January 17, 2010

The UDRS and Pakistan are failing

The ICC needs to take full responsibility for the running of the review system, and Pakistan need to own up to their poor out cricket and questionable tactics
73

There was a grandstand finish to the old Test year and an excellent start to the new one but the same can't be said for the Umpire Decision Review System and Pakistan.

From a playing point of view, the year finished with a flourish. India beat Sri Lanka with Virender Sehwag reviving thoughts of Sir Donald Bradman by scoring just under 300 runs in a Test match day. New Zealand and Pakistan played a hard-fought tied series, and most importantly for Test cricket, West Indies showed signs of life with a spirited conclusion to their series in Australia.

Then a thrilling draw in Cape Town, and Australia's amazing turnaround victory at the SCG kicked off the New Year in fine style. Test cricket was alive and thriving; people were talking not so much about how it could be saved but its amazing ability to capture emotions.

The UDRS, in its latest form, with the predictive path of Hawkeye being utilised, was introduced in November. We were told by the ICC the aim was to eliminate the howler, and hopefully make players more honest.

The system has failed to live up to its billing. The bulk of the decisions being reviewed are lbw appeals that are marginal at best. Fifty-fifty decisions have always been part of the game and are generally received magnanimously by players. Now they are being regularly reviewed and the umpire's original decision is, on most occasions, shown to be a good one - one the players would have accepted graciously before the UDRS was introduced.

Worse still, players are now reviewing decisions in the hope that the system will make a mistake. A system that is constantly being fine-tuned will have flaws and mistakes will occur. While it's accepted that humans make mistakes, it is sometimes forgotten that so do computers.

Rather than encouraging batsmen to walk, the system has influenced them to stay around more and make the sign of the T. Unfortunately, when the system was unveiled, there was mention of poor umpiring but no talk about how to set things right. So far the UDRS seems to be having an adverse affect on umpires, with some even saying it changes their decision-making process.

The ICC made a fundamental mistake when it first introduced the third-umpire experiment. It relied on television to provide the tools for the system rather than taking on complete responsibility for the process. This has resulted in certain tools not being utilised in some series, because the television company involved deemed them either unnecessary or too expensive.

The ICC should provide all the tools it thinks are required to complete the decision-making process effectively. If they then want to reclaim those costs by including them in the rights fee, so be it; the important thing is every series should be played under the same conditions.

Pakistan have long been the least willing of all the Test-playing nations to own up to their failings

So far the UDRS has made a very good case for the process to be taken out of the players' hands. If the aim is to eliminate the howler, it would be better off if the process was under the control of the off-field official, who is more likely to overturn only those decisions where there are obvious mistakes.

In the case of Pakistan's catastrophic loss in Sydney, no blame could be apportioned to machine; it was all down to human error. First there was the abysmal keeping of Kamran Akmal, followed by the equally timid captaincy of Mohammad Yousuf. Pakistan have long been the least willing of all the Test-playing nations to own up to their failings.

I recall a 2004 conversation with their former champion batsman Javed Miandad. He believed Pakistan struggled to win overseas because for too long they had relied on help at home to win. Help in the form of favourable pitches and hometown umpiring, and when this wasn't forthcoming they had little to fall back on.

It's time Pakistan cricket looked in the mirror and owned up to poor out cricket and questionable tactics as their two biggest hindrances in improvement. Skill isn't a failing with Pakistan cricket but execution is.

Both Pakistan cricket and the UDRS are desperately in need of good old-fashioned honest appraisal.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • malepas on January 20, 2010, 18:03 GMT

    Mr Chappel, Open season on PAKISTAN CRICKET EH- I think you are very unfair and baised citing Pakistan's overall successes down to favourable home umpiring, Very wrong and unfortunate comments ignoring the fact that Pakistan won 4 overseas series wins under Imran and 4 under W's and Inzi, You forgot to mention that in 80's bad umpiring was everywhere in those days and Austaria had a fair share of such umpires as well as did England, India, West Indies and nearly all the major Test Playing nations so why singling out Pakistan?-- can't understand your logic. I do agree with your comments on bad captaincy and missed chances in recent three series which I think Pak should have won very easily if they wouldn't have drop so many catches but this is cricket and they can only improve from this once they come out of some internal problems. I did notice that some of the Aussie channel 9 pannelists was very harsh and over critical on times in recent stint. Your comments on UDRS are very valid.

  • SatyajitM on January 20, 2010, 15:48 GMT

    Agree to Chappell on both counts (UDRS and Pak failing). Also happy that IC is enjoying test cricket and I guess doesn't think necessary to turn it to a 3 day contest. To people supporting UDRS, technology itself is not a bad thing. Question is, is the use of technology removing your confusions and mistakes? With the current UDRS it is a 'No'. Take a small example. Hair dryer (albeit not big) was a good technology invention helping people (specifically the fairer kind) to dry their hair. But if instead of drying hair if it would electrocute people or even give them small doses of electricity shocks, would you still insist it be used? A technology is good only when it is atleast 99% right. UDRS is far from that. I agree to Ponting's statement that it should have been used in lesser formats (like club level and 1st class cricket) before introducing to Intl cricket. And yes, a limited version of UDRS can be used in the interim where third umpire can negate the howlers.

  • santhoshkudva on January 20, 2010, 15:17 GMT

    @ heart_king

    a batsman CAN be given out if the ball pitches outside his off. the only condition for an LBW not to be upheld is when the ball pitches outside leg. a batsman cannot also be out if he is struck outside off WHILE ATTEMPTING A STROKE, but can be ruled out if he is NOT. all this assuming the ball is hitting the stumps.

  • santhoshkudva on January 20, 2010, 15:13 GMT

    @ ATrueLegend

    FYI, variable bounce and unpredictable movement of the ball or any other possibility of uncertain nature are not taken into consideration when making an LBW decision, even by the on field umpires.LBW decision are made purely on the assumption that ball's last movement would have held its line if the bodily obstacle of the batsman was not in its course. hence the hawkeye can be used as a reliable tool to assist in decisions. abt UDRS, just have a look at how many decisions were overruled by technology. it only goes on to show how many mistakes are made by the men in the middle. agreed, it has its flaws, but in inconclusive cases, the benefit of doubt, if any, should not go to the batsman, but to the umpire: his original decision must stand.

  • Archit_Shridhar on January 19, 2010, 14:53 GMT

    UDRS has saved the agony and despair for least. How come match changing batsmen like Yousuf, AB de Villiers and more just walk out of the match due to an umpiring mistake? With all due respect to the umpires, they can make errors as do all humans. Then why the use of UDRS is being questioned? I believe restricting it to 2 per innings and retaining a successful referral has done more good to stop unlimited referrals. Time has changed and why not make cricket even more fair (as far as umpiring decisions are concerned) then it ever was. All the more, it is not very easy as said above to motivate players to move of their own. Of course we have Adam Gilchrist, Sachin Tendulkar and many others who do follow so, but then there are many who are right to say that they believe to walk after the umpire's decision, whether right or wrong. The UDRS has brought a change which was long due.It will change the results eventually!!!

