ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 / News

Sri Lanka v Canada, Group A, World Cup 2011, Hambantota

Stripped down UDRS under the spotlight

Osman Samiuddin in Hambantota

February 20, 2011

Comments: 58 | Text size: A | A

Ashish Bagai asks for a review, Sri Lanka v Canada, Group A, World Cup 2011, Hambantota, February 20, 2011
Canada had no luck with the UDRS when they were in the field © Associated Press
Related Links
Players/Officials: Ashish Bagai | Mahela Jayawardene
Series/Tournaments: ICC Cricket World Cup
Teams: Canada | Sri Lanka

The unavailability of Hot Spot technology during the current World Cup came under scrutiny as co-hosts Sri Lanka opened their World Cup campaign with a thumping win over Canada today at Hambantota.

Mahela Jayawardene, Man of the Match for his 100, was the focus of two referrals from Canada for caught behind decisions, both of which went against the minnows. First, in the 23rd over with Jayawardene on 11, spinner Jimmy Hansra and wicketkeeper-captain Ashish Bagai went up for a huge appeal convinced an edge had been pouched.

The umpire turned it down, but Canada went for an immediate referral. TV replays suggested an edge, but were ultimately inconclusive and the decision remained. Then, in Hansra's very next over, they went up as Jayawardene attempted a drive. Again the umpire turned it down only for the second referral to be called and again TV replays failed to provide a decisive picture.

In October last year, the ICC had announced that Hot Spot cameras would be used in the semi-finals and final of the tournament. But an ICC spokesman later told ESPNcricinfo that, "the supplier of the Hot Spot technology advised that it was not willing to supply its cameras for the tournament so, accordingly, they will not be used at any stage in the tournament."

Though Jayawardene was potentially a beneficiary of the absence of Hot Spot, he said later that it was a concern not having it. "I think that's probably the downside to it and I don't think they have Snicko either. I am a big fan of the UDRS, I think if we have technology and if we can use it in a certain way we should."

The UDRS, in its current form, is reduced to its most basic requirements: a ball-tracker (Hawk-Eye), super slo-mo camera, and a 'clear' stump mic, none of which are particularly helpful with edges. "I think you need to make sure that fair decisions are being made and we need to help the umpires especially because in the conditions it's not easy for them to make correct decisions all the time," Jayawardene said. "There's more technology possible so we should use that."

Canada did make successful use of one referral when they batted, Bagai winning a decision in his favour after he had been given leg-before to Muttiah Muralitharan. "For us, this was the first time we were playing under that rule and our guys were not experienced with it," Canada coach Pubudu Dassanayake said. "Definitely without Hot Spot you can't take proper decisions for caught behinds."

Osman Samiuddin is Pakistan editor of ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Osman Samiuddin


Comments: 58 
. Your ESPN name '' will be used to display your comments. Please click here to edit this.
Comments have now been closed for this article

Posted by Chaithanya on (February 22, 2011, 20:39 GMT)

I am really surprised that they don't have hot spot and ultra motion camera facilities for the UDRS system in a tournament which is considered as the biggest for one day cricket!!!. Its a shame that ICC says the suppliers are not willing to supply them......my concern is all about who the hell are the suppliers to advice about the system? and don't we have any other supplier(s) in the whole world to provide the technology? for me it looks like an excuse ICC are making. All I would like to say is if there is technology to use sue it properly or don't use it at all and don't use it for the names sake........... I don't know who would have been benefited by those to decisions but really sorry for Canada for finishing their both the reviews unsuccessfully because of lack of proper technology. I hope ICC will take it seriously for the future tournaments.....fingers crossed......

Posted by Yasir on (February 22, 2011, 8:46 GMT)

Another case of Vague implementation. I am not referring whether system is 100% or not. But decision to use it on case by case is not right.

Further how can the supplier "advice" to ICC that they are not willing. How can ICC push for its implementation if supplier cant provide it on demand. Also there is no excuse on technology export condition as written, if it is so sacred they (supplier/country) better keep and use it in Bunkers with high security.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 19:43 GMT)

ICC should probably give some attention for the research and development of these new technologies they are nowhere near perfection now I am pretty shure that if perfect form of it comes it will be appreciated by every team. Now it can be seen that Lankans have their luck factor with this but again a wrong decision is wrong. Lankans like it most but they must be aware that this not a right thing at all this may cost them one day

Posted by Homer on (February 21, 2011, 19:26 GMT)

The ICC"s tournament, the ICC's broadcaster, the ICC's UDRS. Where do SRT, MSD or the BCCI figure in this? Also, what is the "stripped down UDRS" ? Every mandatory requirement within the UDRS has been met. And if there is a quibble with the UDRS in its present form,isnt that keeping in line with the BCCI's argument?

