonseats on (February 6, 2013, 14:32 GMT)

i think all bar 1 country seem happy with it as it is. true if it can be tightened up more, as more is usually better. but there again maybe whatever changes are made it will not change the bcci position. umpirers can have a stinker and they still accept that, but still find faults with the drs, were i feel its far Superior, and top and bottom of it the indian players just cannot work it out as most of the other countries have so perhaps the indian captain should do his homework. i for 1 enjoy the drama of it when it goes upstairs to the 3rd umpire and at the end of the day if it takes a couple of minutes and the decision is correct.

Posted by EdwinD on (February 6, 2013, 14:32 GMT)

Would be interesting to know, if an Indian company were behind the DRS technology, what would the BCCI's stance be....

Posted by CricFin on (February 6, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

looks like DRS is not production ready

Posted by InsideHedge on (February 6, 2013, 14:26 GMT)

So now they're telling us that HotSpot is only 85% accurate as it exists. So how does DRS in its entirety constitute 98% accuracy? Why, Hawkeye with its brilliant predictive technology is 113% accurate thereby making up for the 15% loss in HotSpot. That's right folks.

Posted by perl57 on (February 6, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

DRS might have a slow death. It should. It was proved useless.

Posted by Sathish.Velu on (February 6, 2013, 14:18 GMT)

So the stand created by bcci for not using drs has made the people think to find new improved technology for drs, people should thank bcci for this. Otherwise we will be using the faulty technology

Posted by wnwn on (February 6, 2013, 14:09 GMT)

This is excellent news. Snickometer is able to improve the DRS if a faster version of it is added. In the next few years i'm sure the DRS will increase in accuracy and there will be no reason for India to not use it. If they do then the ICC should make it mandatory with no questions asked. They are the governing body and they should take control on this issue.

Posted by SamRoy on (February 6, 2013, 14:08 GMT)

Well this is good but more importantly a better Hawk-eye is also needed. 90% accuracy of Hawk-eye has left the ICC with "umpires call" on 50-50 decisions. That to me is not good enough.

Posted by Heat11 on (February 6, 2013, 14:00 GMT)

BCCI should go for it this time and ICC should make mandatory to every international cricket match... Due to money power of BCCI, ICC unable put pressure.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Nagraj GollapudiClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days