  • Philip_Gnana on January 19, 2010, 14:42 GMT

    The UDR system should have been requested by the umpires themselves. Why cannot the umpires come out of their stubborn stance and get some help from the third umpire before giving the decision? We see them hesitate and make a call. This hesitation tells you that they are not sure themselves. The umpires could have sorted this out once and for all. If there was no referral made by the on field umpire and the 3rd umpire sees that there has been an error he (the 3rd) should be intervening in the matter. Rudy Koersten seems to be the only one who talks sense as he realises that as human they have blundered many a time. IT IS NOT THE PLAYERS BUT THE STUBBORNESS OF THE UMPIRES - IT NOT HELPING THEM NEITHER THE GAME.

    Philip Gnana, New Malden, Surrey

  • SatyajitM on January 19, 2010, 4:45 GMT

    Dear Bogambo, what are you talking about? Neutral umpire system was there for a decade when Kumble took his 10 wickets. I don't remember anybody crediting Kumble's 10 wickets to umpiring. Pakistani umpiring was at it's worst in 70s and 80s (Shakur Rana being the most infamous of them all). Imran Khan surely did suggest neutral umpiring in 1989 when he was nearing his bowling career. Apart from being a great all rounder Imran has also been one of the cleverest to play the game :-) While umpiring was a bit partial in other countries too (till neutral system came in vogue) but Pakistani umpires took it to completely different level. However, I would not agree that Pak team of 80s and 90s didn't have enough good players. Throughout the 90s, apart from the two Ws who were great bowlers they had Saqlain, Anwar, Inzi etc. And in 80s Pak team did compete really well with Champ WI team in WI. The current team is just a shade of those days...

  • martypartridge on January 19, 2010, 2:44 GMT

    There are two major problems with the UDRS in my opinion. Firstly, the decision of "umpires call." Which basically means that there is not enough evidence for the third umpire to make a decision so its up to the on field umpire to decide if its out or not. Whatever happened to the old benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman rule? Surely if even the third umpire (with all that technology on hand) can't be sure if it is out or not there is enough doubt for the decision to go in favour of the batsman? Secondly, the third umpire should be used to assist the onfield umpire in making a decision rather than let the umpire make a decision (without the help of the 3rd umpire) and then look at whether that decision is correct or not.

  • brlara on January 19, 2010, 2:41 GMT

    For URDS,, especially on LBWs,, my idea on it may sound a lot crazy,, The rule should be applied on two instances where the on field Umpire's decision can be revert only if a batsman gets an inside edge or,,, a bowler overstepped,,,, else the onfield umpires decision is the final one........... On Pakistan cricket,, well,, It was dead many years back,, Mohammed Yousuf,,, the final test player for Pakistan,,, How about another idea from me,, follows here to promote Test cricket,,, No player from any country can playT20 till he attains 25 years of age even in domestic level. He can only play a Maximum of 5 domestic Limited over cricket per year till he attains 22 years of age. Only Longer version of the game is allowed for him to play without restrictions. :-) If Pakistan follows this rule then they can come back as a good Test playing nation. Else ,,, it has already become history,,

  • heart_king on January 19, 2010, 1:36 GMT

    Mr Chappel i am sorry if you dont mind in recent series "IMRAN FARHAT" was given LBW twice as a cricket player and umpire i know if ball is pitched out off line of stumps no matter where it hits batsman will be not out and i was very upset none of any comentator mention it because it was favoring australian team .I hope if you see recordings you would agree with me .Other in that match both oppener were given LBW in both innings is this GOOD umpiring?

  • malepas on January 20, 2010, 18:03 GMT

    Mr Chappel, Open season on PAKISTAN CRICKET EH- I think you are very unfair and baised citing Pakistan's overall successes down to favourable home umpiring, Very wrong and unfortunate comments ignoring the fact that Pakistan won 4 overseas series wins under Imran and 4 under W's and Inzi, You forgot to mention that in 80's bad umpiring was everywhere in those days and Austaria had a fair share of such umpires as well as did England, India, West Indies and nearly all the major Test Playing nations so why singling out Pakistan?-- can't understand your logic. I do agree with your comments on bad captaincy and missed chances in recent three series which I think Pak should have won very easily if they wouldn't have drop so many catches but this is cricket and they can only improve from this once they come out of some internal problems. I did notice that some of the Aussie channel 9 pannelists was very harsh and over critical on times in recent stint. Your comments on UDRS are very valid.

  • SatyajitM on January 20, 2010, 15:48 GMT

    Agree to Chappell on both counts (UDRS and Pak failing). Also happy that IC is enjoying test cricket and I guess doesn't think necessary to turn it to a 3 day contest. To people supporting UDRS, technology itself is not a bad thing. Question is, is the use of technology removing your confusions and mistakes? With the current UDRS it is a 'No'. Take a small example. Hair dryer (albeit not big) was a good technology invention helping people (specifically the fairer kind) to dry their hair. But if instead of drying hair if it would electrocute people or even give them small doses of electricity shocks, would you still insist it be used? A technology is good only when it is atleast 99% right. UDRS is far from that. I agree to Ponting's statement that it should have been used in lesser formats (like club level and 1st class cricket) before introducing to Intl cricket. And yes, a limited version of UDRS can be used in the interim where third umpire can negate the howlers.

  • santhoshkudva on January 20, 2010, 15:17 GMT

    @ heart_king

    a batsman CAN be given out if the ball pitches outside his off. the only condition for an LBW not to be upheld is when the ball pitches outside leg. a batsman cannot also be out if he is struck outside off WHILE ATTEMPTING A STROKE, but can be ruled out if he is NOT. all this assuming the ball is hitting the stumps.

  • santhoshkudva on January 20, 2010, 15:13 GMT

    @ ATrueLegend

    FYI, variable bounce and unpredictable movement of the ball or any other possibility of uncertain nature are not taken into consideration when making an LBW decision, even by the on field umpires.LBW decision are made purely on the assumption that ball's last movement would have held its line if the bodily obstacle of the batsman was not in its course. hence the hawkeye can be used as a reliable tool to assist in decisions. abt UDRS, just have a look at how many decisions were overruled by technology. it only goes on to show how many mistakes are made by the men in the middle. agreed, it has its flaws, but in inconclusive cases, the benefit of doubt, if any, should not go to the batsman, but to the umpire: his original decision must stand.

  • Archit_Shridhar on January 19, 2010, 14:53 GMT

    UDRS has saved the agony and despair for least. How come match changing batsmen like Yousuf, AB de Villiers and more just walk out of the match due to an umpiring mistake? With all due respect to the umpires, they can make errors as do all humans. Then why the use of UDRS is being questioned? I believe restricting it to 2 per innings and retaining a successful referral has done more good to stop unlimited referrals. Time has changed and why not make cricket even more fair (as far as umpiring decisions are concerned) then it ever was. All the more, it is not very easy as said above to motivate players to move of their own. Of course we have Adam Gilchrist, Sachin Tendulkar and many others who do follow so, but then there are many who are right to say that they believe to walk after the umpire's decision, whether right or wrong. The UDRS has brought a change which was long due.It will change the results eventually!!!