Posted by Rajinda on (February 21, 2011, 17:18 GMT)

This is for all the part time cricket fans who only watch cricket when WC comes around every 4 years & come to cricinfo to comment. Also cricket is not played on an account sheet to deduct 90 add 70 here & there to adjust scores! It shows that some of you have no idea of cricket. May be U do that in "BOOK CRICKET" U play when U accountants are bored. First of all Mahela is a WALKER! It's been proven again & again. Both he & Sanga do not hang around if they edge a ball regardless who the opponents are. We who watch cricket more often than U lot know this. Also just cause a wicket keeper appeals & it "LOOKED" like an edge on TV DOES NOT mean it happened. What Mahela says here is that the full use of technology should be used, like the hot spot or snicko. He says this confidently knowing that it will prove he DID NOT edge, not because he got away with it. Did any of U accusing Mahela ever thought of that?

Posted by Manesh on (February 21, 2011, 10:57 GMT)

@gilly007, URDS itself is yet to prove 100% accurate, then what about it without Hot spot. First show us a 100% working one and then ask for it. (BTW, I personally support new technology in cricket to make it 100% professional) In this case, the first one was kissed Mahela's bat even if there was not much deviation. Th 2nd one was a mistake from the keeper because of the sound.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 10:27 GMT)

Hoh hoh ho.. Now who says that the first one was an edge??

Posted by Venkatesh on (February 21, 2011, 9:30 GMT)

@Man007. SRT was against UDRS even when there was all the technology available like Hot spot and Snicko during prior series. So please dont use this as a means to justify SRT's stance in the issue...

Posted by Ankan on (February 21, 2011, 8:37 GMT)

a wicket at that stage could have meant SL would have gone on the defensive for a longer period. So definitely the decision mattered. Ultimate result probably would have been the same given the difference in class, but still it denied canada teh chance to match the superior opponent atleast in some way. Sorry for you canada, but great show from Cheema.

Posted by Stuart on (February 21, 2011, 8:08 GMT)

So much for batsmen doing the honourable thing and walking...

Posted by Macklin on (February 21, 2011, 7:53 GMT)

Its not abt hot spot or udrs, someone down the line must invent or adopt like bat and ball sensors which can be a strip like sticker to bat and inside the ball. so this technology will surely help lot in cricket.

Posted by Anto on (February 21, 2011, 7:45 GMT)

this was the only reason Dhoni and company are not interested in UDRS!! its not 100% perfect. let the play go and keep the sporting spirit up!

Posted by Dru on (February 21, 2011, 7:28 GMT)

I dont get this - how can the WC not have the technology which is usually available. The ICC must take responsibility to ensure it is available and if its not then it must be made clear why its not. I cant beleive we are struggling with such basis issues when the game has moved on so much and with all the money in the game one would have though this sort of thing is not a drama.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 7:25 GMT)

The reason why Hot Spot is not being used is not because it is expensive. Its because the technology used in Hot Spot is same as what is used in military operations too. Thats why it is categorized under strategic equipments and require special permission to take them out of continent Australia. The concern of safety of these equipments across all the host nations without a danger of being getting stolen was probably the reason equipment maker did not took risk.

Posted by Praveen on (February 21, 2011, 7:21 GMT)

there was NO EDGE, even the commentators said there was no edge. i clearly saw daylight between bat and ball. the 2nd one the bat hit the turf, you could see the dust from turf because the bat hit the turf. also Mahela is a Walker, he Walks when he edges

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 7:12 GMT)

Why jaywardhane did not walk when it was a edge,if it was a LBW decision then it was considerable.

Posted by Amit on (February 21, 2011, 7:11 GMT)

In such scenarios, the team which ask for referrals is penalized by missing their available referrals... so a better solution would be to if the scenario is inconclusive, don't count the referral... This would make all happy...(may be even BCCI)...

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 7:09 GMT)

Hot-Spot would have been Excellent, without that UDRS can solve the purpose only 25%

Posted by Sudhindra on (February 21, 2011, 6:53 GMT)

At least Snicko should have been there.....