  • Philip_Gnana on January 19, 2010, 14:42 GMT

    The UDR system should have been requested by the umpires themselves. Why cannot the umpires come out of their stubborn stance and get some help from the third umpire before giving the decision? We see them hesitate and make a call. This hesitation tells you that they are not sure themselves. The umpires could have sorted this out once and for all. If there was no referral made by the on field umpire and the 3rd umpire sees that there has been an error he (the 3rd) should be intervening in the matter. Rudy Koersten seems to be the only one who talks sense as he realises that as human they have blundered many a time. IT IS NOT THE PLAYERS BUT THE STUBBORNESS OF THE UMPIRES - IT NOT HELPING THEM NEITHER THE GAME.

    Philip Gnana, New Malden, Surrey

  • SatyajitM on January 19, 2010, 4:45 GMT

    Dear Bogambo, what are you talking about? Neutral umpire system was there for a decade when Kumble took his 10 wickets. I don't remember anybody crediting Kumble's 10 wickets to umpiring. Pakistani umpiring was at it's worst in 70s and 80s (Shakur Rana being the most infamous of them all). Imran Khan surely did suggest neutral umpiring in 1989 when he was nearing his bowling career. Apart from being a great all rounder Imran has also been one of the cleverest to play the game :-) While umpiring was a bit partial in other countries too (till neutral system came in vogue) but Pakistani umpires took it to completely different level. However, I would not agree that Pak team of 80s and 90s didn't have enough good players. Throughout the 90s, apart from the two Ws who were great bowlers they had Saqlain, Anwar, Inzi etc. And in 80s Pak team did compete really well with Champ WI team in WI. The current team is just a shade of those days...

  • martypartridge on January 19, 2010, 2:44 GMT

    There are two major problems with the UDRS in my opinion. Firstly, the decision of "umpires call." Which basically means that there is not enough evidence for the third umpire to make a decision so its up to the on field umpire to decide if its out or not. Whatever happened to the old benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman rule? Surely if even the third umpire (with all that technology on hand) can't be sure if it is out or not there is enough doubt for the decision to go in favour of the batsman? Secondly, the third umpire should be used to assist the onfield umpire in making a decision rather than let the umpire make a decision (without the help of the 3rd umpire) and then look at whether that decision is correct or not.

  • brlara on January 19, 2010, 2:41 GMT

    For URDS,, especially on LBWs,, my idea on it may sound a lot crazy,, The rule should be applied on two instances where the on field Umpire's decision can be revert only if a batsman gets an inside edge or,,, a bowler overstepped,,,, else the onfield umpires decision is the final one........... On Pakistan cricket,, well,, It was dead many years back,, Mohammed Yousuf,,, the final test player for Pakistan,,, How about another idea from me,, follows here to promote Test cricket,,, No player from any country can playT20 till he attains 25 years of age even in domestic level. He can only play a Maximum of 5 domestic Limited over cricket per year till he attains 22 years of age. Only Longer version of the game is allowed for him to play without restrictions. :-) If Pakistan follows this rule then they can come back as a good Test playing nation. Else ,,, it has already become history,,

  • heart_king on January 19, 2010, 1:36 GMT

    Mr Chappel i am sorry if you dont mind in recent series "IMRAN FARHAT" was given LBW twice as a cricket player and umpire i know if ball is pitched out off line of stumps no matter where it hits batsman will be not out and i was very upset none of any comentator mention it because it was favoring australian team .I hope if you see recordings you would agree with me .Other in that match both oppener were given LBW in both innings is this GOOD umpiring?

  • CricketkaFunda on January 18, 2010, 22:57 GMT

    Nice article, I think there should be some ways to stop indiscriminate and unwise use of this system. In 3rd test between Pakistan and Australia, Yousuf and Umar akmal went for review just for the sake of it. They played, missed and hit on pad, there were no inside-edges still they thought they can predict it better that umpire standing in-front of them and watching it. I think those were silly use of system and very selfish on their part. If every player on top three becomes selfish and ends up in asking for review, what would happen for the players following after them. UDRS have become more of emotional based review system. Therefore every team and ICC should make some rule to make consistent use of it. May be it should not be applied on every decisions as has been said earlier in some of the comments.

  • ATrueLegend on January 18, 2010, 22:47 GMT

    People who are supporting complete use of UDRS here, should understand one thing that UDRS is also much more based on prediction at least in case of LBW decisions. The system does not take in account variable bounce, reverse swing etc which is so important for correct decisions. A ball can take altogether different path depending on late movement and reverse swing. On-field umpire can best predict this short of thing as he would be taking decisions on his experience. I agree if there are blunders like thick edge went on to hit pad and given out, can be challenged. Therefore, UDRS system should restrict to other decisions but for not LBW (for LBW only if there is an inside edge which hit pad). Technology did provide a tremendous help like run out and stumping decisions which most of the time so difficult to give by on-field umpires. Therefore, we need to take a middle path i.e not completely removing UDRS but restricting it's use for only some kind of decisions.

  • Parryg on January 18, 2010, 22:08 GMT

    I have seen Mr. Chappel criticize the URDS before without providing any useful alternatives. He does make a couple of good points in his criticism. One, the technology used is inconsistent between series. Two, the system is still being fine tuned. But in order to make his point he does make a few howlers of his own. For instance he says the fifty-fifty decisions are regularly being reviewed and umpires' original decisions are upheld. That is hard to believe given a team is allowed only two wrong reviews per innings. This occasionally happens but can be considered a part of learning curve for teams who waste most of their reviews. His arguments about the system having adverse effects on umpires and players appealing in the hope that the system will make an error are far from being solid.

    Many other sports have adopted technology to assist umpiring and it's hard to imagine any of those sports being played without technology today. The same is going to be with cricket in a few years.

  • rs1681 on January 18, 2010, 18:05 GMT

    I wonder how many players in this pakistan lineup have not got the not so elusive opportunity to captain their home side. And now they call for 'Shahid Afridi' .I guess they need to understand that a captain is as good as a Team. Just by changing captains and tryin every member is not gonna do any good. Yes , you won the World T20 2009 but thats not a judgemental tournament. You have to perform well in all formats of the game.And for those who think that they came close to win the sydney test,just think about that Australian team who won it from a position where they had their backs against the wall.Commendable!!

  • AsherCA on January 18, 2010, 15:49 GMT

    I had recommended something basic through one of my earlier posts (over a year back) on Cricinfo & suggested it to Dave Richardson on a formal email, they have chosen to ignore - do away with the 3rd umpire, no UDRS. If there is evidence that a team has benefitted from an umpiring error, at the end of that playing session, the beneficiary cricketer is "selected & suspended" for the next match (could be 1 test / 2 ODI's / 4 T20's) between the same 2 sides. The cricketer is penalised through suspension & his team (for allowing him to take undue advantage of an umpiring error) compensates the opposition by playing 1 short. Special additional penalties like re-match over & above the select-suspend to be implemented for critical trophy matches.

  • Bogambo on January 18, 2010, 14:17 GMT

    I think this is totally unfair to pinpoint Pakistan with a word that they always won the home series because of their home umpires. Pakistan was the first one to shout in ICC to introduce neutral umpires. You cannot forget India win over Pakistan in Delhi 2000 where Anil kumble took 10 wickets in 2nd innings, you forget Pakistab tour to Austalia in 1999/2000 where Aussie umpires give dozens of decisons in the favour of home team specially in Hobarts test. A series decider was saved in australia vs newzealand in 2002 where aus was going to loose the series by 1-0. So there are many other examples. Yes Pakistan is performing below standards, teams take time to built up, India won an overseas test match after 17 years in 2002 and i totally disagree with your word. your words means that players were not good enough to beat any team without umpires support whereas your country (Austratlia) has done this same over the decades as well. I think westindies is also a perfect example as well.