Posted by Sanjay on (February 21, 2011, 6:13 GMT)

I feel UDRS will be more detrimental than being useful in this World Cup without a snickometer and Hot spot. In cases of faint knicks, the batsman can always refer it to the third umpire even if the onfield umpire thinks its out and the third umpire can never be sure that the batsman has knicked it and has to give him not out. I'm sure there will be a few lucky decisions going in favor of the batsmen in this tournament. So much for England and Australia jumping over the roof tops for use of technology. Its only going to help batsmen more in conditions which already favor batsmen heavily.

Posted by Mandesh on (February 21, 2011, 6:09 GMT)

Jayawardhane looked out the second time. If the URDS is viewed at the same speed as the ball is delivered it is a waste of time for teams asking UDRS. Every possibility they will lose. It has to have either the sniko or hotspot or scrap the UDRS from the world cup.

Posted by Mohamed on (February 21, 2011, 5:54 GMT)

mitgop11.... Yes Mahela should have walked IF he had edged the ball. only IF!!! may be he didnt edge it. its INCONCLUSIVE. so its unfair to blame Mahela. Also we can not wait for the perfect technology bcos there wil bel always a weakness so better use the best we have for UDRS

Posted by pratik on (February 21, 2011, 5:45 GMT)

how costly can a technology be for the super rich BCCI ??? And how much percentage of advance payment will convince the Australian company to bring in the technology? Is the age old Snico too costly as well??

Posted by Atif on (February 21, 2011, 5:36 GMT)

No technology should be used.. be it the snicko, slo- mo or hot spot ! Don;t you guys understand India doesnt like it ?? The supplier declined to provide it only when the major part of the world cup is being held in India, conincidentally again India being the only team who dont like to use it much... plus they are supposed to be the Invoice of the BCCI.. We all know what the result of the procurement is when the accountant doesnt agree to the purchase

Posted by Manesh on (February 21, 2011, 5:34 GMT)

thats why players like SRT are against it. If it is with full technology, it is good. otherwise it is useless. But critics used that chance to blame BCCI and India.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 5:31 GMT)

I think the UDRS in cases of edges without the hotspot is useless, because we saw it yesterday in Mahela's case, the hotspot would have helped canada in either or both the refferals, although it would haven't make a lot of difference on the outcome of the match but it might make a difference in the upcoming crucial encounter.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 5:23 GMT)

To be fair to the hot-spot guys, the hot-spot technology is patented by an Australian company, who also supplies the Australian army. Hence it is acknowledged that to transport any equipment on hot-spot technology outside of Australia need lengthy sanctions and what-nots from the Aussie govt and army - a fact due to which the supplier decided against offering it for the world cup. So as to say, the cost was not the (only) deciding factor here. But I am as stumped as you guys are as to why snicko was not used.

Posted by RAGHURAM on (February 21, 2011, 5:12 GMT)

All these talk of technology being expensive is rubbish....Indian Cricket Board can spend millions on IPL, but would not financially support ICC in procuring expensive equipment. Indian board has the financial clout to control the ICC but to fill their own pocket not to improve the game globally or for that matter within the coutry...

Posted by JustOUT on (February 21, 2011, 5:02 GMT)

Nothing is expensive for BCCI/India or ICC under Pawar's presidency. It is a shame that BCCI is behaving like a nonsense organization.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 5:00 GMT)

It is not about, if overturning the original decision would have made an impact in the match. It is about the fairness of the decision. The UDRS in its current state in inept in catching these faint edges, then why even employ them for those scenarios. Either we should have provided all things needed to the thrird umpire to make an effective decision or just not given anything. Agreed that the hot spot technology is the best option for these situations, but not even having a snicko is bad. Even being from the sub-continent, it pains me to say that we have a long way to go to match the details which are offered for games played in Australia.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 4:58 GMT)

Funny thing Jayawardene was pointing towards the UDRS whereas he does not have the guts to walk even against minnows. I can safely say cricket is no longer game of gentleman.

Posted by Danish on (February 21, 2011, 4:32 GMT)

why "Snicko" was not used. is it also expensive? and what about super slow mo?

Posted by J Ranjith on (February 21, 2011, 4:22 GMT)

Oh, what a Pity! Where are the people who were advocating that UDRS solves 100% or 95% of the borderline decisions in Cricket. People blindly go behind UDRS, bashing Indians and then ICC comes with an excuse that hot-spot is not available so UDRS might not be at its best. Now if UDRS gives a wrong decision with this kind of insufficient equipments in place at crucial moment in the knock-out stages, probably for South Africa, would anybody care? First, make sure technology is efficient & available and then introduce in a competitive environment. If an industry wants to introduce a product into a market, it would make sure it is almost perfect. No one would try and play with toy computers in Production environment, but half of the cricketing world wants only that. Thanks to the other half, it is not yet made fully available in beloved Test Cricket!

Posted by crik on (February 21, 2011, 4:20 GMT)

for an over the hill player like Mahela, Canada provides a gr8 chance to score some runs... no matter what he scores here, he will be doin baseall scores with powerhouses... don't mention that SSC pitch where mandela can score a hundred..

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 4:17 GMT)

That statement "the supplier of the Hot Spot technology advised that it was not willing to supply its cameras for the tournament" sounds very much like "they asked for a bucket load of money and we didn't want to pay them". Maybe there is more to it but something has clearly gone wrong in the negotiation process when neither party get what they want. Not that we'd be surprised to see the ICC mismanage something, just that the timing seems incredibly poor.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 4:07 GMT)

Without HOTSPOT or not still way better than onfield decisions ..so no point of blaming UDRS ..if HOTSPOT can be used is fine ..if cant then it still better than blind onfield umpiring decn..it seems current UDRS without hot spot fails to show edges so consider onfild umpiring decns as happened in this match..so think guys without UDRS or With UDRS it gives more accurate decns ..even a child can understand With UDRS is better than not..

Posted by John on (February 21, 2011, 4:06 GMT)

The trouble is that the Indian authorities made many difficulties for the owners of the Hot-spot last time it was in India. It's extremely valuable equipment, and I certainly agree with their decision not to risk their assets in India again. That said it is a shame that the best technology just won't be there.

Posted by andrews on (February 21, 2011, 4:03 GMT)

Are you all kidding? Hot spot is useless technology and always has been. It does not pick up the fainter edges, so what is the point? And often, when there is no edge, there are white spots all over the bat from heat points and God knows what else. Snicko is far more reliable if used intelligently ( a very big if). And what of the outdated idea of checking for a change in the rotation of the ball?

Posted by anil on (February 21, 2011, 3:48 GMT)

UDRS is not fool proof, you are defying the very science of motion which can take place in any way. If you question Tamim Iqbal's decision on saturday, it would be aptly put into light. The ball pitched in line, stuck in line, but Hawk eye (an unauthorized technology) suggested otherwise. It struck full on his right leg and then went on to hit his left leg which was on middle stump. Dharmasena was spot on but technology is not always fool proof. It is never 100% technology. It is 75% Technology but the vital 25% is in implementing the controls. It needs a KPMG/PWC auditors and security people to totally rip it down and re-engineer to consider its design and construction. ICC is heavily reliant on Australia and UK and BCCI always says no to it.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 3:33 GMT)

How can they give a correct decision without Hot Spot & Snicko?? This is pointless!

Posted by FARAN on (February 21, 2011, 3:21 GMT)

Its not the question whether UDRS would have impact on the outcome of the match. The important point is that for such a prestigous event , ICC could not manage to arrange hot-spot and snicko technology. ( remember in some vital game ,only one wrong decision can turn the table)

Posted by Santhosh on (February 21, 2011, 3:21 GMT)

"I think you need to make sure that fair decisions are being made and we need to help the umpires especially because in the conditions it's not easy for them to make correct decisions all the time," Jayawardene said.

How about walking?

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 2:48 GMT)

Mahela walks when he edges the ball....There was no edge both times, even the commentators told so...2nd time the sound was the bat hitting the ground

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 2:44 GMT)

Even commentators told there was no edge...even i saw that there was no edge and Mahela is a walker

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 2:42 GMT)

No argument but i think URDS should be supported with hot-spot, as few friends said hot-spot has no effect on match decision*, but please keep in mind if at any stage during the tournament net run rate come into effect, it can make a huge difference for any team to qualify or disqualify for next stage, provided if there is any upsets. if Jayawardene would have been given out, nobody knows what could be Srilanks's total and so as their winning margin. So reason for this discussion is "HOT-SPOT SHOULD BE THERE TO SUPPORT URDS".

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 2:36 GMT)

Players should be smart and use UDRS wisely. Not for back to back caught behind appeals

Posted by Ramakrishnan on (February 21, 2011, 1:35 GMT)

For all those watching the telecast of the match yesterday (SL Vs Canada), the first edge to the keeper from the bat of Mahela Jayawardena was clearly evident and it is not only sad but also surprising that the TV Umpire found it inconclusive and gave the benefit of doubt to the batsman. As a seasoned campaigner, Mahela should have "walked" as it would have not made much of a difference to the ultimate result of the match and that too against teams like Canada. Remember what Courtney Walsh did against Pakistan in a World cup match?