  • Bogambo on January 18, 2010, 14:03 GMT

    Dear Sir, I appreciate your concern for Pakistan cricket and you were one of the commentators who looks more frustrated on 4th day of sydney test. I remember on the 2nd over of the 4th day by looking at the field placement set by Yousaf you said that Pakistan has lost the game mentally and actually they did. The problem is still Yousaf did not realise that he made the mistake for the field placement. He defend himself very stronlgy at the presentation to Mark Taylor, in the post match press conference and to Pakistani media. His appearance as captain will cost more defeats nothing else because he is not learning from his mistakes. Fielding always been a problem to pakistani side and work has to be done at grass root level, but who will work. When ex-players became coach because they were not good in fielding themselves they cannot push the players to do that. If foreign coaches are hired at international level players never cope with them. so where is the solution.

  • Garywalke on January 18, 2010, 13:55 GMT

    All the readers who agree with mr chappell on leaving referrals to the umpires almost completely renders UDRS useless. if an umpire makes a howler, obviously any batsman will want to appeal, but they wont be able to. what would be the use of the UDRS then! i think it should be used and i agree wth all those who say that all the technology should be available in every country (and if they all cant afford it then they only use that which they can all afford). on the whole the UDRS has improved the level on onfield umpiring, and when they have made mistakes (KPs inside edge lbw, ashwell prince none-edge) UDRS has generally been correct in overturning decisions. what is annoying is when the standard of umpiring seems to be questioned everytime one umpire (this time daryl harper) makes a shocker. umpires like rauf, taufel, hill arent often praised when the make a great call. if harper had been able to use hotspot smith would have been out, ICC you know what to do.....

  • fanofteamindia on January 18, 2010, 12:52 GMT

    As for the review system,I agree with Mr.Chappell.We all know that Hawk-eye cannot judge late reverse swing to perfection,so how can we believe its prediction of bounce???So ideally we need to have review system by changing the lbw rules a bit,like the decision given by the on field umpire will not be changed unless the batsman has edged the ball.The batsman can ask for a review of a lbw only if he has edged it.

  • ww113 on January 18, 2010, 10:18 GMT

    As far as Pakistan's reliance on home umpires is concerned,they were not the only country to take advantage.Before the introduction of neutral umpires,there were complaints about umpiring in every country.In fact,Pakistan had neutral umpires in a home series long before the appointment of neutral umpires became a norm.

  • dravinashbs on January 18, 2010, 9:39 GMT

    Old people always have a habit of saying that their days were better than now. They always live in nostalgic feeling. I think this holds good for Ian Chappel as well. Just like any other game even cricket should be open to newer changes. I guess in that way UDRS is a good system we all should welcome. Had it been introduced few years back, India would have won the famous (infamous??) Sydney test where Symmonds was not given caught behind decision by Steve Bucknor

  • amit1807kuwait on January 18, 2010, 8:27 GMT

    For the life of me, I cannot understand why Mr. Chappell wants cricket in the year 2010 to be played the way it was in 1960s or 70s!! Sometimes he has a problem with heavier bats, other times it is with the protective gear available to batsmen, and sometimes we hear him moaning about smaller outfields!! Now he has a problem with third umpires and technology. Someone needs to remind him that no system in the world is perfect, and when new things are introduced, teething problems will arise. The objective should be iron out flaws in the system rather than get rid of the system itself.

  • elitestuff on January 18, 2010, 7:12 GMT

    seems like all u people that are complaining about udrs have never watched a single nfl game,

    in nfl each team gets 2 challenges in each half, if their challenge is incorrect, not over turned, team is forced to give up one of their 3 time outs as a penalty.. if challenge is successfully they retain their time out.

    in cricket they can add a 5 run penalty per each unsuccessful challenge, if the fielding team loses the challenge, batting team earns 5 runs, and if the batting team loses the challenge well they are obviously out so it doesnt matter, but to add more to it, they can subtract 5 runs from the batting side, basically this will force the captains and players to wisely use their challenges and not every bob and harry can decide to challenge any play they want.

  • jaztech on January 18, 2010, 4:23 GMT

    I'm so sick of this entrenched view amongst aging players that just because the outcome of cricket games has depended on the vagaries of umpiring for hundreds of years that it should remain so. Just because mistakes have been around for a long time does not make them venerable. If someone hits the ball and they are caught then they should be given out. Full stop. And the argument that if something is infallible only 98% of the time then it shouldn't replace something that's right 90% of the time is facile. And then to complain about the system because it allows an umpire's decision to stand while at the same time arguing that umpires are being undermined in their decision making is just utterly moronic. Ian Chappell has always been rated poorly as a cricket commentator, much in the vein of Tony Greig, but continues to show that just having played cricket doesn't mean that you can put forward a convincing argument related to cricket.

  • ww113 on January 18, 2010, 3:19 GMT

    Chappell is quite right.Ever since I can remember,Pakistan have relied heavily on home pitches to produce favourable results.Now,the only option is to play abroad and Pakistan's recent record has been dismal.

  • RHF123 on January 18, 2010, 2:52 GMT

    I'm sick of this blow hard complaining about Pakistan. Sir, have you not noticed that the country is mired in a civil war? I'm sorry to disappoint you but the country has a lot to figure out so pardon us while we, you know, keep our country together. The fact that we have put a competitive team out there, much less one that one the T20 WC is amazing. Stick to what you know best, which is massaging Australian egos.

  • popcorn on January 18, 2010, 2:24 GMT

    The URDS in its current form should be removed.It defeats its purpose - to eliminate howlers.

    Players - the batting side OR the bowling side SHOULD NOT be given the right to review.

    Only the umpires should be given that right. Just as for run-out decisions.

    Only then will cricketers play to the spirit of the game, and umpires will take more responsibility.

  • cricketforpeace on January 18, 2010, 2:14 GMT

    For long,I have been of the opinion that when you have technology, you must use it to eliminate errors committed by the umpires.But, after having seen the UDRS system up and running, I am not so sure any longer. The UDRS technology instead of eliminating errors by the umpires seem to be be eliminating the umpires confidence in themselves!The UDRS is presently being used in the majority of cases for reviewing LBW decisions.I am sure that most will agree that the present system being used is still not perfect.Nobody can vouch that using the UDRS would provide correct decisions all the time.A more mature cricketing solution would be to continue to show more faith in the umpires decisions themselves rather than showing complete reliance on technology alone.For that to fall in place,the umpires too need to to hone their skills on a continual basis and the players need to show more respect towards the umpiring decisions.Use technology but not at the cost of the umpires self confidence!

  • RomanNoseJob on January 18, 2010, 1:54 GMT

    I've thought, ever since the review system was trialed, that the captain should have to justify his reviews after the match to the match referee. Any fishing for decisions rather than genuine cause for complaint should be punished.

  • Eddie_Barlow on January 17, 2010, 23:43 GMT

    Ian, you are right about Pakistan's performance in Aus. They are making the Australians seem the invincible team they are not. Cricket however needs a strong Pakistan performance wherever they play. Sad as it is that they are forced by politics to play away from home because of the threat of bombings and the like in Pakistan, a positive outcome may be that it will force their cricket team to play away from home as well as they do at home.

  • tutul on January 17, 2010, 23:08 GMT

    Pakistan's performance in second test and way they fielded when Australia was on back foot in second innings raises serious thought about match fixing. I wondered wherher any Australian businesses are involved in match fixing the series 3-0 for Australia! Most of the time Pakistan seems to be palying without any ambition / enthusiam / plan.

  • Big_Chikka on January 17, 2010, 22:25 GMT

    A weak Pakistani team almost turned over the Australians, thats cricket. Pakistan have hardly played any test cricket in the last few years. How things might have changed if Pakistan had closed the deal on the run chase. That is the fault of the Pakistani players. They could have made their own history.

    Was Pakistan the only country to benefit from home umpires? I know they weren't and the very technology he now berates can illuminate us all on the laughable decisions that have gone in favor of home teams, or teams to which umpires are more inclined for whatever reason.

    Re: Technology Chappell's comments at times remind me of "noddy" logic. No need to say any more, except for one thing, he's correct in suggesting the referral system should not belong to the networks. Problem is who should it belong to? "The Home Team," hmm there's a thought or the ICC?

    PS. Plz let umpires give the batsmen a send off if they request a refer and fail. That would be fun to see.

  • wambling_future on January 17, 2010, 20:54 GMT

    The so called Umpire Review System right now is total nonsense adn makes Umpire look silly. In my "personal" view in UDRS, Third Umpire should be brought in picture only by the ONFIELD UMPIRE in case of LBWs when the umpires are not sure there was a Inside Edge or not. For everything else, the ground umpires decision should be considered as final. And as far as Pakistan is considered, they need to do some soul searching. They need to get their personal differences aside and play for the country. Get your differences with Younis Khan settled down and get him back as a Captain. Mohammed Yousuf a great player but certainly is a not a Captain Material.

  • Cricki8 on January 17, 2010, 20:06 GMT

    With all due respect Sir Ian Chappell Pakistan is famous for slow/damp and lifeless pitches no doubt about that but this is wrong to say we use to take advantage of "hometown umpiring" and in those days Aus umpiring was not neutral as well. perhaps you don't have a good memory and especially the memorable great partnership between J langer and A gilli... if you have some time watch the highlights again and we are very satisfied with this new review system perhaps you are still in favour of "hometown umpiring"?

  • Azfar on January 17, 2010, 18:57 GMT

    I was watching the highlights of Day2 of the third test between Aus & Pakistan. Umar Gul appealed for a caught behind as there was a faint noise. The umpire gave not out. Pakistan were confident and went for the review. In the review the 'snicko' was not shown, the decision was a 'not out'. Immediately after this the snicko was shown and it clearly showed an edge (spike). I was left wondering why the sniko was used for the review. It was quite puzzling.

  • goen on January 17, 2010, 17:16 GMT

    Given time to develop the UDRS, use of technology will paradoxically reduce the use of it & retain MOST of the basic principles of cricket. The only principle compromised is that occasionally the umpires decision is questioned. It will also leave the decision making where it belongs- on the field of play. The ump should call ALL decisions as he sees them including runouts etc. The 3U only looks at what is referred eg he only looks for a no-ball if its specifically referred. Some sanction should be applied to an unsuccessful referral - a fine or knock off 10 runs or suspend a captain after 5 unsuccesful referrals. The players are closest to the action & will soon learn not to refer marginal decisions for fear of the sanction. The fact that Snicko & Hotspot are only available in Aus is irrelevent-all that is needed is that in any game the teams are subject to the same technology. The ump can still apply "when in doubt, not out" & if there still wrong decisions then "well that's cricket"

  • Chestnutgrey on January 17, 2010, 17:07 GMT

    We defin itely need the UDRS. Wonderful how incompetent umpires go about ruining the UDRS too. As for Pakistan, what the great Miandad said was spot on. People who clamor for Afridi should realise that his record in consistency is noting great. He always plays in one gear. Hits four or five big shots and can be successful against teams like Sri Lanka and India. Australia and South Africa will easily sort him out.

  • DazTaylor on January 17, 2010, 16:48 GMT

    The problem with the UDRS system is the inconsistancy. Either have all the technology available for all test matches or screap the whole thing.

    How can a batsman be out in the SCG on the strength of HotSpot yet the very same batsman would be not out in The Bull Ring because Hotspot (and snicko) are not available in South Africa. Absaolutely pathetic.

    All or none. Get it sorted ICC.

  • cricpolitics on January 17, 2010, 16:45 GMT

    One can certainly understand that Pakistan does have few problems at the moment but singling out Pakistan in this fashion is not warranted. Ian Chapel's comment that Pakistan has only been able to win at home and that also due to the pitches and the home umpiring is absolute rubbish. He is forgetting Pakistan's records in England, India, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand, West Indies where Pakistan have always performed well. They have been world champions once and runners up at other time. They are the T20 world champions and were the runners up the first time. Considering all the termoil they have back home they were still good enough for teams like Australia and New Zealand in their own backyards. The truth is that Australians have been gifted victories rather than achieving them. It was very obvious the way Australians celeberated the test match in Sydney. So Mr. Chapel yes there are issues to address for Pakistan but let's not discredit them for the victories at home and away.

  • RahulSharma5 on January 17, 2010, 16:28 GMT

    I feel the reveiw system should only be for LBWs since and he forward shor leg catches since these decisions are very difficult to take by the on field umpires.As far as Pakistan Vs Australia 2nd Test Match is concerned, the Pakistani batsmen had dug their own grave by just going for big shots which was not at all needed to chase a modest target against the Australians. The ICC needs to take appropriate measures to improve the review system because it is running out of time. There is another interesting series coming up South Africa against India. But there is a good news for Cricket viewers that Test Cricket is doing great at the moment every matches are getting interesting especially the Pakistan-Australia and South Africa-England Test Series.

  • vineetphysics2006 on January 17, 2010, 16:22 GMT

    pakistan are always the most unpredictable side in the world, their debacle in sydney is not new; i clearly remember 1999 world cup final where they gave up without a fight and whole team was in pavallion for mere 132 leaving oz celebarations in lunch break itself; as for I CHAPPELL he never talks about mirror being shown to ponting now when he is struggling in facing rookie pakistan attack on seaming wicket.

  • sparth on January 17, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    I dont think there was any need to mention pakistan failing in this article. Ian talks about the URDS for most of the article and then leaves a couple of paragraphs to talk about Pakistan, it just seems that he wanted to attack the players performance for no real reason

  • jawwad on January 17, 2010, 14:52 GMT

    Shahid Afirdi is the man for pakistan. He would be a fantastic leader the team will play for him and not only that he can actually catch a ball. he is not a bad leg spinner can bat and is a fantastic fielder just perfect for pakistans test team.

  • sudhanshu0510 on January 17, 2010, 13:31 GMT

    Ian Chappell's views are always clear and frank, diplomacy doesn't exist in his dictionary. That is why he is sometimes criticized for his comments. I for one, believe his words 99% of the time. He speaks his mind and one should appreciate this...