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 1:23 GMT)

Its so very disappointing that the hot spot technology is not available for the most prestigious cricket tournament. Its been learnt that it is costly but at least the ICC would have made plans to make it available for the knock out stages.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 0:48 GMT)

regardless of the outcome but UDRS is useless without hot spot you cant overturn caught behind and LBW (in case there is a nick on to pads) without hot spot so what is the point

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 21, 2011, 0:44 GMT)

This is not a matter of "difference in match result" but the URDS "failure". Being ex-cricketer I understand Bagai's frustration based on his immediate reaction and disappointment on "decision". In absence of Hot Spot Either ICC should limited the URDS for LBW decision's only. What we saw in these caught behind referrals was a big question mark and it might change the fate of the match specially at death.

Posted by Andrew on (February 20, 2011, 23:53 GMT)

@All re: UDRS, it is not a simple matter of taking 90 runs here @ adding 70 runs there. That is not how things work. At the start of the match if SL batted first you would of got any money that they would of got 300+, @ 3/100 though - there would of needed some consolidation - Sanga didn't seem to be in great form & Jaya took alot of pressure off him. The CONTEXT is far more important. Either way SL SHOULD of gone on to post a score large enough to defend comfortably - but at 3/100 odd they MAY not of. @mitgop11 - fine, BUT UDRS was not ever claimed to be 100% conclusive - just remove howlers (Jayawerdne was NOT a howler), Umpires usually get caught behinds right - but LBWs are an area that HOT SPOT is far superior. Can't believe the ICC scrimped on costs - & went with snicko which is close to useless! Anyways SL was deserved winners - maybe if things went Canada's way they could of made it closer.

Posted by M on (February 20, 2011, 23:09 GMT)

Regardless of the outcome of this match - and granted that in the grand scheme of things, this single dismissal would not have made too great an overall impact - the point in question is not the outcome but the farce of a UDRS. ... ... Of all the test playing nations, India is the most opposed to the use of UDRS ... ... when it was announced that UDRS was going to be in place for the World Cup everyone thought that this was a step forward for technology, cricket and India ... ... instead by not allowing or making available the most comprehensive piece of technology; hot spot; of which most teams agree there is little doubt as to it's accuracy, we are vindicating those teams that say UDRS is a flawed system. ... ... UDRS is there to assist the umpires to make the correct decision where it would appear obvious to one side that an error has been made. ... ... last night I saw a third umpire make an educated guess on no more evidence than the guy in the middle. This had no value.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 20, 2011, 22:21 GMT)

Siddiqui... your playing a dangerous game by taking Mahela' 90 odd out of the total? that to say Sri Lanka would done nothing in the next 60 odd balls he probably faced and scored nothing? You can't judge cricket matches with such assumptions, especially soo early in the game... impossible...

Posted by Vishwanath on (February 20, 2011, 22:04 GMT)

take 90 runs from jayawardene, siddiqui, and you could give another 70 runs to samaraweera.

Posted by gopal on (February 20, 2011, 21:45 GMT)

if Jayawardene feels that the players need to help the umpires, he should have walked .. the downside of not having hot spot technology is that the batsman can refer faint edges and can get away with a not out decision... as the currently available technology is inept to detect and make a decision on faint edges!! in my opinion, edges should not be referred until better (and conclusive) technology is available

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 20, 2011, 21:38 GMT)

@ Soumya Prasad Ukil: I agree, HOT-SPOT would not make ANY difference in this match.

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 20, 2011, 21:31 GMT)

Take 90 runs out from Jayawardene and srilanka total score could have been 223.....so difference is always there

Posted by Dummy4 on (February 20, 2011, 19:27 GMT)

Even HOT-SPOT would not make much of a difference in this match.

Email Feedback Print
Osman SamiuddinClose
Osman Samiuddin Osman spent the first half of his life pretending he discovered reverse swing with a tennis ball half-covered with electrical tape. The second half of his life was spent trying, and failing, to find spiritual fulfillment in the world of Pakistani advertising and marketing. The third half of his life will be devoted to convincing people that he did discover reverse swing. And occasionally writing about cricket. And learning mathematics.
News | Features Last 3 days
  • No stories yet
News | Features Last 3 days
  • No stories yet

World Cup Videos