  • manojkr on January 17, 2010, 12:42 GMT

    Pakistan, I agree with... they need to get their act together. But the review system: you must seriously be joking. Are players taking their chances hoping that the system messes up, well that's true. But on a high percentage of those times, the players have been left resigned to their fate.

    I think that it's good that the system is in players' hands. It gives them a chance at saving careers and games from some ludicrous decisions. Ashwell Prince survived some terrible decisions in this series, and yet he failed over all - that shows that the system works.

    AB De villiers survived lunatic decisions in Joburg, and that worked.

    The only problem is that the system is not perfect, and is limited by technology. The only logical criticism is of even application in terms of volume, hotspot, etc being available at every venue.

    Otherwise the system is well built and leaves decisions for players to make, which is good - dont fret about morality, just let's get the right result Ian.

  • amirza on January 17, 2010, 11:31 GMT

    No matter how much you improve the Umpires, Umpiring won't go to a level where there are no mistakes. I, for one, feel there is minimal requirement for an umpire in cricket nowadays with so much technological advancements. Poor man just stands almost invisible all day with so less to do! In the end he's only counting from 1 - 6 over by over, hour by hour, days together.

    My Suggestion: Keep the umpires upstairs inside in their office with a flawless hawkeye system (for this technology, you can borrow it from Official Lawn Tennis organizers) and run it ball by ball where the umpire will signal if it is wide and declare out or not out when there's an appeal. Other than this, I am finding it hard to figure out what else an umpire can do? One of the easiest jobs in the world it would become.

  • MarkWilliams on January 17, 2010, 11:07 GMT

    Ian Chappell has been saying more or less the same thing about the use of technology for some time. I largely agree with him. I would encourage ICC to leave the decision to refer entirely in the hands of the umpires ie no referrals by the players. Removing the ability of the players to question umpiring decisions would preserve the authority of the umpires. The standing umpires should be encouraged to refer to the Third Umpire if there is the slightest doubt. I would not, like Ian Chappell, leave the third umpire to take the initiative to review but would allow him to intervene (provided he could do so quickly enough) if he felt the on-field umpires should have referred. The Third Umpire's role should be to advise the standing umpires, who will make the final decision. And I would let the Third Umpire have access to all available technology ie Hawk Eye, Hot Spot, Snicko etc etc.

  • dar268 on January 17, 2010, 10:29 GMT

    Of course, we could go back to the old system and accept that sometimes there will be mistakes including the odd howler. Fancy that, a cocooned international cricketer having to accept that the world is unfair, how on earth would they cope?

  • Aubmic on January 17, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    I remember Ian carrying on in the 2nd test when Marcus North's LBW got overturned about how ludacris it was. Well then the Hawkeye people released their unedited footage to show why they thought the ball was going over the top, and it looked extremely good, and Ian stayed very quiet! How can he critisize the technology when he himself clearly doesn't understand it.

    So far, in both this series and the West Indies one, the UDRS has significantly reduced the number of wrong decisions, and I can't for the life of me figure out why that's a bad thing.

  • The_Wog on January 17, 2010, 8:22 GMT

    Leaving it to 3U has 3 probs: 1) Occasionally, that 3U will be Harper 2) Accusations of bias again in selection of "howlers" 3) Review is by implication a criticism of field decision by 3U (see Benson). 4) To "manage" the process, players will show obvious dissent in order to "game" the 3U (e.g. throwing head back, looking at inside edge, rubbing forearm) into reviewing.

    Imagine if Ponting's "not out" had been left to 3U. No chance it would be reviewed - replays unclear, certainly not a "howler." But HS found the faintest mark on glove - he definitely touched it. 3U would have let him go on. And North, despite the ball missing by about 1cm. But will give out others who are less out than that.

    How about automatic Hawkeye review of all LBWs on current conditions (yellow light = "decision stands"? Then players out of it, and you catch all of AdS' bat-before-wicket decisions automatically taking out most of the howlers. After that reviews will be very rare.

  • amieka on January 17, 2010, 8:06 GMT

    Ian,

    You are spot on! Specially on Pakistan. I just feel sorry for this team. They are probably the most talented site with no results. And no one but whoever runs show their are responsible for this debacle.

    But Ian, I was hoping to see you writing about Australian cricket a bit after the Sydney test. Most of their batsmen are simply flat track bully. When the pitch is doing a bit, they whine and play no better than my grand mother. I see the press talk a lot about memorable victory - give me a break! Pakistan presented them the match. But what really alarming is the fact that OZ batsman are extremely vulnerable to genuine seam and swing bowling. And when the pitch is flat - like the one the current test is being played - they are all macho.

    For the sake of good cricket, the organization where bunch of jokers call the shot ICC that is should force the cricket boards to make pitches where there is something for both bowlers and batsmen.

  • coolavi on January 17, 2010, 7:38 GMT

    I think the UDRS system is not used properly. As far as run outs and caught behind decisions are concerned the UDRS system is almost fool proof and ICC should ensure all the necessary tools are provided before employing this system in any match. However for lbw decisions, i don't think the Hawk eye is a fool proof system It only projects the path and need not be true. However things such as if there was nick before ball hitting the pad or where the ball actually pitched can be accurately found out with the available technology, there is no element of doubt in that. Hence for lbw decisions only in these two cases UDRS system can be used otherwise on field umpire's decision must be respected.

  • eyelashcharmer on January 17, 2010, 7:36 GMT

    I agree to some extent to Mr. Chappell's comments about Pakistan. I think what Pakistan desperately needs is a strong aggressive leader. A leader who leads from the front, who is creative and innovative and who have an insight of what sort of strategy needs for different situations. He seems to have no idea about that and looks like his batting is getting affected because of the captaincy pressure especially in this series. The captain is the most important and main figure in the team and unfortunately beside Younis Khan there seems to be no one else to lead the team. Second the whole selection process in Pakistan is so hopeless. The selectors don't seem to have much idea of the players they are selecting. There are alway 4 or 5 changes from one test to the other. The players don't get any time to settle down. If u take the selection process as the cultural problem then Pakistan should atleast immediately do something about the captain and the coach. They need a good fairly young coach

  • Afrodizzy on January 17, 2010, 7:05 GMT

    Poor officiating in any sport detracts from its appeal - just ask the Irish football side. Any system which improves the calibre of decisions made by officials is a step in the right direction.

  • GobbleUpCricket on January 17, 2010, 6:37 GMT

    Ian Chappel is right on the money!! I am beginning to think his analysis is right up there with the best. I couldn't agree more that UDRS needs to be taken away from the players and time wasting and dragging and should be driven by the off field umpires. The off field umpire should merely look for howlers and intercept the game only the umpire needs to intervene. However UDRS could be a very important tool in International cricket. The only sore ponit sticking out is England crying hoarse over a perceived failure of off field umpire not turning up volume on his TV set/computer. A rather poor one sided allegation

  • tfjones1978 on January 17, 2010, 6:30 GMT

    As software developer I can say for fact that computers CAN NOT make mistakes its software written or 99% of time interpretation of what the user is seeing. When user of program uses software they always come to CONCLUSION as to what they are seeing, often without being fully aware of what program does. Third Umpire needs to become specialist position, where umpire ONLY umpires these positions at international level & on field umpires DO NOT do this position. They are entirely different positions, one is about standing in hot humid environment making decisions. Other is about sitting in room, interpretting what you see on the screen & understanding what they means in 3D environment (which a computer screen/tv can not display well). Regarding use of system, ANY dismissed batsmen should be able to appeal decision (ITS UNFAIR on lower batsmen & violates the spirit of the game) AND field captain should be able to appeal decision ONCE PER HOUR.

  • CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on January 17, 2010, 6:23 GMT

    absolutely Mr.Ian Chappell UDRS is failing infact anything which takes some time from the game is to against as players have hell lot of discussions before making the T sign and moreover there is no point anyhow in playing with the system that is not foolproof and moreover it takes the authority from the umpires to a certain extent and regarding pakistan well even a new south wales or victoria would have chased down may be not easily but still they would have done the needful and pakistan should remember one thing that hard work is more important than talent .a hard working man will always beat a talented man when they are good they are really good but when they are bad they are the worst team in the world.

  • sray23 on January 17, 2010, 5:52 GMT

    The UDRS in its current form is not ideal but there is no doubt it is necessary. As I understand, before referrals came in the on-field umpires were free to consult between themselve and third umpires for any marginal on-field decision: fieldsmen saving fours, catches close to the turf, lbw's; but the problem with the standard of umpiring was highlighted in India v Aus Sydney 2008 when Steve Bucknor was simply too pig-headed to use the techonology properly at his disposal to arrive at correct decisions. Hence if there were player referrals in that particular game there is no doubt a lot of the spiteful aftermath of that match would have been avoided. The standard of umpirring around the world currently is simply too low for umpires to to be respected by players on the field and maintain authority themselves. Hence the UDRS should be used now but at the same time the ICC should take steps to improve the standard of umpiring, so referrals can be gradually phased out over time.

  • dpkhbk on January 17, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    the udrs should be removed.it has no use at all .i watched the recent aus pak test match at sydney north was given not out when he was plumb lbw. the ball was shown to be going well over the stumps when the ball hit well below knee! the technology itself inthis case hawkeye is wrong(have seen instances when the ball hits high above the knee roll n it is shown as grazing the stump)icc has gone the wrong way in removing howlers.if u see the best umpire for the past five years it is taufel and i dont rem him giving any howlers.the reason is simple he is the youngest of the lot.more than batsmen umpires need more powers of concentration and only young people can do it .age limit of 40-45 must be set and those ages are above and whose eyes and ears are failing must be removed .(all the umpires must be tested for their eyes and ears:))no technology can determine the degree of turn that a shane warne can produce only humans can do that. also technology kills the joy of the game

  • VSak on January 17, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Mr. Ian..dont agree with ur comments on the UDRS.It has played a very vital role since its inception. Collingwood got a shocker first ball @ capetown.n guess wat would have happened without UDRS. ICC have very clearly said the aim is to remove such absolute shockers. The dismal performace of Daryl Harper is what is causing a bad impact 2 its image @ Bullring. n if players r gonna make decisions with the hope that system ll do something wrong, tell u what - they gonna lose friends within their team very soon. Chris Gayle @ Brisbane, Haddin n Clarke @ sydney r prime examples. The system is good..The aim s good..Give it some breathing space. N it definitely is doing a fair job @ the moment. Definitely not as bad as u r making it look thru ur comments.

  • MasterClass on January 17, 2010, 5:17 GMT

    All caught behind & LBW decisions should be reviewed by the off-field umpire using UDRS, period. There's no need to leave it up to the players. What's the sense in limiting the referrals and making that another factor convoluting the game instead of just playing good cricket? Yes, it will add a few minutes delay. So what? Don't we all want CORRECT decisions? It will make for better cricket. BTW the extra time will be more than made up because batsmen will be given OUT on a more regular basis. Without the UDRS, batsmen has the benefit of doubt. In a game already skewed to the batsmen it's time we added some balance! I bet there will be more results because 20 wickets will be taken more often in 5 days. That cannot be bad for test cricket! As far as the recent fiasco in SA it's the incompetent officials not the technology that's to blame!

  • hoodbu on January 17, 2010, 5:17 GMT

    Mr Chappell has really stated the obvious here with respect to his comments on Pakistan. There is not an insightful piece of commentary. I was hoping for something more deep from an esteemed expert such as him. He needs to better understand the system in Pakistan, which is deeply ingrained in culture. I shouldn't expect much more from him.

  • pitchedoff_hitoff on January 17, 2010, 4:33 GMT

    I wonder how many people who post comments on here actually have played on a play field.. anyways.. what needs to be completely understood is that the computers showing the strip of of the wicket (the dark strip) in the simulation and so also the predicted path of the ball are calibrated based on distances and measurements noted by humans. Errors of a couple of inches in this calibration, throws all the "Correct" decisions out of the window. So i totally agree when Ian says, for marginal decisions the on-field decisions should be upheld.. cherios

  • Notout_Naveen on January 17, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    I think UDRS is not a bad improvement.Its good to use technology to avoid human errors.But there are some flaws which have to be taken care.

  • wezwaz on January 17, 2010, 4:29 GMT

    The UDRS will work just fine, if only the eggheads running the show would have some commonsense! The players have nothing whatsoever to do with the decision process. It is entirely with the umpires (or should be). It is the umpire's right to call for a review using available technology if in doubt, NOT the players. That's how it works.

    This means umpires will still have full control of the game and feel empowered. The UDRS has been shown to have made some good decisions, including reversals. Why do boffins always have to make things more difficult than they should be? This is easy! The technology is brilliant and is there for the betterment of the game. The administrators are idiots.

  • Percy_Fender on January 17, 2010, 4:24 GMT

    The URDS is a good innovation even if it has teething problems at the moment. With the experience thus far gained, I am sure the ICC can come up with appropriate modifications to make it as flawless as it can be. There is bound to be unhappiness with this for people who do not get the rub of the green in the ultimate verdict. But there is no acrimony as there used to be not too long ago even with neutral umpres. That is important. To see that the game is kept as a gentleman's game. As far as Pakistan cricket is concerned, it is very clear that there is no dearth of talent there. It is just that there is a faulty system, some old fashioned nepotism which is seen as inevitable in a country where there is a great class divide, and of course the factionalism in nearly everything in Pakistan. If there are many opinions on everything there can never be unanimity. That is what ails the nation. I wish the media plays a constructive role in Pakistan and the opinion makers a responsible one.

  • KingOwl on January 17, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    Mr. Chappel, computers don't make mistakes. It is PEOPLE who programme them who may make mistakes. Even then, such mistakes are far less common than those made by the incompetent umpires, elite or otherwise. Umpires should have no powers. It should all be handled by technology. I would prefer technology to humans anytime, anyday.

  • schalk on January 17, 2010, 4:20 GMT

    England can hardly blame the UDRS system if they lose this test. After all, Smith was originally given Not Out. The system didn't deny them a wicket, human error did and it just would have done it earlier without the system. It also seems to be working far more frequently than not (KP's edge to his pads, Prince's non-edge down the leg side are two prime examples of why the system should be kept). An improvement is desired even if its not perfect. I wish people like Ian Chappell would be more systematic in their criticism of the system. Perhaps something like his criticism of Pakistan. As for Pakistan, they're actually playing hopelessly. Drop a sitter given by the player of the decade after you've failed to chase 150 and had your keeper drop 4 catches in the previous test and you don't deserve to win anything.

  • dinosaurus on January 17, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    This sounds like a bit of special pleading on behalf of your employers, Mr. Chappell. While the ICC (I think quite correctly) have left it to the broadcasters to "commercialise" the technology in return for providing it, I guess this argues that they can get enough sponsorship without having to invest in the technology to make a better broadcast. The "old" Channel 9 used to invest in the technology to improve the broadcast, and surely that should be enough, even for its "new" incarnation.

  • anshu.sunny on January 17, 2010, 4:08 GMT

    UDRS is perfectly alrite Mr Chappell.What needs appraisal is the elite panel which is so incompetent that we have harpers who cant make the correct use of technology and give the right decision even when sitting in a room far removed from the actual play...imagine these incompetent people being allowed to ruin careers in the middle...players are nt waiting fr technology to fail but fr incompetent officials showing a bit more incompetency .what also needs appraisal is the ICC who does nt help the poorer boards to avail better technologies like hotspot fr lack of funds...

  • Celticknife on January 17, 2010, 3:45 GMT

    Just because "Fifty-fifty decisions have always been a part of the game" does NOT mean they should continue to be going forward. I don't understand what problem people seem to have with overturning what are fundamentally WRONG decisions. A close LBW decision that gets awarded despite pitching marginally outside of leg is just as wrong as a huge edge being given not out. The technology is there to remove all wrong decisions, not just the "howlers" so many people have been yapping on about.

    The only problem with it is the crushingly slow pace the third umpire seems to operate at, making what should be a job requiring no more than a minute or two drag on forever.

  • sanyam_kamat on January 17, 2010, 3:28 GMT

    nice article...i wonder wat would happen if England goes to loose the match? who is suppose to be blammed? UDRS or the umpires? but the still whenever line of crossing of thy road will be tho destination till end...isnt it obivous that UDRS shld not be used and play some old fashiond cricket...

  • Nemo2011 on January 17, 2010, 3:02 GMT

    I think, its better to have UDRS than having nothing....as far as players taking advantake of reviewing the 50-50 lbw decisions in stead of reviewing the 'howlers' is concerned, ICC should bring the number of challenges down to only ONE per Innings. But again, if there are people like Mr. Harper running the show....NASA also cannot design a faultless system.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Nemo2011 on January 17, 2010, 3:02 GMT

    I think, its better to have UDRS than having nothing....as far as players taking advantake of reviewing the 50-50 lbw decisions in stead of reviewing the 'howlers' is concerned, ICC should bring the number of challenges down to only ONE per Innings. But again, if there are people like Mr. Harper running the show....NASA also cannot design a faultless system.

  • sanyam_kamat on January 17, 2010, 3:28 GMT

    nice article...i wonder wat would happen if England goes to loose the match? who is suppose to be blammed? UDRS or the umpires? but the still whenever line of crossing of thy road will be tho destination till end...isnt it obivous that UDRS shld not be used and play some old fashiond cricket...

  • Celticknife on January 17, 2010, 3:45 GMT

    Just because "Fifty-fifty decisions have always been a part of the game" does NOT mean they should continue to be going forward. I don't understand what problem people seem to have with overturning what are fundamentally WRONG decisions. A close LBW decision that gets awarded despite pitching marginally outside of leg is just as wrong as a huge edge being given not out. The technology is there to remove all wrong decisions, not just the "howlers" so many people have been yapping on about.

    The only problem with it is the crushingly slow pace the third umpire seems to operate at, making what should be a job requiring no more than a minute or two drag on forever.

  • anshu.sunny on January 17, 2010, 4:08 GMT

    UDRS is perfectly alrite Mr Chappell.What needs appraisal is the elite panel which is so incompetent that we have harpers who cant make the correct use of technology and give the right decision even when sitting in a room far removed from the actual play...imagine these incompetent people being allowed to ruin careers in the middle...players are nt waiting fr technology to fail but fr incompetent officials showing a bit more incompetency .what also needs appraisal is the ICC who does nt help the poorer boards to avail better technologies like hotspot fr lack of funds...

  • dinosaurus on January 17, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    This sounds like a bit of special pleading on behalf of your employers, Mr. Chappell. While the ICC (I think quite correctly) have left it to the broadcasters to "commercialise" the technology in return for providing it, I guess this argues that they can get enough sponsorship without having to invest in the technology to make a better broadcast. The "old" Channel 9 used to invest in the technology to improve the broadcast, and surely that should be enough, even for its "new" incarnation.

  • schalk on January 17, 2010, 4:20 GMT

    England can hardly blame the UDRS system if they lose this test. After all, Smith was originally given Not Out. The system didn't deny them a wicket, human error did and it just would have done it earlier without the system. It also seems to be working far more frequently than not (KP's edge to his pads, Prince's non-edge down the leg side are two prime examples of why the system should be kept). An improvement is desired even if its not perfect. I wish people like Ian Chappell would be more systematic in their criticism of the system. Perhaps something like his criticism of Pakistan. As for Pakistan, they're actually playing hopelessly. Drop a sitter given by the player of the decade after you've failed to chase 150 and had your keeper drop 4 catches in the previous test and you don't deserve to win anything.

  • KingOwl on January 17, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    Mr. Chappel, computers don't make mistakes. It is PEOPLE who programme them who may make mistakes. Even then, such mistakes are far less common than those made by the incompetent umpires, elite or otherwise. Umpires should have no powers. It should all be handled by technology. I would prefer technology to humans anytime, anyday.

  • Percy_Fender on January 17, 2010, 4:24 GMT

    The URDS is a good innovation even if it has teething problems at the moment. With the experience thus far gained, I am sure the ICC can come up with appropriate modifications to make it as flawless as it can be. There is bound to be unhappiness with this for people who do not get the rub of the green in the ultimate verdict. But there is no acrimony as there used to be not too long ago even with neutral umpres. That is important. To see that the game is kept as a gentleman's game. As far as Pakistan cricket is concerned, it is very clear that there is no dearth of talent there. It is just that there is a faulty system, some old fashioned nepotism which is seen as inevitable in a country where there is a great class divide, and of course the factionalism in nearly everything in Pakistan. If there are many opinions on everything there can never be unanimity. That is what ails the nation. I wish the media plays a constructive role in Pakistan and the opinion makers a responsible one.

  • wezwaz on January 17, 2010, 4:29 GMT

    The UDRS will work just fine, if only the eggheads running the show would have some commonsense! The players have nothing whatsoever to do with the decision process. It is entirely with the umpires (or should be). It is the umpire's right to call for a review using available technology if in doubt, NOT the players. That's how it works.

    This means umpires will still have full control of the game and feel empowered. The UDRS has been shown to have made some good decisions, including reversals. Why do boffins always have to make things more difficult than they should be? This is easy! The technology is brilliant and is there for the betterment of the game. The administrators are idiots.

  • Notout_Naveen on January 17, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    I think UDRS is not a bad improvement.Its good to use technology to avoid human errors.But there are some flaws which have to be taken care.